No Quarrel With the People of X

Where common decency meets foreign policy

During the Cold War, mainstream politicians often said things like, “We have no quarrel with the people of the Soviet Union. Only their government.” Right before the 1991 invasion of Iraq, George Bush’s letter to Saddam Hussein stated:

I am writing you now, directly, because what is at stake demands that no opportunity be lost to avoid what would be a certain calamity for the people of Iraq. I am writing, as well, because it is said by some that you do not understand just how isolated Iraq is and what Iraq faces as a result…

Let me state, too, that the United States will not tolerate the use of chemical or biological weapons or the destruction of Kuwait's oil fields and installations. Further, you will be held directly responsible for terrorist actions against any member of the coalition.

The American people would demand the strongest possible response. You and your country will pay a terrible price if you order unconscionable acts of this sort.

I write this letter not to threaten, but to inform. I do so with no sense of satisfaction, for the people of the United States have no quarrel with the people of Iraq.

Bush’s son said the same in 2002: “We have absolutely no quarrel with the Iraqi people.”

The cynical take is to scoff, “That will be a great comfort when you kill my entire family.” Or to quote a headline from The Onion, “Dead Iraqi Would Have Loved Democracy.” Collective guilt is the guiding principle of modern warfare: We can freely murder, starve, and torment the citizens of X to try to defeat the government of X.

Black humor is like food. Not everyone gets it.

Yet there is a more optimistic take. During the Cold War, the U.S. government actually acted on this “We have no quarrel with the people of X” principle. How? First and foremost, by welcoming the citizens of the Soviet bloc as refugees. A consistent believer in collective guilt would say, “Why should we let you come here? You’re one of the enemy.” Standard U.S. policy, however, told Soviet-bloc escapees: “Like us, you’re a victim of an evil system. You’ve got asylum.”

The cynical take on this optimistic take is that the U.S. only welcomed the citizens of the Soviet bloc as long as Communist emigration restrictions ensured a low flow of refugees. Once the bloc crumbled, the U.S. government quickly backpedaled. See the arbitrary hypocrisy of “Wet Foot, Dry Foot.”

Still, the optimistic take on the cynical take on the optimistic take comes down to: Better than nothing. Even a half-hearted commitment to “We have no quarrel with the people of X” is far superior to “All X’s are our enemies.”

So what? The last few years, I’ve heard much hawkish talk about the evils of “the Russians” and “the Chinese.” With rare exceptions, I hear no major foreign policy analysts patiently explaining, “Our quarrel is not with the Russian people” or “Our quarrel with not with the Chinese people.” And if you look at the way Western governments now treat ordinary Russians and Chinese, it really shows.

If the governments of Russia and China are tyrannical - and they are - a rational observer would remember to ask, “Who do they tyrannize over?” The primary answer is, perforce, their own citizens. This July, I taught scores of summer school students from China. I can only imagine what they think when they read American publications denouncing “the Chinese.” It’s almost like Western writers are trying to reinforce the paranoia propaganda of the Chinese Communist Party: “The West hates us.”

You could insist, “Everyone knows that ‘The Chinese are doing bad stuff’ means ‘The Chinese government is doing bad stuff.’” When everyone is perfectly calm, that’s probably true. Unfortunately, hardly anyone is ever calm when they’re thinking about foreign nemeses. Habitually affirming the distinction between X’s and their government hardly guarantees that you won’t terribly mistreat X’s. But failing to make this distinction almost guarantees that you will.

Doesn’t this “almost guarantee” that we’re terribly mistreating Russians and Chinese already? Yes - and we are. Many millions of Russians and Chinese would love to escape from tyranny the only way they know how - by moving to the West. If you respond: “Why should we? They’re the enemy,” I don’t know what else to say.

True, most Russians and Chinese are not active dissenters. The vast majority are normal, apolitical people. They’re victims of tyranny nonetheless. The only credible argument not to take them all is some version of “Welcoming tens of millions of migrants would be a disaster.” If that’s where you stand now, I’m tempted to refer you to my Open Borders. Though perhaps it would be more convincing just to point to the Ukrainian refugee non-crisis. Since the war started, millions of Ukrainians have fled to the EU. If you look at final destinations, Germany and Poland each have about a million. Relative to population, that’s like the U.S. admitting over 5 million refugees in about a year and half. Compare this to Biden’s so-called “open borders” plan to admit a total of 30,000 Cubans, Haitians, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans per month.

As usual, the issue is not “state capacity” but “state priorities.” Jargon-free: Where there’s a will, there’s a way. We can easily welcome many millions of victims of tyranny. Issue their papers and they can take care of themselves. If you fear and hate their governments, strive to remember who your quarrel is with.