Who killed the Bush doctrine?
- Информация о материале
- Автор: Michael Rubin
Haaretz September 30, 2005
http://www.meforum.org/article/767
On January 20, 2005, George W. Bush outlined the goal of his second
term. "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," he said. "All who live
in tyranny and hopelessness can know: the United States will not ignore
your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty,
we will stand with you."
Less than a year later, the Bush doctrine is dead, the victim not of
outside circumstances, but rather lack of will and ineptness. While Bush
may be sincere, across the Middle East, his administration's willingness
to sacrifice those seeking freedom has become legendary.
Take Libya: On March 12, 2004, Bush declared, "We stand with courageous
reformers ... Earlier today, the Libyan government released Fathi el-Jahmi.
He's a local government official who was imprisoned in 2002 for advocating
free speech and democracy. It's an encouraging step toward reform in Libya.
You probably have heard, Libya is beginning to change her attitude about
a lot of things.
Actually, Libyan strongman Muammar Qadhafi had not changed. Two weeks
later, Libyan security rearrested Jahmi. Across the Middle East, analysts
saw Qadhafi's actions as a challenge to Bush. The President responded not
by tying rapprochement to El-Jahmi's freedom, but with impotence. As El-Jahmi
rots in prison, denied medical care for his diabetes, the U.S. Treasury
Department grants waivers to allow billions of dollars of U.S. investment
in Libya. According to the London-based Al-Hayat newspaper, Secretary of
State Condoleezza Rice will endorse Qadhafi's reign with a November visit
to Tripoli.
The liberation of Iraq demonstrated that after years of effete diplomacy,
the White House meant what it said. Bush reversed that victory.
It should be no surprise that Qadhafi has since gone on a rampage.
In May 2005, he imprisoned dissident writer Abdul Razzaq al-Mansouri. In
June 2005, regime elements tortured to death dissident journalist Daif
al-Ghazal. Hundreds of political prisoners remain in Libyan jails.
The Bush administration also fumbled Lebanon. On March 8, 2005, Bush
spoke at the National Defense University. "Today I have a message for the
people of Lebanon," he said. "Lebanon's future will be in your hands. The
American people are on your side." Perhaps many Americans were, but not
the State Department.
When Condoleezza Rice visited Lebanon on July 22, she met not only
with the new Prime Minister Fuad Siniora, but also with pro-Syrian President
Emile Lahoud, the man whose quest for an extra-constitutional third term
began the cascade that led to the assassination of former Prime Minister
Rafiq Hariri and sparked the Cedar Revolution. Syrian television, Hezbollah's
Al-Manar channel, and the Arabic-language satellite station Al-Jazeera
all broadcast her handshake with the symbol of tyranny.
The Lebanese were not alone in their betrayal. Egyptians were aghast
when, on September 11, new U.S. Ambassador Frank Ricciardone appeared on
Egyptian television and declared, "Let me just reiterate the congratulations
of the United States of America to Egypt for this great accomplishment.
As you know, President Bush has telephoned President Mubarak ... to congratulate
him and Egypt on the accomplishments of this past election."
Four days earlier, Mubarak had declared victory in elections marred
by harassment of opponents, fraud, and the state's refusal to allow international
monitors access. The Egyptian people, in protest, boycotted the polls.
Voter turnout was only 20 percent. Rather than support the Egyptian people,
the President's representative fawned on a dictator. Sometimes, silence
can be the best response.
Embrace of autocracy has become the rule rather than the exception
in U.S. foreign policy. At the request of the Palestinian Authority, the
State Department banned Issam Abu Issa, a Palestinian anti-corruption activist
slated to testify in the House of Representatives.
Bush declared during his 2005 State of the Union Address, "To the Iranian
people, I say tonight, as you stand for your own liberty, America stands
with you." But Rice appointed an ExxonMobil advisor who advised against
aiding dissidents to cover the State Department's Iran policy planning
portfolio.
Against the backdrop of Bush's indifference, Turkish democracy has
taken a step backward. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has
both ignored rulings of the Turkish Supreme Court and retaliated against
plaintiffs. After Turkish businessman Mustafa Suzer won five lawsuits against
the Turkish government for its illegal seizure of Kent Bank, Erdogan not
only refused to abide by the court verdict, but he also ordered a travel
ban on Suzer and, without any court order, sent bulldozers to demolish
a restaurant on his property.
Emboldened by Washington's silence and frustrated at the constraints
of an independent judiciary, the Turkish leader has used his parliamentary
majority to lower the retirement age of judges so that he can replace nearly
half of Turkey's 9,000 judges before the next election.
As they do with Bush, the chattering classes of Europe, Israel, and
the American elite once criticized Reagan for his talk of the "Evil Empire"
and his willingness to endanger detente for the sake of a few dissidents.
Reagan was right, though, and more than two hundred million Soviets had
a chance at freedom because of it.
Bush might have been equally successful. Images of Iraqis, Afghans,
and Lebanese voting are more powerful than any terrorist car bomb or Al-Qaida
video. Armchair experts may say Iraq's liberation emboldened terrorists.
But the pages of Arabic newspapers like Al-Sharq al-Awsat and Al-Hayat
now carry an unprecedented debate about democracy, which experts said could
not happen. Liberals may be a minority in the Arab world, but they have
begun to find their voice.
Rice may echo the President, but by embracing dictators, she has undercut
the spirit of his message. Dissidents should not be treated as ornaments,
to be displayed when convenient but kept at arm's length. They are the
foundation of freedom. While Bush might once have been remembered for bringing
freedom to 30 million Afghans and 25 million Iraqis, his legacy is fast
becoming one of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
Michael Rubin, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute,
is editor of the Middle East Quarterly.
Russian version
An introduction to MAOF
Haim Goldman
Haim Goldman
Dear Friends,
Would you believe that the undersigned has anything in common with
-- Professor Victor Davis Hanson (Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University),
-- Dr Charles Krauthammer, (Washington Post, Time, The Weekly Standard),
-- Caroline Glick (Deputy Managing Editor of the Jerusalem Post),
-- Jonathan Tobin (Executive Editor of the Philadelphia Jewish Exponent).
Amazingly, the editors of the MAOF website decided that the missives of the undersigned are worthy of translation and posting along the articles written by these distinguished authors.
The first letter was published without the consent of the undersigned.
However, after thorough examination of the laudable attitude of MAOF and of the excellent contents of the website, the undersigned had most graciously granted his permission for publication of his missives in both English and Russian.
“Analytical Group MAOF” [1] is an organisation founded about ten years ago by Russian-speaking Jewish intellectuals. The attitude of MAOF is definitely pro-Zionist -- unambiguously and unapologetically.
One of MAOF’s primary purposes is providing information and analysis about Middle-Eastern and world affairs as well as about Israel’s history, values and dilemmas. In addition to extensive publication activity in various media, MAOF also organises excursions and seminars. While the vast majority of the contents of the MAOF website is in Russian, texts originally written in English are provided in the original [2] as well as in Russian.
There are arguably about 250 millions of Russian-speakers worldwide and many of them do not read English. The indisputable motivation for the author’s permission was to grant those millions of disadvantaged people the grand benefit of reading the author’s ruminations. If the author is ever maliciously accused that his tacit motivation for authorising the publication was his craving to be listed along with the above-mentioned distinguished writers, his plea will definitely be “nolo contendere”.
The editors of MAOF expressed their gratitude by granting the undersigned a privilege that no other author got – the opportunity to review and correct the Russian translation before publication. The original letters of the undersigned are at [3] and their Russian version is at [4]. At of today, only two letters are posted but several other letters are pending translation.
You are kindly ENCOURAGED TO RECOMMEND the MAOF website to your friends and colleagues worldwide, particularly those who speak Russian. Those who do not enjoy the benefit of proficiency in the exquisite Russian language can find many thought-provoking and inspiring articles about Middle-Eastern and world affairs in the English section [2].
Sincerely,
Haim Goldman
28.10.2006
REFERENCES:
[1] http://maof.rjews.net
[2] section.php3? sid=37&num=25
[3] authorg.php3? id=2107&type=a
[4] authorg.php3? id=2166&type=a