News Journal: A foreign policy based on our interests, not our ideals

“You are known by the company you keep” goes all the way back to Aesop’s Fables.

That truism can make you uncomfortable when you apply it to the company a nation keeps. I certainly felt that way when I watched President Obama shaking hands last week with the representatives of our six Persian Gulf Arab allies – Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait, Oman, and Bahrain.

Yes, we need them in our fight against ISIS and are giving them military aid to help us do that. But our differences in terms of basic political and cultural values are enormous, and it is hard to come to terms with American support for authoritarian regimes that are rooted in the middle ages.

Hard, but certainly not unprecedented. If you think we shouldn’t be supporting them, I would remind you that the men who signed the Declaration of Independence would have lost their war against Great Britain were it not for the intervention of France, an absolutist monarchy at the time. And without our alliance with Stalin’s Soviet Union, World War II might have ended very differently.

When push comes to shove, American foreign policy – like that of every other major power in history – has always been based on immediate self-interest, and not always on long-term ideals.

Nevertheless, we ought to be aware of just what our Arab allies represent. Freedom House, an independent nonprofit that monitors the prevalence of freedom, civil liberties, and political rights around the world, is perhaps the best source of information about that. It rates countries on a scale of 1 (best) to 7 (worst) in those three categories.

Saudi Arabia gets a rating of 7 on all three. From the latest Freedom House annual report (quotes from that source in the next paragraphs as well): “Saudi Arabia tightened restrictions on dissent and freedom of speech in 2014, and intensified criminal penalties for religious beliefs that veer too far from official state orthodoxy. A sweeping 2013 ‘antiterrorism’ law took effect in February, enabling authorities to press terrorism charges against anyone who demands reform, exposes corruption, or otherwise engages in dissent. A royal decree in April penalized atheism with up to 20 years’ imprisonment. Making use of these and other laws, authorities continued to crackdown on dissidents, human rights defenders, artists, and journalists.”

Bahrain averaged a rating of 6.5. “The government continued to harass the country’s majority Shiite population, violently responding to protests and routinely arresting prominent dissidents. … Clashes between political protesters and authorities continued. Police brutality, including systemic detention, torture, and widespread arrests, went on unabated.”

The United Arab Emirates had 6 ratings in all three categories. “In the United Arab Emirates, all decisions about political leadership rest with the dynastic rulers of the seven emirates, who form the Federal Supreme Council, the highest executive and legislative body in the country. These seven leaders select a president and vice president, and the president appoints a prime minister and cabinet. … Political parties are banned in the UAE. … Although the UAE’s constitution provides for some freedom of expression, the government restricts this right in practice.”

Qatar and Oman both averaged ratings of 5.5. “The head of state in Qatar is the emir, whose family holds a monopoly on political power. The emir appoints the prime minister and cabinet, as well as an heir-apparent after consulting with the ruling family and other notables. … Although the constitution guarantees freedom of expression, both print and broadcast media content are influenced by leading families.”

“The Omani government continued its suppression of dissent and free expression in 2013, arresting journalists, activists, and bloggers for making statements deemed unacceptable by the government. Few of the reforms promised by Sultan Qaboos bin Said al-Said following demonstrations in 2011 have been implemented.”

Kuwait had all 5 ratings in all categories. “The political upheaval that has characterized Kuwait over the past six years subsided in 2014. However, the government continued to restrict free speech and criticism of the regime. Several people were targeted for insulting the emir, including three former legislators whom the Supreme Court sentenced to three years in prison.”

There they are – necessary allies, all among the worst in the world when it comes to freedom, civil liberties, and political rights. Perhaps most worrisome for us, many ordinary citizens in these countries resent our support of these dictatorial regimes and will not look favorably on the United States if they are ever able to get rid of them.

We have to keep our immediate goals in mind – defeating ISIS and controlling the revolutionary zeal and nuclear ambitions of Iran. But what a Hobson’s choice. Because at some point in the future we will inevitably pay the price for the company we keep.

Ted Kaufman is former U.S. Senator from Delaware.

.