State of the Union Address and Democracy in the Middle East
Bush devoted most of the foreign policy half of his address to freedom, liberty and democracy in the Middle East. He spoke, of course, of the recent elections in Palestine and Iraq.
He alluded to positive developments in Morocco, Jordan and Bahrain stating: “Hopeful reform is already taking hold in an arc from Morocco to Jordan to Bahrain.” The reform process in these countries predates the US invasion of Iraq. Countries can move in the direction of freedom, liberty and democracy without the over action of the US to spread democracy to every nation.
“To the Iranian people” Bush said: “As you stand for your own liberty, America stands with you.” Clearly, though, as long as the US has so much of its resources devoted to Iraq, this pledge is mostly figurative rather than literal.
Bush referred specifically to Egypt and Saudi Arabia, calling on Egypt to "show the way toward democracy in the Middle East" and saying the Saudi Arabia "can demonstrate its leadership in the region by expanding the role of its people in determining their future." Bush's words were an exceedingly mild way of stating that neither country (each in its own way) is democratic or allows its people to play much of a role in determining their future.
A few paragraphs earlier Bush had said, “Our aim is to build and preserve a community of free and independent nations, with governments that answer to their citizens” and “America will stand with the allies of freedom to support democratic movements in the Middle East and beyond, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.” With respect to some countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia, this policy of spreading democracy means a gradualist approach to put it, uh, mildly.
Bush is right, I think, that the war on terror cannot be won without the spread of freedom and democracy. Whether he is acknowledging that nondemocratic nations – like Egypt and Saudi Arabia – are breeding grounds for terror, I’m not sure. Bush gets due credit for plain speaking, for saying what he means and meaning what he says. He needs to admit the US has been on the wrong side of democracy in Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Perhaps, however, he is waiting for a more aspicious time to make that declaration.
Bush devoted most of the foreign policy half of his address to freedom, liberty and democracy in the Middle East. He spoke, of course, of the recent elections in Palestine and Iraq.
He alluded to positive developments in Morocco, Jordan and Bahrain stating: “Hopeful reform is already taking hold in an arc from Morocco to Jordan to Bahrain.” The reform process in these countries predates the US invasion of Iraq. Countries can move in the direction of freedom, liberty and democracy without the over action of the US to spread democracy to every nation.
“To the Iranian people” Bush said: “As you stand for your own liberty, America stands with you.” Clearly, though, as long as the US has so much of its resources devoted to Iraq, this pledge is mostly figurative rather than literal.
Bush referred specifically to Egypt and Saudi Arabia, calling on Egypt to "show the way toward democracy in the Middle East" and saying the Saudi Arabia "can demonstrate its leadership in the region by expanding the role of its people in determining their future." Bush's words were an exceedingly mild way of stating that neither country (each in its own way) is democratic or allows its people to play much of a role in determining their future.
A few paragraphs earlier Bush had said, “Our aim is to build and preserve a community of free and independent nations, with governments that answer to their citizens” and “America will stand with the allies of freedom to support democratic movements in the Middle East and beyond, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.” With respect to some countries like Egypt and Saudi Arabia, this policy of spreading democracy means a gradualist approach to put it, uh, mildly.
Bush is right, I think, that the war on terror cannot be won without the spread of freedom and democracy. Whether he is acknowledging that nondemocratic nations – like Egypt and Saudi Arabia – are breeding grounds for terror, I’m not sure. Bush gets due credit for plain speaking, for saying what he means and meaning what he says. He needs to admit the US has been on the wrong side of democracy in Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Perhaps, however, he is waiting for a more aspicious time to make that declaration.
Labels: Bahrain, Egypt, Saudi Arabia
posted by John B. Chilton at 2/03/2005 10:36:00 AM
3 Comments:
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Sorry, Stuart, did not mean to delete your comment. First day with the new blog and all that.... --jbc
JC writes: "Bush gets due credit for plain speaking, for saying what he means and meaning what he says." Really? Here are two pearls that show the contrary:
"Do you have blacks, too?"
George Bush to Brazilian president Fernando Cardoso; Washington, D.C.; November 8, 2001
"In other words, I don't think people ought to be compelled to make the decision which they think is best for their family."
George Bush, Washington, D.C.; December 11, 2002
But let me go beyond Bush’s loquacity. I think that the real question here is: What gives president Bush or the US the right to “aim to build and preserve a community of free and independent nations”? Let me be very clear on this issue. I do agree that freedom and independence are important values, from both an ethical and a functional point of view. But precisely because I believe in these values I cannot agree with countries imposing them on other countries.
My neighbor allows their children to watch reality shows all afternoon. I completely disagree with her. I am appalled and think that those poor kids are being inflicted a serious damage. I may talk to my neighbor about it. I may politely suggest other ways to entertain the kids. I may even go as far as offering money for after-school programs. But what I cannot do is to intervene in her decisions or, even worse, invade her house and force her to turn the TV off. You may argue that my analogy falls short, that dictators cause more severe damage than TV shows. Let’s suppose then that my neighbor physically abuses her kids. Can I invade her house now? Again, the answer is not. What I can, and should do, is to call the police. But when did we vote for the US or “the allies of freedom” to be the world’s police?
Freedom and independence are values we think every country should embrace. But invading and imposing these values on others is going too far. The US cannot automatically assume that it is the world’s police. Even more, as a self-proclaimed world's superhero, the US has proven in the recent past to be a biased one. Why is that non-democratic countries like the UAE are “ok” and an "example"? Why is that the US supported dictators like Pinochet in Chile, Banzer in Bolivia, and even Sadam in Iraq not so long ago?
Post a Comment
<< Home