Bush's "Mideast democracy" speech

Great Debates
1

I searched and I was surprised to see that there wasn’t already a thread on this POS speech. While I’m sure that a certain ex-poster would have teared this speech to shreds, I thought that some-one else might have started a discussion on it.

Well, here’s my poor attempt to dissect it.

The WH built up this speech as a “major policy announcement”, but it seems to be more of the same.

First of all:

Wow, just wow. Not even a full sentence, and already we have three major WTF? moments.

Now it seems that we went to war in Iraq to “foster democracy”. No mention of the missing WMD, no mention of Al-Quaeda links or terrorism, no “Saddam was a threat” rhetoric. The WH once again has re-defined the reason for this “damn fool” war.

Granted, the theme of the speech was “America’s Mideast policy”, not Iraq. So maybe one could argue that the Prez wasn’t redefining the was justification so much as adding another reason to why we went there. Facile argument. Our Mideast policy is currently defined by what we are doing in Iraq. If we didn’t mention “fostering democracy” in April, why only bring it up now, when it is clear that the previous sweetness and light vision of post-war Iraq isn’t a reality? And for that matter, what good is democracy “on the point of a bayonet”? How representative a democracy do you think is really likely from the current Provisional Authority?

And let’s mention the “bad guys”, the “non-democracies” in Bush’s speech: Iran and Egypt. Egypt is a traditional ally of the US, and is not a representative democracy. Hosni Mubarak has been president since 1981, and has never run in a contested election. The President controls the People’s Assembly, and the People’s Assembly nominates the President. Very neat. Bush gets kudos for naming Egypt as a non-democracy because, in fact, it is.

But Iran is obviously included solely because Condi Rice hates Tehran. Iran has the most open and contested elections in the entire Middle East, Israel included. It has the broadest electorate in terms of suffrage, women are not only allowed to vote, but are regularly candidates and winning candidates for Parliament. The current President is an opponent of the religious leaders. I certainly wouldn’t call it a free society. But Bush was speaking of democracy and Islam coexisting, and Iran is closer to an example of this than any other state.

True, very true. So why is it WH policy to support some of the least democratic nations? Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar. Our bosom buddies, without whom we couldn’t even be in Iraq. Not one democracy in the bunch. In Kuwait, only 10% of all citizens are eligible to vote, and males only. the Chief of State is an unelected monarch, and the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Ministers are appointed by the monarch. In Qatar, is also such a monarchy, although the suffrage is broader. Saudi Arabia, of course, is even worse in that at least Kuwait and Qatar have elected National Assemblies, while Saudi Arabia’s is appointed by the royal family. These are our friends, these are among the least democratic nations in the region. And yet, Bush singled these countries out for making “progress” in achieving democracy!

So how about it? I’ve ranted enough and only touched a couple of points. Any other views?

2

Well I’ll just plonk down Sullivan’s view(www.AndrewSullivan.com) :

A PROGRESSIVE PRESIDENT: We’ve been waiting for this speech. Critics of the war in Iraq and a huge change in American foreign policy in the Middle East will no doubt play up the negatives. They will argue that the president is changing the subject from the difficult occuation of Iraq, the threat of terrorism and weapons of mass destruction. But the case for war both in Afghanistan and Iraq has always been a complex and varied one, despite the attempts of the cynics to reduce it to one issue (and then blame the administration for simplisme). The fundamental lesson of 9/11 seems to me to be the following: it was no longer possible for the West to ignore or enable the poisonous and dangerous trends in the Middle East. The combination of autocratic fragility, huge wealth, new technology, and an Islamist ideology modeled on the National Socialism of the past was and is an enormous threat to the world. The odd cruise missile strike; diplomatic initiatives to failed despots; appeasement of terror; and acquiescence in Euro-cynicism about the Arab potential for democracy - all these were made moot by 9/11. They were no longer viable options. We either aggressively engaged or we hunkered down and prayed that a calamity would not at some point strike us all. To its historic credit, the Bush administration resisted its own early isolationist impulses and took the high road. To their eternal shame, the French and Germans, the far rights, the far left, and many (but not all) of the Democrats opted for inaction or a replay of the failed policies of the past. What this president did was radical, progressive, risky.

3

Are you kidding?

You’ll need to provide a cite about your Condi statement. Iran has been a thorn in the side of the US since their revolution in the late 70s.

Did you read your own post? Iran has “better” elections than Israel? Are you aware that the religious leaders must approve any candidate on the ballot? Plus the fact that the unelected religious leaders still control key aspects of the governing process itstelf. Do I need to point out your contradiction about suffrage? Assuming women make up 1/2 the population, you’ll have to show that more than 1/2 of Israelis are not allowed to vote.

I agree that we continue to coddle Saudi Arabia while that country is just as negligent, if not more so, in the area of democracy as the official mideast “baddies” per the WH’s view. But your characterization of Iran is just plain wrong.

4

paperbackwriter:

Not true. “Fostering democracy” wasn’t meant as having been a justification for the war, it was part of the strategy of the war. As in, “The war is to get rid of Saddam because of WMDs, etc, and, the vacuum filled by achieving that goal should be filled by a democratic government.”

Better than a dictatorship at the point of a bayonet.

Probably pretty likely, once a constitution is drafted. Why do you think the Provisional Authority is not representative of Iraqis?

A big “WTF” back to you, buddy…Damascus is the capital of Syria, not Egypt. If he meant Egypt, that sentence would have said “Cairo.”

See what John Mace said above. Iran may allow some greater degree of choice than many other dictatorships, but that still ain’t much. And it doesn’t remotely approach Israel, which is a genuine democracy.

Because, dictatorial though they are, they haven’t been acting threatening toward their neighbors. So there’s no justification for deposing their leaders.

5

Radical? Well, yes, I suppose, at least symbolicly, as it repudiates a policy of long standing, that is, to support any government no matter how repulsive, so long as it promotes stability that we find convenient. As long as no one remembers such names as Trujillo, Uguarte, Diem, Nhu, Pinochet, Reza Pahlavi,…the list goes on. Recent virtue is like new wine, it sets the teeth on edge.

Progressive? Kind of depends. If you think freedom and democracy can be imposed, perhaps. I frankly doubt it. A progressive, like myself, tends to regard freedom and democracy as expressions of innate human yearnings, as natural as taking a dump, and as commonly distributed. Hence the expression “human rights”.

Risky? Oh, my, yes. Mr. Sullivan is quite right there. No question about that one. The Bushiviks have bet a gazillion dollars and an as-yet-uncertain amount of blood to draw one card to an inside straight. Risky?

I had not realized Mr. Sullivan had such a gift for droll understatement.

6

A good (and very short) guide to Middle Eastern and North African democratic proccesses can be found at the BBC. Just a few facts before anyone makes too many mistakes.

7

  1. The timing of this (nearly precisely one year before the election) is suspicious, regardless of the content. No thoughtful individual can be faulted for considering that the motives for the announcement of such a dramatic and historic policy shift may be politically motivated. I’m not saying that they are, but if we are to honestly and critically evaluate the circumstances, it is a possibility that must be considered.

  2. There is little evidence that the dramatic new foreign policy philosophy of this speech is something that is long-standing or deeply rooted. By that I mean that in this administration, which is notorious for “leaking” like a sieve, there has never, not ever, not even once, been the slightest hint that the brain trust in the bowels of the White House, Pentagon, or State Department, has been modeling, planning, strategizing, or discussing the necessary steps to carry out such a radically different foreign policy. If some doper can find the neo-con white paper or leaked internal memo that fits Dubya’s description of the wonderful new world of global democracy, then I will stand corrected. I think it far more likely your research will turn up any number of scholarly publications from the internationalist school of international relations that have been the basis of liberal global engagement strategies ever since the Carter administration. In a nutshell, GWB has officially come around (unless you don’t think his speech was “official”) to the liberal, idealistic, Democratic perspective on how U.S. foreign policy should be conducted after the grotesque abuses of realpolitik.

  3. The actions of the U.S. in the global sphere over the 3 years of the Dubya administration do not appear to have been motivated by the philosophy articulated in this speech. The administration’s track record of sanctioning non-democratic states, rewarding democratic states, and framing diplomatic discourse in terms of democracy, democratic principles, and democratic institutions, is utterly nonexistent. I need only point to the lack of diplomatic engagement in war-torn African nations, USAID funding of a totalitarian state in Chechnya, aid to Russia despite documented civil- and human-rights abuses with respect to said Chechnya, support of the House of Saud, the absence of sanctions against Israel for disenfranchising an entire people and refusal to come to the negotiating table in good faith, and the utter lack of respect for the values and opinions of our supposed sister-democracies in Europe.

In the end, I suppose we must admit “better late than never”, meaning if this is a genuine policy shift, then I applaud the administration for finally realizing what the academic and expert community (political scientists, historians, career foreign service experts, etc.) have been saying since the mid-60’s. At the time, the Cold War precluded the adoption of more “idealistic” policy motives. However, the Carter administration proved that it could be put into practice with sufficient political will, and yield positive results (end of the OPEC embargo, Camp David Accords, ending the Iran hostage crisis without the loss of a single U.S. hostage’s life). The Clinton administration carried on that legacy as best it could, in Bosnia, Kosovo, and but for a lack of military commitment, Somalia. Three years of continuously diminishing global stature has now apparently dismayed the Bush administration into considering ideas beyond its own narrow perspective. Hooray!

However, if one considers the facts of the case and the track record of the administration, at present this speech is just words. The U.S. will have to earn the trust of the international community by backing these words up with real action. Until then, none should dispute that the best course of action is to reserve judgement.

8

May I also submit that should the adminstration start to follow through on the premises laid out by this speech, they will see a cascade of staunch conservatives jumping ship. The pro-Israel lobby will be pissed at any significant funding given to rival Middle East states, the corporate lobby will gripe about how much more expensive foreign labor will become, neo-cons will be incensed that they can’t attack nations willy-nilly anymore, and the evangelicals will fuss about special favors given to the godless heathen furriners.

Unless, of course, this speech really is setting us up for a new-and-improved justification for global conflict, that now instead of toppling regimes because they harbor terrorists, or they have nuclear bombs, it’s really because we need to overthrow the incumbent regime because we think a democracy would be better for them, and for us.

Pray this is not some twisted new Manifest Destiny.

9

Well, I will say that while I understand why he picked Damascus and Tehran in particular to mention in one sense, in terms of speechifying it’s a little underwhelming.

When making grand comments like spreading democracy, it seems a little on the weak-kneed side to say essentially “we’re gonna spread democracy the length and breadth of these three adjoining countries.” :smiley:

  • Tamerlane
10

And on Sunday maybe Jordan, too! If we’re not too tired.

11

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1107/dailyUpdate.html

A bit a analysis from some pretty diverse vantage points.

The general tenor seems to be “Well, no shit, Bush. About time you guys in the West tool some responsibility for the situation over here.” Interesting note by the Muslim about successful democratic administrations always coming from within, not as the result of foreigh intervention.

12

I might have to stand you up and correct you. Bush’s speech was more or less a rehash of the National Security Strategy of the United States, released on September 17, 2002. This document in turn is alleged to have its roots on the initial preemption strategy proposed by Paul Wolfowitz in a draft 1992 document. Here’s a timeline on the evolution of the “Bush Doctrine.”

Here’s a quick example comparing the Bush Speech and the NSS:

Some of us (jjimm comes to mind) have been arguing for a long time that this strategy is in fact the obvious guiding motivation for the invasion of Iraq and the repeated allegations that there are at least half a dozen other countries in the MENA which are targeted by the U.S. for “regime change.” After spoon-feeding the American people a mixture of sap and bullshit for the past fourteen months, it looks like the Bush Administration considers its electorate growed up enough for adult food now.

13

Oops. I snipped the wrong quote from the NSS. I’d put all that coding work into it, and I guess I just wanted to show it off.

Instead, compare the Bush Speech:

With this introductory paragraph from the National Security Strategy:

14

And just to think, this Isolationist wasn’t even intellectually curious enough about the world to own a passport prior to becoming president. Did he have a coherent foreign policy prior to 9/11 ? not in my view. Now, he’s seemingly got whole “doctrines” . . .

I wouldn’t employ this guy to sell quallity used cars, so I have to applaud Cheney and Co for their temerity.

15

What bothers me about Bush’s speech is this: By shifting the U.S.'s purported goals in the Middle East – from defense of the U.S. from potential threats such as terrorism and WMD’s, to a crusade for democratic government – Bush is doing exactly what he needs to do to justify an invasion of Syria or Iran.

Is this a prelude to another war? Is Bush laying the ideological groundwork for that?

16

Nope, can’t see it.

No allies next time. The WMD pretext has gone, so he’d have to use something different and not as convincing (even in the hands of FOX). Even the US public are wary now, and I don’t see how he has the Grade A manpower to do the job on the ground – let alone a public willing to bear the casualties of occupation. And it’s election suicide, assuming ya’ll still have elections.

Fwiw, anymore of this and I think the world would likely set itself against the US; my crystal ball says calibrated trade sanctions led by the EU, designed to hurt the pocket as much as possible (as was mooted quetly before). What the hell else could we do !
That said, I suspect Cheney won’t be happy until US troops are stationed on every street corner from Cairo to Kabul.
Conclusion; it’s posturing. But Cheney has Bush doing a decent line in that.

17

Well, the speech seems to have been pretty well received where it counts.

18

So why this speech and why now?

"It may be the timing is connected to efforts by the White House to persuade the American people - who at this point need some persuading - that the occupation of Iraq is part of a wider and coherent strategy in the region.

On another level the speech appears to have been brewing ever since the 11 September attacks.

Many observers in Washington believe the Bush administration has since concluded that the biggest threat to US security is now posed by Islamic militants, and that the only long-term solution to that threat is reform of the Arab Muslim nations that produce those militants."
And, Analysis: Bush’s Middle East shift:

"The neo-conservatives believe successive American presidents, essentially because of their need for oil, allowed the region’s rulers to stick to their old authoritarian ways.

The folly of this, they argue, was dramatically exposed by the attacks of 11 September 2001. And, crucially, those attacks gave the neo-conservatives a unique opportunity to put things right, as they see them. "
Ding! Ding! All change!

19

Well it wouldn’t do to include Uzbekistan or Pakistan. Those tyrants are on our side.

20

If liberals and Democrats had any savvy at all, they’d be appluading these sorts of ideas and then saying “yes, these are the right ideas, but you aren’t the guy who can do it.” Of course, as long as the left is too often ruled by anti-use of military force and anti-America-taking-the-lead ideas, then they aren’t really the ones to do it either.

I find it incredible that so few people take the neo con argument seriously. Disagreeing with it would be one thing. But so many people just aren’t even willing to consider the position. It’s like this: Islmaic militants are a serious threat to the security of the U.S., and the only way to end the threat is to, at the very LEAST, end the ability of states who either sponsor and aid them directly, or produce weapons which could end up in their hands, to do so, either by force or the threat of force.

What is a realistic alternative solution? We’re dealing with states who basically use negotiations as a chance to waste everyone’s time. How DO we deal with them?