Political Bedfellows: The Maxiavellian Way

Robbery - Francisco de Goya 

"Politics makes strange bedfellows" -- Charles Dudley Warner

In the race for resources, states will often make deals with reproachable regimes - i.e. a nation whose leaders are autocratic (even when hiding behind the democratic mask) and do not respect basic values such as: freedom of expression, of association, of religion; the right to life, education, health and security. Once states step into that threshold, their sense of ethics and morals will have to be left at the door, without any guarantees of restitution.

Because nations are bound by agreements, they will often have to make difficult calculations: if ally A is less threatening than associate B, than they will have to accommodate B lest it wreaks havoc in their territory or play against their interests. Although this sort of calculation may work for a certain amount of time, it won't work forever as appeasement policies always have a way of resulting in domestic conflict (be it political bickering or civil unrest). And how does ally A fit in all of this? A will simply play along as long as the status quo fits into its own national interests. But what happens when the status quo begins to clash with A's present interests?

Nations will often make weapon deals with abalisah. Selling arms to certain states knowing that they will pass them along to non-state actors is sometimes perceived as a necessary measure for two reasons:

1- Governments, in the absence of a strong manufacture industry, will need to keep their economy afloat by boosting their military industry (that generates billions of euros).
2- Governments feel that by selling weapons to those countries they will be able to include them in their sphere of influence and control them better.
But what happens when the weapons they sell are used against the supplier's own people?

A rogue non-state actor can be extremely useful. When nations need to wreak havoc in certain countries or need to wage proxy wars against a nemesis (to maintain a safe margin of deniability); they will often resort to undisciplined non-state actors to do the dirty job on their behalf. What happens when the monster gets too big to control and turns against them?

Political leaders will say one thing in public and another in private. Notwithstanding, analysts will say, words are less important than actions - maybe so, but in a world where perceptions and image are everything, how can words not be a significant factor? If a state declares that A is an important ally but keeps rebuking it in public (even though behind doors it supports it 90% of the times), it will contribute to harden associate B's position. Again, this strategy will only work as long as ally A is interested in playing the game. Nothing is forever, though.

Yes, understandably so, politics makes the strangest bedfellows. However, history has shown us that certain manoeuvres can bear nefarious results - especially when politicians do not plan their strategies properly, often due to the need to yield fast results.

"Fiascos occur when policy makers do not have the willingness or the intellect to take all possible future scenarios into account." -- Rob de Wijk