| |
PIPES' LINE
A
column by Daniel Pipes, President George W Bush's
controversial appointment to the board of directors of
the federally funded United States Institute for Peace.
Bush and
a democratic Middle East
"Sixty
years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the
lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make
us safe." This sentence, spoken last week by United
States President George W Bush, is about the most
jaw-dropping repudiation of an established bipartisan
policy ever made by a US president.
Not only
does it break with a policy the US government has
pursued since first becoming a major player in the
Middle East, but the speech is audacious in ambition,
grounded in history, and programmatically specific. It's
the sort of challenge to existing ways one expects to
hear from a columnist, essayist, or scholar - not from
the leader of a great power.
Bush spoke in a
candid manner, as heads of state almost never do: "In
many Middle Eastern countries, poverty is deep and it is
spreading, women lack rights and are denied schooling.
Whole societies remain stagnant while the world moves
ahead ... as long as the Middle East remains a place
where freedom does not flourish, it will remain a place
of stagnation, resentment and violence ready for
export."
This is not the first time Bush has
dispatched decades worth of policy toward a Middle East
problem and declared a radically new approach. He also
did so concerning Iraq and the Arab-Israeli conflict:
Iraq: He brushed aside the long-standing
policy of deterrence, replacing it in June 2002 with an
approach of hitting before getting hit. US security, he
said, "Will require all Americans to be forward-looking
and resolute, to be ready for preemptive action when
necessary to defend our liberty and to defend our
lives." This new approach provided justification for the
war against Saddam Hussein, removing the Iraqi dictator
from power before he could attack.
Arab-Israeli conflict: I called Bush's
overhaul of the US approach to the Arab-Israeli conflict
in June perhaps "the most surprising and daring step of
his presidency". He changed presumptions by presenting a
Palestinian state as the solution, imposing this vision
on the parties, tying results to a specific timetable,
and replacing leaders of whom he disapproved.
And this time:
Democracy: The president renounced a
long-accepted policy of "Middle East exceptionalism" -
getting along with dictators - and stated US policy
would henceforth fit with its global emphasis of making
democracy the goal.
He brought this issue home
by tying it to American security: "With the spread of
weapons that can bring catastrophic harm to our country
and to our friends, it would be reckless to accept the
status quo." Then, on the premise that "the advance of
freedom leads to peace", Bush announced "a forward
strategy of freedom in the Middle East". Drawing
explicit comparisons with the US success in sponsoring
democracy in Europe and Asia, he called on Americans
once again for "persistence and energy and idealism" to
do the same in the Middle East.
Understanding
the rationale behind the old dictator-coddling policy
makes clear the radicalism of this new approach. The old
way noticed that the populations are usually more
anti-American than are the emirs, kings and presidents.
Washington was rightly apprehensive that democracy would
bring in more radicalized governments; this is what did
happen in Iran in 1979 and nearly happened in Algeria in
1992. It also worried that once the radicals reached
power, they would close down the democratic process
(dubbed "one man, one vote, one time").
Bush's
confidence in democracy - that despite the "street's"
history of extremism and conspiracy-mindedness, it can
mature and become a force of moderation and stability -
is about to be tested. This process did in fact occur in
Iran; will it recur elsewhere? The answer will take
decades to find out.
However matters develop,
this gamble is typical of a president exceptionally
willing to take risks to shake up the status quo. And
while one speech does not constitute a new foreign
policy - which will require programmatic details,
financial support and consistent execution - the shift
has to start somewhere. Presidential oratory is the
appropriate place to start.
And if the past
record of this president in the Middle East is anything
by which to judge - toppling regimes in Afghanistan and
Iraq, promoting a new solution to Arab-Israeli conflict
- he will be true to his word here too. Get ready for an
interesting ride.
Daniel Pipes (www.DanielPipes.org) is
director of the Middle East Forum and author of
Militant Islam Reaches America (W W Norton).
(Copyright 2003, Daniel Pipes)
|
| |
|
|
 |
|
