The speech
that George W. Bush gave in Abu Dhabi January 13 was important
because it was the most authoritative articulation to date of the
content of what the president and his officials have described as their
“freedom agenda” in the Middle East. It goes quite a lot
further than any previous presentation given by the President himself.
in spelling out what the Bushites mean by their term “freedom
agenda”, which is currently the main narrative through
which they interpret developments in the Middle East, and which they
are also trying to promulgate among (or impose on) the peoles of the
region themselves.
The Abu Dhabi speech is titled Fostering
Freedom And Justice In The Middle East. The version on
the White House, linked to above, includes a couple of explanatory
sentences at the top along with what appears to be the text that he
actually delivered, and it is hard to see where the main text actually
starts. But here is how the first graf ends:
about the great new era that is unfolding, founded on the equality of
all people before God. This new era offers hope for the millions
across the Middle East who seek a future of peace, progress, and
opportunity. Unfortunately, these aspirations for liberty and
justice
are being threatened by extremists who murder the innocent in pursuit
of power.
That, in a nutshell, is Bush’s argument. Interesting to see his use of
the phrase “liberty and justice” there, isn’t it? It is taken
directly from the U.S. Constitution [update: oops! the US “Pledge of Allegiance”, thanks Vadim!]— and was a big theme of our
conference there in Beirut last week. But the phrase was abused
in truly Orwellian fashion in Bush’s speech. (And no, I don’t think he
was using it with any ironic intent. I’m not sure the guy even
knows what irony is.)
He then proceeds through the following topics, presented as subheads in
the posted text:
- Extremists Are Fomenting Instability In The Middle East
- The Desire For Freedom And Justice Is The Greatest Weapon In The
Fight Against Violent Extremists - America Is Using Its Influence To Foster Peace And Reconciliation
In The Holy Land
Well, I largely agree with the first two of these arguments– though
I disagree strongly with Bush’s identification of who the violent,
instability-fostering extremists are.
Personally, I would be
inclined to argue that countries or leaders that (a) launch massive
armed
invasions of other countries without any even remotely credible casus belli and in defiance
of the United Nations; (b) maintain oppressive and violent occupation
regimes over the residents and resources of lands captured in war; (c)
undertake massive and unjustified armed attacks against the people and
infrastructure of neighboring countries with the aim of subverting
their domestic political process; (d) pursue deliberate policies of
coercion, divide-and-rule, and bellicose fearmongering at every level
of their encounter with other nations, and (e) defy at every possible
opportunity the United Nations and the international legitimacy that it
represents– these are countries that might justifiably be described as
“violent”, “instability-fostering”, and “extremist.”
Bush, however, identifies these two forces as the prime generators
of instability in the Middle East: (a)” the extremism supported
and embodied by the regime in Tehran,” and (b)” the extremism and
violence embodied by al Qaeda and its affiliates”. Regarding
Iran, he claims that,
nations
everywhere, so the United States is strengthening our longstanding
security commitments with our friends in the Gulf – and rallying
friends around the world to confront this danger before it is too late.
It is significant, of course, that the Arab countries of the Gulf–
which should, under Bush’s theory, be those who feel most threatened by
Iran’s actions– have stepped up the level of their friendly
interactions with
Iran in recent months. If they see Iran as posing a “danger” to
themselves, which they might do, then it seems clear they have chosen
not to “confront” it in the bellicose way that George Bush urges, but
rather, to try to reduce the danger through persuasion and
bridge-building, instead.
In general, a pretty effective way of reducing dangers in any inter-human encounters, I believe. And for the Gulf Arab states, it certainly seems to be working well.
In Bush’s consideration of democratization, he says:
beginning to respond to the desires of their people and taking steps
that will help enhance the stability and prosperity of their nations.
… That is, steps toward the
introduction of some of the mechanisms– if not necessarily the
institutions– of democracy.. But what “steps” does he then cite?
The Palestinians’ landmark legislative elections of January 2006,
perhaps? The seriously flawed national elections held by the
US-supported regime in Egypt? Um, no… Instead, he
mentioned
- The United Arab Emirates’ first-ever indirect (!) election for
20 Federal National Council members (out of how many? I forget.) - Kuwaiti elections in which women were allowed to vote and
hold office for the first time. - Municipal elections in Saudi Arabia (still all male; and only to
a proportion of the seats on the new municipal councils); competitive
parliamentary elections in Jordan, Morocco, and Bahrain (all of which
had some notable flaws); and multiparty Presidential elections in
Yemen.
So his love of democracy is definitely very partial– and heavily politicized. As we can see, later on, when he gets back to talking about Iran again:
President called on the regime in Tehran to heed the will of the
Iranian people and make itself accountable to them.
The day will come when the people of Iran have a government that
embraces liberty and justice, and Iran joins the community of free
nations. When that day comes, Iran will have no better friend
than the
United States.
He seems not to be aware that Iran does have regular, very
consequential elections. Though these elections are far from
perfectly designed from a democratic-theory standpoint, still, they do
impose on the country’s leaders a far greater degree of accountability
to the citizenry than is provided, for example, in any of the Arab countries of the
Gulf. So it seems strange that, speaking in Abu Dhabi, one of the
main criticisms he expresses of Iran concerns the flaws in the nature
of its democracy!
He also seems clearly to be spelling out that (under him) the US will
be doing nothing to normalize its long-strained relations with Iran– until “The day … when the
people of Iran have a government that
embraces liberty and justice.”
This is the extremist, highly ideological view of the nature of
diplomacy espoused by Natan Shcharansky (and Elliott Abrams): that
purportedly “democratic” countries should not do any “normal” business
with countries ruled in different ways. It is a recipe for
continuing confrontation, continuing instability.
The Shcharansky Approach is also the one the Bush administration has
adopted wholeheartedly with respect to the Palestinian issue.
Namely, that the Palestinians may “deserve” a state– but they
shouldn’t get it until after
they have created a whole set of (indirectly US-controlled) made-in-US
national institutions. This is, of course, a travesty of the
whole tradition of “national liberation”, not to mention national
independence. It is no more George Bush’s business how the
Palestinians rule themselves than it is Mahmoud Abbas’s business how
the US rules itself.
That UN “thing”
And here’s a rhetorical highlight from another portion of the Bush
trip: namely, the “Joint
Press Availability” (i.e. press conference) that Bush and Abbas
held in the Muqata in Ramallah, January 10.
Yes, that was the same event where Bush had a broad little chuckle
about how trivial the whole problem of the Israeli checkpoints was for
him…
Later, there came this exchange with a journalist:
Q Mr. President George Bush — you
launched war against Iraq
after the Iraqi leadership refused to implement the United Nations
resolutions. My question now is, what is the problem to ask Israel just
to accept and to respect the United Nations resolutions relating to the
Palestinian problem, which — facilitating the achievement of ending
the
Israeli occupation to the Arab territories and facilitating also the
solution between Palestinians and the Israelis?
And for Mahmoud Abbas, did you ask
President George Bush to ask
Israel to freeze settlements fully in order to enable negotiations from
success?
PRESIDENT BUSH: Yes, but tell me the part
about the U.N. thing
again? What were you — I couldn’t understand you very well. {Why not? Seems quite clear to me!]
Q I just asked why you ask Israel to
accept the United Nations
resolutions related to the Palestinian problem, just to facilitate the
solution, and to end the occupation.
PRESIDENT BUSH: Actually, I’m asking
Israel to negotiate in good
faith with an elected leader of the Palestinian Territory to come up
with a permanent solution that — look, the U.N. deal didn’t work
in the
past. And so now we’re going to have an opportunity to redefine the
future by having a state negotiated between an elected leader of the
Palestinian people, as well as the Prime Minister of Israel.
This is an
opportunity to move forward. And the only way for — the only way to
defeat the terrorists in the long run is to offer an alternative vision
that is more hopeful. And that’s what we’re attempting to do, sir.
We
can stay stuck in the past, which will yield nothing good for
the Palestinians, in my judgment. We can chart a hopeful future, and
that’s exactly what this process is intending to do; to redefine
the
future for the Palestinian citizens and the Israelis.
I’m confident that two democratic states
living side by side in
peace is in the interests not only of the Palestinians and the
Israelis,
but of the world. The question is whether or not the hard issues can be
resolved and the vision emerges, so that the choice is clear amongst
the
Palestinians — the choice being, do you want this state, or do you
want
the status quo? Do you want
a future based upon a [made-in-the-US]
democratic state, or
do you want the same old stuff? And that’s a choice that I’m
confident
that if the Palestinian people are given, they will choose peace.
And so that’s what we’re trying to do,
sir.
So he considers the UN to be old hat. It is no longer relevant to his
version of Israeli-Palestinian peace diplomacy. Maybe someone
should tell Ban Ki-Moon that? And tell the other four permanent
members of ther UN Security Council, too? What role, I wonder%0
Kuwaiti elections in which women were allowed to vote and hold office for the first time.
Just to those who did not follow the Kuwaiti politics closely, the only female Minster Noryiah Al-Sabieh (Minster of education and literacy) under intensive pressure in the pass 6 moths, there are calls to be sacked because of few child’s sex scandals which I believe has long roots before this poor Minster came to the office.
So the female and women in Kuwait’s have a long road to achieve their freedom, comparing with Saudis it’s just a jock when we talking about woman freedom there.
There is ش recent incident in conference hold in UAE a Saudi representative was defending Saudi women freedom inside the conference she abuse one of the women activists (Saudi women freedom activist) she was inside that conference which she highlights the issue of women freedom in the “Kingdom of Darkness” she insulted by Saudi representative
The Bush Doctrine, as it has evolved, and as it is described in the National Security Strategy, calls for preemptive strikes on countries aiding terrorists and the promotion of democracy around the world, under the theory that democratic states won’t support terrorism.
Now we have Bush Doctrine II emphasizing stability and economic growth including trade and investment, along with democracy. No more preemptive invasions?
Most of Bush’s speech was nonsense, of course, and I’m sure his Arab audience knows that far better than we do. “The United States has no desire for territory.” Tell that to the Iraqis. “[America] stood with the people of Asia.” Tell that to the people of Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos. “America will do our part [on I/P].” Tell that to the Palestinians. “[America] kept our faith in freedom.” Tell that to the Pakistanis. “liberty and justice” Tell that to the Egyptians and Saudis (and Americans).
With all the advice Bush gave Palestinians — Oppose the extremists and terrorists who represent the greatest threat to a Palestinian state — Bush said nothing about Israel’s announcements of its insistence to continue its settlement policy in the occupied Palestinian territories – the latest of which was the announcement of the construction of new housing units in the settlement of Ras al-Amud in East Jerusalem
Bush didn’t threaten any more invasions, but his rhetoric against Iran was inflammatory. The concern is that all of the talk about moving the peace process is just a smokescreen for the visit’s main objective, which is to mobilize countries of the area in the Gulf region against the ‘Iranian threat’ in preparation for setting policies or taking escalatory steps against Iran.–from Akhbar Elyom, Egypt
Incidentally, the phrase “liberty and justice” is not found in the Constitution (though it probably should be) but in the Pledge of Allegiance.
“preemptive strikes”
Pardon me for unleashing my pedantic streak here, but this almost universal misuse of the term preemptive is one of my “things”. Calling them preemptive strikes is giving Bush and his doctrine too much credit. The correct term is preventive, not preemptive. For a strike to be preemptive it requires a threat that is both real and imminent. Certainly the attack on Iraq, and the threatened attack on Iran do not rise to the level of preemption, nor in my view does anything advocated by the “Bush doctrine” qualify as preemption.
End of pedantry attack (for now).
Ruth S. King writes about President George W. Bush’s Middle East tour:
Shirin,
Hey, language matters. Now that I look up “preemptive” I see that it pertains to buying — literally “previous purchase” so it clearly seems inappropriate, except its fourth meaning has come into use –“marked by the seizing of initiative: initiated by oneself (a — attack).” “Preventive” would seem to apply to your description involving a real threat, otherwise there’s nothing to prevent. But as you indicate there was no real threat.
Let’s compromise with “criminal” for aggression initiated under this US policy:
“We must be prepared to stop rogue states and their terrorist clients before they are able to threaten or use weapons of mass destruction against the United States and our allies and friends.”
Well, Don, I was referring not so much to the dictionary definition, but the concept as it is understood in international law. I don’t recall the exact language right now, but it does require that there be a threat, and that the threat be clear (not sure that is the word, though), and imminent (that IS the word).
But I do agree that aggression is by far the most accurate term for what we are talking about.
Ooops – well, somehow all that underscoring must have confused my little mind. Criminal is certainly accurate. I would go for criminal aggression, although that IS rather redundant.
It is taken directly from the U.S. Constitution
Actually, from the pledge of allegiance. Bush hasn’t read the Constitution!
🙂
Bush: “A great new era is unfolding before us. . .Here in Abu Dhabi, we see clearly the outlines of this future.”
CIA Factbook (UAE): “Suffrage: none”
Daniel Levy has four thoughtful comments about Bushs’ Mideast tour:
1) He’s serious… 2) Still playing catch up on content… 3) A prisoner of his own ideology [I certainly agree with this point!]… 4) Discounted in the Gulf [I really hope so.]
On the other hand, this bit by Chris Hedges was amusing in all its cynical glory (and right on target).
Bush: “so that the choice is clear amongst the Palestinians — the choice being, do you want this state, or do you want the status quo?”
So clearly Bush is betting that the Palestinians will capitulate and accept a state (any state) that he ordains, rather than continue with the status quo. It seems to me a serious miscalculation.
Having seen a little of the way Palestinians are forced to live under Israeli occupation, I believe that there is a real chance that many , if not most, will accept anything that will make their lives and those of their children at least tolerable. Even the Israeli/US statelet they are being offered. Life is short and eventually most people recognize futility against overwhelming force. It is much easier for us here, comfortably in the US to demand justice and human rights for the Palestinians than it is for those who have to live with the results of those just demands day after day, year after year, decade after decade.
Jack, based on the Palestinians I know best who are living under occupation, most of whom are not revolutionaries, but just ordinary folks trying to live their lives and raise their families, I would not bet on your scenario for a number of reasons. For one thing, they realize that from a purely practical perspective the “generous offers” Palestinians have received so far do not have any real long-term viability, and probably would not really offer them a significant degree of relief anyway. The likelihood that anything Bush, who is clearly incapable of empathy, would cook up with Olmert would not be any better than previous generous offers.
I really don’t believe that the majority of Palestinians are going to be able to accept anything less than full independence and self-determination on a contiguous piece of territory approximately equal in size to pre-1967 Palestine. And I really don’t believe that Bush is planning to try to make such an offer come about. And why should he? I mean, after all, his convoy of forty-some vehicles breezed right through the checkpoint.
Hi all. Thanks for your comments and the correction on the Pledge of Allegiance. I’m sorry about the errors in the original post. Opportunities for posting and reposting to the blog are not totally optimal from my present perch in Syria.
But it’s very interesting being here anyway.