After the president’s rationale(s) for the war in Iraq fell apart, the White House crafted a post-hoc rationalization for the invasion — the United States was committed, above all else, to spreading democracies and toppling dictators across the globe. For Bush, this met our idealistic goals (spreading freedom), and our practical goals (more democracy means better security).
It was always a dubious proposition, more politically convenient than ideologically heartfelt. Indeed, for all of the president’s talk about democracy being “God’s gift to humanity,” there’s no evidence Bush takes his own principles seriously at all. After Pervez Musharraf’s recent crackdown, which included arresting Supreme Court justices and shutting down independent media, Bush praised Musharraf as “truly is somebody who believes in democracy.” He did not appear to be kidding.
As Newsweek’s Michael Hirsh explained, the president’s trip to the Middle East this week hammered this point home.
A day after George W. Bush gave his big democracy speech and declared the opening of “a great new era … founded on the equality of all people” — a line he delivered at the astonishingly opulent Emirates Palace hotel, where most of the $2,450-a-night suites are reserved for visiting royals — the president flew to Saudi Arabia on Monday. There he planned to spend a day with King Abdullah at his ranch, where the monarch keeps 150 Arabian stallions for his pleasure, and thousands of goats and sheep “bred to feed the guests at the King’s royal banquets,” as the White House put it in the “press kit” it handed out to reporters on the eve of the president’s eight-day Mideast tour. Bush was also expected to take time out to meet with a group of “Saudi entrepreneurs.”
What could not be found on Bush’s schedule was one Saudi dissident or political activist, much less a democrat.
What a surprise.
Just a day after his speech in Abu Dhabi — and three years after declaring in his second inaugural address that “it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture” — the president made time for a tour of Saudi Arabia’s National History Museum but not for a meeting with Fouad al-Farhan. Farhan, Saudi Arabia’s most popular blogger, was arrested in Jidda last month for daring to defend a group of Saudis who wanted to form a civil rights group.
OK, you get my point. Bush’s words were, for the most part, seen as empty here. Especially since there was no follow-up. This is a part of the world where tribal sheikdoms have scarcely modified their medievalism, much less embraced democracy — even as their petro-dollars bring in Frank Gehry and other famous names, wrapping their Potemkin city-states in 21st-century glamour. I understand that Bush must engage in some realpolitik at the moment. This is no time to undermine the Arab regimes. It’s important to rally them against Iran’s nuclear program and to enlist them in supporting the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. In addition, the worrisome rise of oil prices to around $100 a barrel has given the big producers even more leverage.
But if that’s so, then don’t plan a major democracy speech when you know you’re not going to act on it, with not even a symbolic move of any kind to accompany it. There’s a word for this kind of thing. It’s called hypocrisy.
It’s also called “more of the same.” I’m reminded of this Kevin Drum post from a while back, which highlights the fact that Bush’s democracy talk has always been more about rhetorical games than actual policy.
Prior to the invasion of Iraq, Bush barely even mentioned democracy promotion as a reason for war. In the 2003 State of the Union Address he devoted over a thousand words to Iraq and didn’t mention democracy once. Paul Wolfowitz specifically left out democracy promotion as a major goal of the war when he later recounted the administration’s internal decision making process for Sam Tannenhaus. Nor did the invasion itself envision democracy in Iraq as its goal. Rather, the plan was to install some favored exiles as proconsuls and reduce our military presence to 30,000 troops almost immediately. […]
What’s more, in the surrounding regions, Bush has shown himself to be exactly the type of realist he supposedly derides. Hamas won elections in Palestine and he immediately tried to undermine them. Egypt held sham elections and got nothing more than a bit of mild tut tutting. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia remain our closest allies. […]
These decisions may or may not be defensible, but they are plainly not the decisions of a man dedicated to spreading democracy — and the fact that he repeatedly says otherwise doesn’t change this. So once and for all, can we please stop hearing about democracy promotion as a central goal of the Bush administration? It’s just a slogan and nothing more.
The evidence to bolster the contention gets more overwhelming all the time.