In a recent speech,
President George W. Bush attempted to "spin" his way out of the
current debacle in Iraq by upping the ante. Going beyond the recently
resuscitated goal of bringing democracy to Iraq (after no weapons
of mass destruction were found there, and the president had to
admit that Saddam Hussein had no link to the September 11 attacks),
the president has now proposed to democratize the Middle East
and the world. But the situation in Iraq vividly illustrates the
pitfalls of muscular U.S. efforts to bring democracy to nations
that have little experience with a democratic culture. Instead
of pressuring other countries to liberalize at gunpoint or with
implied threats, a more effective strategy would be to avoid such
undemocratic methods and lead by peaceful example.
Critics of U.S. foreign policy overseas often use the word
"hypocrisy" to describe American actions. U.S. leaders
have often adopted the high-flying rhetoric of exporting freedom
to the world, while supporting petty dictators or overthrowing
democratically elected leaders that didn't toe the U.S. line.
Bush's speech continues that divergence.
In
his comments, the president treated countries the United States
considers "rogue regimes" (Syria, Cuba, Burma and North Korea)
much harsher than "friendly" states (Egypt and Saudi Arabia) and
powerful nations (China). He declared that dictators in Syria
left "a legacy of torture, oppression, misery, and ruin." The
president correctly accused Cuba, Burma, Zimbabwe and North Korea
of being "outposts of oppression in our world."
Such
harsh rhetoric, however, should be compared with the praise the
president doled out for at best slight advances in political freedom
by the equally tyrannical regimes in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and China.
Egypt, which has made no progress at all, got this timid, but
gushing, nudge: "The great and proud nation of Egypt has shown
the way toward peace in the Middle East, and now should show the
way toward democracy in the Middle East." Similarly, Bush praised
the despotic, medieval Saudi regime as "taking first steps toward
reform, including a plan for gradual introduction of elections."
And the president is confident that the leaders of China – a powerful
nation that has enormous potential as a market for U.S. exports – "will
also discover that freedom is indivisible – that social and religious
freedom is also essential to national greatness and national dignity."
He also found something nice to say about progress in the autocratic,
but "friendly," countries of Bahrain, Oman, Qatar, Yemen, Kuwait
and Jordan.
If
that glaring double standard is not enough, President Bush's speech
excoriated the Palestinians: "The Palestinian leaders who block
and undermine democratic reform, and feed hatred and encourage
violence are not leaders at all. They're the main obstacles to
peace, and to the success of the Palestinian people." No matter
that the Palestinians elected Yasir Arafat as their president,
but Bush – to comply with the wishes of Israeli Prime Minister
Ariel Sharon – refuses to negotiate with him.
Although the security ministries in Iran are still controlled
by undemocratic forces, Iran is more democratic than the vast
majority of countries in the Middle East. Yet the president offered
praise for Egypt and Saudi Arabia, but not for the less friendly
Iran.
And
the state of freedom in Russia, another powerful nation that has
recently been compliant with U.S. wishes, was not even mentioned
in the president's speech. The awkward public silence from the
Bush administration occurs at a time when Russia may be regressing
toward authoritarianism. Behind a veil of anonymity, administration
officials express alarm that President Vladimir Putin could be
coming under the influence of hardliners, abusing his power and
repressing dissent. The Russian government has closed independent
media outlets and recently arrested Mikhail Khodorkovsky, the
nation's richest man and potential political rival to Putin. Yet
U.S. officials argue that American silence is justified by Putin's
cooperation in confronting Iran and North Korea and acceptance
of U.S. trashing of the Antiballistic Missile Treaty, of expansion
of NATO into the territory of the old Soviet Union and of an American
military presence in former Soviet Central Asia.
Thus,
the world will regard President Bush's speech as more of the same
from the America: realpolitik cloaked in self-righteous rhetoric.
But there may be worse consequences of Bush's policy. Reading
between the lines in the speech, the administration is trying
to use the U.S. invasion of Iraq to intimidate Syria, Iran and
other nations into "democratic reforms." In the president's words,
"Iraqi democracy will succeed – and that success will send forth
the news, from Damascus to Teheran – that freedom can be the future
of every nation." But many experts on the Middle East believe
that overt U.S. pressure, whether subtle or heavy-handed, to hurry
democracy could lead to something worse taking the place of existing
authoritarian regimes – elected radical Islamic governments. In
today's autocratic societies in the Middle East, the only alternative
to the ruling regimes that has not been shut down is the mosques.
A
better option for U.S. policy than applying heavy pressure: to
let Middle Eastern and other societies accept freedom at their
own pace and to act as a beacon of liberty and peace for them
to emulate.
comments on this article?
|
|
Back to Antiwar.com
Home Page | Contact
Us |
Antiwar.com
Home Page
Archived
Columns
Double Standards
in Double Time
11/12/03
Is Iraq Another
Vietnam?
11/5/03
Having a Bad Day,
Wolfie?
10/29/03
Pyrrhic Victories
on Iraq
10/22/03
Can America
"Spin" Away Anti-U.S. Hatred in Islamic
Countries? 10/15/03
A Bureaucratic
Fix for Iraq? 10/8/03
Open Warfare: Bush
vs the Intelligence Community 10/1/03
US Iraq Policy:
The Day the Roof Caved In 9/24/03
The Best of Bad
Alternatives for the Bush Administration in
Iraq 9/17/03
US Intervention
Backfires – Everywhere 9/10/03
Is North Korea
Afraid? 9/3/03
Past articles by
Ivan Eland
Ivan
Eland is Senior Fellow and Director of the Center
on Peace & Liberty at The Independent Institute in
Oakland, Calif. Having received his Ph.D. in national security
policy from George Washington University, Dr. Eland has served as
Principal Defense Analyst at the Congressional Budget Office,
Evaluator-in-Charge for the U.S. General Accounting Office (national
security and intelligence), and Investigator for the House Foreign
Affairs Committee. He has testified on NATO expansion before the
Senate Foreign Relations Committee and CIA oversight before the
House Government Reform Committee.
Dr. Eland is the author of Putting
"Defense" Back into U.S. Defense Policy: Rethinking U.S. Security in
the Post-Cold War World and forty-five studies on national
security issues. His articles have appeared in Arms Control
Today, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Emory Law Journal,
The Independent
Review, Issues in Science and Technology, Mediterranean
Quarterly, Middle East and International Review, Middle East Policy,
Nexus, and Northwestern Journal of International Affairs. His
popular writings have been published in the Los Angeles Times,
USA Today, Houston Chronicle, Dallas Morning News, San Diego
Union-Tribune, Washington Post, Miami Herald, St. Louis
Post-Dispatch, Newsday, Sacramento Bee, Orange County Register,
and Chicago Sun-Times. He has appeared on ABC's "World News
Tonight," CNN's "Crossfire," Fox News, CNBC, CNN-fn, MSNBC, NPR,
PBS, CBC, BBC, and other national and international TV and radio
programs.
His column now appears Wednesdays on Antiwar.com.
|