One could be forgiven for thinking that given the unfolding debacle in Iraq, US President George W. Bush may have preferred to be a little more circumspect in his inaugural address, perhaps dwelling on domestic issues such as the economy. Instead, an apparently unbowed Bush delivered a forthright speech in which he pledged no less than bringing freedom and democracy to the benighted corners of the world.
During his 22-minute address, Bush said it is “the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.” The president affirmed his policy of “exporting freedom,” saying that: “The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.”
Of course, it is unclear exactly what sort of democracy Bush envisages for the rest of the world. After all, the democratic experiment underway in Iraq may well end up producing a Shiite-dominated, Islamist-tinted government in Baghdad more interested in a withdrawal of foreign troops and shoring up relations with its neighbors, including Syria and Iran, than doing the bidding of the Bush administration. Indeed, the transitional government that will be created from the January 30 elections will need all the credibility it can get given the predicted Sunni absence from the polls due to opposition to the process or fear of reprisals by insurgents.
It has been suggested that one way the new Iraqi government could bolster its nationalist credentials and address Sunni fears of marginalization is if it demands a timetable for the withdrawal of the coalition forces from Iraq. However, the turmoil in Iraq is such that Shiite candidates who had supported the call for a time-tabled withdrawal of foreign troops are changing their minds, fearing that the absence of an international protector could strengthen the position of the Sunni Baathist insurgents and their Islamist allies.
Still, even if Iraq begins to stabilize after the elections – which seems highly unlikely – the political evolution in that country portends an outcome far removed from the Bush administration’s pre-invasion dream of a US-friendly beacon of democracy shining the light of freedom on its autocratic neighbors while bestowing lucrative oil and reconstruction contracts to American companies and providing basing rights for US troops in perpetuity.
Letting people decide their own fate can be inimical to US foreign policy interests. For all President Bush’s fine words on freedom, Washington traditionally has favored a more hardheaded attitude toward the Arab world, supporting oppressive regimes and glossing over their inequities so long as they remain cooperative with the US. That realpolitik tradition is despised by the neo-conservative ideologues who view the world in black and white terms, favoring decisiveness over nuance, confrontation over subtlety. As such Bush’s vow to root out despotism wherever it is found and replace it with the seeds of democracy is music to their ears.
Indeed, instead of being chastened by the chaos in Iraq, the Bush administration appears to be on the offensive, increasing its political and diplomatic pressure on Syria and Iran. During her confirmation hearings, US Secretary of State designate Condoleeza Rice told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that “the time for diplomacy is now”. But the signals emanating from Washington remain bellicose rather than diplomatic. Anonymous administration officials have hinted darkly at possible military action against Syria for its alleged support for Iraqi insurgents and against Iran’s budding nuclear program.
It is hard to imagine that the Bush administration is seriously considering a major military campaign against Iran, not least because American forces are overstretched in Afghanistan and Iraq and there are insufficient funds for a new military adventure.
More likely, but still fraught with risk, are pin-point precision bombings of suspected Iranian nuclear sites. The New Yorker magazine reported in January that US special forces teams are in Iran scouting out potential targets. Furthermore, there have been sporadic reports for some months of suspected US planes penetrating Iranian airspace presumably for reconnaissance purposes.
Neo-conservatives who support a military strike against Iran are adopting the same mantra that helped fuel the march on Baghdad – that the Iranian people detest their theocratic rulers and would welcome regime change in Tehran. It is true that a large percentage of Iran’s youth resent the lack of individual and political liberties. Like much of the Middle East, Tehran and other Iranian cities abound with satellite dishes allowing people to tune into Western television broadcasts.
Many of Iran’s young – the “Nike-Levis-cellular-phone-user-Instant Messaging generation” – look towards America and the West with a certain amount of envy, yearning to join the international consumer community where a free society would give them the choice of selecting their own life-styles. But the Bush administration should understand that the instant the first American (or Israeli) bomb is dropped on Iran, these pro-Western Nike-Levis-clad, cell phone-IM-users will turn against the US as Iranian national pride kicks in.
If the Bush administration chooses to use the threat of military action to cow or even change the regimes in Damascus and Tehran, what tools will it use to promote democracy in other Arab countries, including its purported allies? For the real test of President Bush’s commitment to freedom and democracy is not in its stance toward countries like Syria and Iran, but in its attitude toward its allies in the Arab world, such as Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Tunisia. All those countries have less than satisfactory human rights records and little in the way of democratic traditions.
Bush said in his speech that “we will defend ourselves and our friends by force of arms when necessary,” while adding that promoting democracy was “not primarily the task of arms.” Yet Bush’s attempts to foster democracy without the use of the gun have been less than impressive. The Greater Middle East Initiative (GMEI), the Bush administration’s bid to encourage democratic reforms in the Middle East, met with a hostile reaction from Arab governments when its contents were leaked prematurely to the media a year ago. It was regarded as unwarranted meddling by the US in the Arab world’s internal affairs and derided for failing to refer to the Arab-Israeli conflict as a source of regional instability.
The subject of reform was tackled by Arab leaders with some reluctance at the Arab League summit in May. The result was the Tunis Declaration, a half-hearted commitment to promoting human rights, freedom of expression, judicial independence and widening the role of women in society. The following month, Bush unveiled a revised version of the GMEI (now known as the Broader Middle East and North Africa Initiative) at the G-8 summit in June, whereupon it promptly sank without trace.
How Bush intends to renew his push for democracy in the Arab world remains to be seen. Equally unclear is whether Bush is really willing to allow Arab countries to develop their own brand of democracy in tune with their cultural, social, religious and ethnic realities – which could result in governments hostile to the US.
Then there is the Bush administration’s policies toward Israel, the ultimate Achilles heel for US aspirations to promote democracy in the Arab world. For most Arabs, Bush’s unflinching support for Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and his aggressive policies toward the Palestinians simply makes a mockery of the US president’s sweeping declarations on “freedom and democracy”.
Arab civil society movements and human rights organizations are gradually emerging and are generally supportive of Bush’s broader aims on democracy. Yet the Bush administration’s constant excusing of Sharon’s excesses undermines the efforts of Arab reformists. Who, after all, wants to be seen allied with an American administration that endorses Israel’s permanent colonization of part of the West Bank and turns a blind eye to the Israeli Army’s violent tactics against the Palestinians.
Flights of rhetorical fancy on freedom and democracy at the inauguration of a president flushed with electoral victory is one thing. Translating those lofty aspirations into effective policy is something else entirely.
Nicholas Blanford is a Beirut-based correspondent. Claude Salhani is foreign editor and a political analyst with United Press International in Washington, DC
