|
|
Thursday, January 20, 2005
|
|
 BREAKING WITH HISTORY: BUSH'S SECOND INAUGARAL ADDRESS
Approximately 30 minutes ago, President George W. Bush completed his second inaugaral address. It was a very bold speech, and if its themes are actually implemented as policy, it is a break with history that few could imagine just days ago.
Following his re-election in November, the President indicated that he will focus on domestic policy in his second term. Indeed, the recent debate on Social Security reform lead most observers to believe that domestic policy would be his priority.
The address instead ignored domestic issues and focused, almost exclusively, on the spread of freedom throughout the world. It was a tour de force of rhetoric. However, it remains to be seen if that rhetoric will be matched with the policy measures necessary to see it come to pass.
Rhetoric aside, it has never been the policy of the United States or any major power to bring "democracy" or "freedom." Such phrases have been used as a means to shore up public support of an ongoing war, but those wars were never fought over freedom and democracy. In some cases, such as Germany and Japan, democracy was a consequence of the war, but it was never the motivation for fighting it.
Without explicitly saying so, the President's remarks were delivered to the peoples of the Muslim world. Sadly, this region is far more complicated - and this issues far more intractable - than the speech would indicate. While bringing democracy to the Muslim world is not impossible, it will be incredibly difficult. Some commentators have noted that President Bush seemingly made a commitment to the Muslim world that is akin to the commitment that his predecessors made to the people of Eastern Europe in the early days of the Cold War.
However, it will be far more difficult to "liberate" Muslims, particularly those of the Middle East, than it was to free Eastern Europe. This is true for a number of reasons which the President did not address, nor did any of the commentators on television. I shall list some of them.
Firstly, Eastern Europe was a collection of "captive nations" subjugated by foreign powers, first Germany, then the Soviet Union. This is not true of the Middle East. These are all sovereign nations. While it is very difficult to liberate a people from foreign domination, it is only more so to free them from their own governments and governing ideologies. The United States is now learning this in Iraq.
Secondly, there are countries in the region where "democracy" is not in the interest of the United States. Two of these countries are Egypt and Saudi Arabia. The neoconservative community, as exemplified by Richard Perle and David Frum in their book, An End to Evil , argue that the choice is between the Mubarak government and the House of Saud and something better and freer. In fact, the reverse is true. Successive Egyptian governments and the Saudi monarchy have devoted decades to liquidating moderate and democratic opposition. It would take several decades to rebuild these moderates to a degree that they could reasonably be expected to govern. To expect an overnight transformation is incredibly dangerous and criminally irresponsible.
This is a lesson that may also soon be learned in Iraq. The democratic opposition to Saddam Hussein was either forced into exile or murdered. The exiles are not trusted by those that they left behind. In ten days, there will be an election contested (where it is contested at all) by competing eithic, tribal and sectarian interests. It is highly improbable that any result will be accepted widely. Even if the election does not result in civil war, any resulting government will not be able to govern democratically and be expected to maintain order. The continuing presence of US troops will most likely aggravate these tensions further.
In Egypt and Saudi Arabia, were an election held tomorrow, the jihadists would win it. They are the only ones organized enough to be politically effective, and they enjoy broad popular support. In these nations, the choice is not between Hosni Mubarak and Thomas Jefferson, it is between Hosni Mubarak and Egyptian Islamic Jihad. Despite the rhetoric, democracy in the Middle East - at least in the near term - is directly counter to the national security interests of the United States. As unpleasant as that reality is, to not recognize it as a reality is dangerously naive.
The second problem is the public attitudes of the Middle East. During the Cold War, the people of Poland, for example, knew that the United States had their interests at heart. That is why they are such a stalwart ally today. Nowhere in the world is the US more popular than it is in the former nations of the Warsaw Pact.
In the Middle East, the United States is not seen this way. America is seen as a power that has maintained their oppressive governments in the interest of stability and cheap oil. While the people of Eastern Europe trusted America, the people of the Middle East do not. To ignore this is to prolong that perception.
The third problem is the lack of a settlement to the Palestinian question. The US is rightly committed to Israel's existence and security. Arabs understand this. But so long as long as America is seen in the region as acting in Israel's interest alone, it will not take seriously that it is interested in their well-being. Concepts like "democracy" and "freedom" are foreign in the Arab world. They are interested in "justice" first. Perhaps the passing of Yasser Arafat will expedite that process. But the United States must again be involved as brokering a deal.
It is the concept of justice in the Arab mind that ties these three issues together. In the eyes of the average Arab, the United States would not support their oppressors if they were just. They would not invade their lands and set neighbor against neighbor if they were just. They would not allow the suppression of a displaced people if they were just. Whether any or all of those things are valid is beside the point. The fact remains that the majority of Muslims believe them to be true. And as long as that is the case, the cause of freedom will not come to the Middle East.
There is much that America can do in the region to change these attitudes. But it will not be easy or without pain at home. If the administration believes that they can put the President on al-Jazzeera and think that 100 million Arabs will fall in love with him, they are dangerously delusional.
Several have pointed to the dependence of America on Arab oil. With this leverage comes some latitude. One should remember that in countries like Saudia Arabia, oil is the only resource they have. The United States is the single largest consumer of that resource. That being the case, the US is in a position to stand up to the House of Saud and say, "we believe so strongly in the cause of human rights that we will no longer deal with you if you continue treating your people as you have been. There is oil in America. There is oil in Latin America and the former Soviet republics. These nations would very much like our business. If it should come to that, the American people are prepared to pay more for oil that is untainted by the blood of innocents."
Will this cause great pain in the United States? Yes, it will. But such a move will place the Saudi monarchy in a position where it will have no choice but to liberalize its society. This should be done very, very gradually, but America can use this economic levrage to ensure that it happens.
Education is another major issue. I believe that the next great terrorist wave will come not from the Middle East, but from Pakistan. Pakistan has no public education system. That void is filled by Wahabbi Madrassas funded by Saudi money. If the West is serious about containing terrorism, it will address this issue with whatever it takes. Liberals and Conservatives alike will be aghast at this proposal. But funding a school system in Pakistan today will be far less espensive than fighting a war against a fundamentalist, nuclear Pakistan tomorrow. The Russian nuclear stockpile is not the greatest source of danger for a nuclear, terrorist strike, Pakistan is.
Both President Abbas and Prime Minister Sharon must be made to accept the Camp David deal proposed in September 2000. This is not a perfect deal, but it is the best one available. If it will take NATO or US troops to implement that accord and guarantee Israel's security, so be it. The G8 must then do everything in its power to ensure that a new Palestinan state enjoys some measure of economic prosperity. How this is done is a secondary issue.
The prison scandal at Abu Gharaib probably set back the American cause for decades with the Arab people. For that reason, the perpetraitors - however high they are to be found - must be punished to the furthest extent of the law. Then all prisons in Iraq should be turned over to the new government as soon as is practical.
There are nations in the region where none of these ideas are practicable, specifically Iran and Syria. Iran is in a demographic situation that, in time, will resolve itself. Syria is not likely to long remain the lone holdout in the region. With a security guarantee with the United States, Israel might be persuaded to return the Golan Heights. Syria would not dare to use Golan as a launching base into Israel if it faced bombing raids from American bases in Iraq.
These all impact the War on Terror in the most significant way imaginable. Once the average Arab sees that the United States is committed to justice, as well as freedom and democracy, they will be far less likely to support the jihadists and their theology of death. Such a theology is appealing only to those without hope. Once those 100 million Arabs have some hope, then and only then, will we see what the President referred to as "the greatest achievements in the history of freedom."
PermalinkLabels: Fun With Politics
|
|
|
| |
