June 6, 2007
Why Bush’s latest speech is worth listening to
President Bush made a really good speech in Prague yesterday. Unfortunately, his credibility is so shot that hardly anybody paid attention. The only bits that were widely picked up were his remarks on Russia, in which he expressed a completely justified concern at the "troubling implications for democratic development" of the Putin government’s recent actions.
But the whole speech deserves to be read. It is a well argued and principled defence of Bush’s "freedom agenda" - his belief that the US should stand up for human rights and democracy around the world. Unfortunately, America’s disastrous effort to export democracy by force of arms to Iraq - added to the abuse of civil liberties at Guantanamo and elsewhere - has discredited the whole Bush doctrine. But a less militarised version of the "freedom agenda" is worth defending, even if Bush is now the wrong messenger.
In a key passage in the speech, Bush restated the idea that the roots of terrorism lie in the frustrations of people living under oppressive regimes. He said -
"In dark and repressive corners of the world, whole generations grew up with no voice in their government and no hope in their future. This life of oppression bred deep resentment. And for many, resentment boiled over into radicalism and extremism and violence. The world saw the result on September the 11th, 2001, when terrorists based in Afghanistan sent 19 suicidal men to murder nearly 3,000 innocent people in the United States."
Like any sweeping statment, this one is way too simple. But it is, at least, a more nuanced approach than the arguments made by others in the US, who regard the whole of the Islamic world as implacably hostile to the west.
The charge frequently chucked at Bush’s "freedom agenda" is that it relies on double-standards. The US attacks (sometimes literally) dictatorships that are regarded as a strategic threat - like Iraq or Afghanistan - while turning a blind eye to oppressive regimes that are regarded as useful allies. So it was significant that Bush went out of his way to criticise friendly governments like Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. The question of what to do about Pakistan is becoming particularly urgent, with the latest wave of arrests of opposition figures.
The "what to do" question is never an easy one, given all the strategic and economic interests at stake for the US. In his much-quoted remarks on Russia (and China), Bush tried to strike a balance - the US has to try to have a constructive relationship with countries of this size and importance. But, equally, it’s not going to shut up about human-rights and democracy. That approach is always vulnerable to charges of hypocrisy. But it still seems about right.
I think Putin is not trying to be a good president (in a sense to make russian people happy) - what he tries to do is to get some ‘respect’. In CIS countries, respect is equivalent to fear.
Posted by: Russian | June 7th, 2007 at 12:23 am | Report this comment“‘WHAT TO DO ABOUT IRAQ, IRAN, N KOREA (& OTHER ‘WAR-ON-TERROR’ NATIONS)?’ REQUIRES USA ‘SHARING’ LEADERSHIP”
The USA, United Kingdom & allies making war against & invading Iraq in March, 2003- on the face of it- was motivated by entirely uncriticizable agenda’s.
The “war-in-Iraq” ended several weeks after the invasion, with the surrender of Iraq’s impotent forces. But this term has incorrectly been substituted to describe what can only authentically be termed an “occupation”- for over 4-years.
Why? Possibly because making war is inestimably cheaper, and far easier, than building a democratic, rule-of-law nation from the shattered remains of a maladministered, long-term dictatorship. Few politicians will institute controversial measures like significant new taxes or conscription (in USA-’draft’) without clearly exhibited voter support- in advance…
The disastrous ‘occupation of Iraq’ needs to be ‘done right’- not irresponsibly abandoned.
After WW II, the Allied occupation of defeated Germany & Japan lasted much longer than Iraq’s occupation has so far.
The main differences between, for example, Japan’s 1945-‘52 occupation & Iraq 2003-‘07 is that the occupiers of Japan went in knowing they needed to establish a functional democratic governance model, & they believed that establishing democracy… involved facilitating positive change IN ALL AREAS OF JAPANESE LIFE + were prepared to provide for many years- the huge levels of resources required for this:
http://www.columbia.edu/itc/eacp/japanworks/japan/japanworkbook/modernhist/occupation.html
In Iraq, unfortunately, it appears that occupation decision-makers believed- or hoped- that a human-rights-based democratic-governance-model would just fall into place on its own… without realistic levels of resources- or detailed planning- provided by the occupiers & without years of occupier-enforced positive changes in all areas of Iraqi life.
Worse, there was no overt recognition that successful democratization would necessitate a prolonged, extensive troop presence.
Why prolonged & extensive? Because setting loose the freedoms of any people- inclined to democracy or not- who have for decades been subjugated to the whims & abuses of a barbaric dictator & his accomplices can only result in an unprincipled, often greedy grab for power by some of those previously subjugated.
To avoid this & the chaos resulting, the INSTITUTION OF A TEMPORARY NATIONAL CONSTITUTION with a boilerplate set of secular laws; articulated human-rights; & national-cohesion-mandating clauses was necessary + needed to be held-in-place (for years) while Iraqi society became acclimatized to their new democratic environment & the country as a whole developed “democratic inertia”.
Part of the reason this didn’t occur is that it would have mandated adequate (ie massive) levels of troops/reconstruction experts-> numbers large enough to maintain peace while facilitating the establishment of new, fully-enfranchised civic, provincial & national governments & their infrastructures; as well as conducting a national census & setting up functional delivery structures for vital social services basics such as health, education, sewers, electricity & water delivery.
The troop numbers needed for the above are far higher than what the USA, United Kingdom & allies could comfortably commit to- after the refusal of major military powers such as France, Russia & Germany to take part.
Now, in 2007, the melt-down of an inadequately resourced, insufficiently planned occupation of Iraq is in full swing- with far reaching egregious results… potentially effecting not only the innocent citizenry of Iraq & countries of its region, but also- disastrously- the wider world.
What is needed?? An acknowledgment by the developed world, esp G8 nations & Nato, that:
- the unconscionable problems in Iraq are of direct concern to all & are of such a serious nature that coordinated, expensive intervention is warranted;
- ‘fixing Iraq’ requires fixing Iraq’s region’s most destructive & urgent problems- no matter what the cost in ego’s or $$;
- immediate, open-minded steps must be taken to bring countries neighboring Iraq into strategic cooperation with its present/future occupiers.
To achieve strategic cooperation, the occupiers’ ‘deputizing’ Iran &/or Syria is unrealistic & likely unworkable. But, neutralizing these pivotal, influential countries’ decades-old enmity & hostility towards the USA/allies is, besides being long overdue, vital.
How? Led by the United Kingdom, & the USA, + perhaps Japan/China, the developed world ought to (among other steps):
- offer Iran the 2012 Olympics, with guaranties of significant logistical & financial support. Other states in the region could participate, with a regional Olympic games an objective;
- offer both Iran (& N Korea) the rights to be exclusive locations for the International Thermonuclear Energy Research project (ITER,
http://www.iter.org , …in planning stages, recently awarded to Cadarache, France).
Doing this would in effect call-their-bluff about needing secretive nuclear technology development programmes. The ITER project is ‘international’ by its design & nature, thereby enabling competent oversight-> precluding misuse of the project’s resources.
- Additionally, offer to pay for & partner-in-the-building-of significant infrastructure for (N Korea, & possibly) Iran, of a type that will instill national-prestige, as well as facilitating an improved connectedness- both physical & psychological- to the outside world.
Japan’s new Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe, advocates more assertiveness & a greater global role for his country.
These objectives could be amply accomplished, productively, by Japan supporting strategies like ITER & the 2012 Olympics, & participating in the paying for & construction of a Japanese-type high-speed “bullet” train to connect the 2 Koreas’ to each other & to south China.
A Pan-Korean peninsula high-speed rail link could only contribute to, & make more permanent the existent but very limited, trade & industry connections between the troubled North & prosperous South.
If accepted, overtures such as the ITER project, 2012 Olympics & infrastructure would enable global stages where these 2 egotistically defensive country’s (I+ many Muslim nation’s) could feel that they can show their positive potential & achievements & as well- meeting the developed world’s political objectives- would effectively require these countries to “fit”, & “work with”, the world community.
Offering the ITER project & the 2012 Olympics + committing to pay-for & partner in building infrastructure would go a long way to eliminating Iraq’s neighboring countries’ (+ other Muslim nations/people’s) & North Korea’s perceptions of threat-> removing motivations for nuclear weapons & long-range missile programmes-> &/or counter-productively interfering in Iraq.
Parts of the middle east have been a “level-ten” pressing problem for most of the last 4 decades, while effectively, the developed word- in terms of decisive actions- has done nothing to deal with them…
Iraq’s execrable & worsening situation calls for objective, ego-less international deliberation, & actions….
Without such, the world-region with the highest latent capacity to inflict catastrophic damages to international economies & to
world-stability-> will be being implicitly invited to continue its slide into a region of ticking nuclear time-bombs-> with more than bruised politicians’ ego’s the result…
Roderick V. Louis,
Posted by: Roderick V. Louis | June 7th, 2007 at 2:47 am | Report this comment(near) Vancouver, Canada,
ceo@patientempowermentsociety.com
And the saddest part is that if they had won over the Iraqis to their purpose by adequate post bellum planning, GW Bush would now be seen as one of the greatest Presidents and the Republican ascendancy would have been guaranteed for the foreseeable future; many oppressed people would have taken heart and hope from a free Iraq. It would have taken about half a million soldiers and a type of government akin to the postwar administration in Germany or Japan in a country of 25 million; it would have been doable. But the incompetence and impatience of key people caused Pentagon planning to be scaled back, Dept of State planning to be discarded and important allies to be ignored. Unwilling to wait through the summer to launch the invasion in autumn, the administration pushed for a spring invasion that nobody was ready for.
The intent was noble, one only has to visit the Iraqi north to appreciate the benefits that freedom brings; it is incomplete and fragile but Iraqi Kurdistan is showing that, given a fertile soil, this seed can turn into a powerful beneficial and practical force for people. And that’s precisely why repressive regimes in Syria and Iran have been trying to crush whatever hope there was left in the rest of Iraq, because as freedom manifests itself the legitimacy of their repression is undermined. As our recent European history has shown it is proper and right to hope and fight for the freedom of every human being because who are we becoming if we start to take the words of a people’s dictator as the expression of that people’s will?
The stupidity of the Bush administration has set us back, and their tendency to spin and warp the truth seems to have infected many with disdain for rationalism and ethics. Moral relativism has become fashionable, suddenly the propaganda issued by small cliques of repressive oligarchs is being contrasted with information issued by bureaucracies under transparent parliamentary control as if they were equivalent; suddenly morality, freedom and ethics have become meaningless words. George Orwell is spinning in his grave as soulless relativism coupled with contempt for democratic leadership is restricting our discourse and creating our self imposed newspeak. “Has it ever occurred to your, Winston, that by the year 2050, at the very latest, not a single human being will be alive who could understand such a conversation as we are having now?” There is that risk. Thanks for the inspiring piece Mr. Rachman!
Posted by: Felix Drost, Amsterdam NL | June 7th, 2007 at 2:54 am | Report this commentOK, here’s a ready test for Bush to show what he is made of:
We have seen that Blair has hidden behind spurious claims of “National Security” to sweep the whole thing under the carpet. If Bush is honest, he should come out and condemn Prince Bandar who is the Neocons’ favourite Saudi and an arch-ally of the current US administration.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6728773.stm
Will they do it? I don’t think so but I’d love to be proved wrong.
P
Posted by: Pacifist | June 7th, 2007 at 3:01 pm | Report this commentBush, like so many american statesmen and almost all US diplomats, does the right thing in the wrong manner, whilst the europeans (almost all countries in the last century) will often act the other way around : do the wrong thing in the right manner. If we take a 100 years of “acts” (diplomacy, intervention, support…) into consideration, I think the US record is by far the best, concerning the support of democracy and fighting opression. Just for the record I would rank the UK a close second.
Posted by: Antoine Raymond | June 7th, 2007 at 3:43 pm | Report this commentAuthor: You must be some kind of deranged human being. The CIA operates illegal torture camps around the world. USA respects no one. Bush is a monster. Do you need some help or do you and truth mix like vinegar and oil?
Posted by: James Blair | June 10th, 2007 at 10:32 pm | Report this commentIf the US can place nuclear missiles in Poland, then it is evident Russia can place nuclear missiles in Cuba and Venezuela. That´s only EVIDENT.
Posted by: Enrique | June 11th, 2007 at 5:42 am | Report this commentPoor rich Bush.
He has had paid professionals doing his thinking for him almost since birth. That’s why he failed to personally complete a due diligence investigation of the task before him in Iraq.
The neocon elite, mostly patriots of Israel, scammed him into believing that he could seize the post 911 moment in a bold military gamble to stabilize the middle east and prop up the disastrously fragile oil economy for another couple of decades.
This is of course impossible. Islam is on a course to destruction and only their oil wealth keeps them hanging on. Get rid of our neeed to import oil and we get rid of militant Islam.
The oil men want to make money, but they are spending our money and blood to do it. We must solve technological problems with technology, not force.
Bush’s basic facts were wrong. Iraq is not a nation. It is a British-made agglomeration of mutually hostile tribes that were penned together behind an arbitrary border to make it easier to rule over them.
None of them liked the British, but they liked and trusted each other less, so they tolerated the reasonably honest, efficient and fair rule of their Imperial masters.
The only way that the mess called Iraq can be ruled over is through a policy of reward for loyalty as well as reprisal and mass tribal punishment for disloyalty.
Such a policy requires a knowledge of who leads what tribe and the will to bribe, depose or kill those leaders who are hostile, and reward the loyal men with a share of oil wealth as well as the settling on them of the goods and lands of former enemies.
Bush, in his revolting innocence, thought that Iraq was like America, with a population with no personal tribal loyalties, a population that could be lead by American style mass media persuasion.
The mosque is the only media in an Arab conquered land. We do not control it because we do not know how to bribe the people who appoint and remove the imams.
The people of that place need a Saddam or a Raj to keep it together. Without that sort of leadership it will inevitably fall into tribal statelets that will be snapped up by the neighboring nations. That is why Iran and Turkey are preparing their forces.
Posted by: Sagebrush Jim | June 11th, 2007 at 6:24 am | Report this comment