I know Kevin and Matt already tackled this one, but this NYT piece from yesterday really annoyed me, too.
On Tuesday, Mr. Bush cast the stakes in stark terms, repeatedly invoking his desire to spread freedom and democracy, the central themes of his foreign policy. Those themes are hardly new to American presidents. Woodrow Wilson talked about making the world safe for democracy, while Ronald Reagan warned that “freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.”
But Mr. Bush, most experts agree, has taken the American freedom agenda to an entirely new level, by trying to foster democracy in nations that have not known it before, like Iraq and Afghanistan. Some historians have called it folly, and Mr. Bush conceded in an interview with conservative commentators last year that his critics believe he is “hopelessly idealistic.” (emphasis added)
I’d really hoped we were past this point by now. The very idea that there’s a genuine “American freedom agenda” is rather foolish, and the notion that “experts agree” that Bush has taken democracy promotion “to an entirely new level” may come directly from White House talking points, but that doesn’t make it true.
The NYT article makes it sound as if the war in Afghanistan was in some way related to spreading democracy. As I recall, we invaded the country and overthrew the Taliban because it protected al Qaeda and helped sponsor the 9/11 attacks.
As for Iraq, 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. He didn’t mention any of this before the war, but only because he was really busy. Or something.
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 crackdown in Pakistan, for example, which included arresting Supreme Court justices and shutting down independent media, Bush praised Musharraf as “truly is somebody who believes in democracy.” This, presumably, was part of the president’s goal of taking “the American freedom agenda to an entirely new level.”
Newsweek’s Michael Hirsh recently explained how Bush’s words are considered a joke in the Middle East.
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.
But, the New York Times tells us in a matter-of-fact news story, “most experts agree” that Bush is all about the democracy promotion. Where are these alleged “experts”? Remember, Bill Kristol and Condi Rice don’t count.