pinkeye
11-07-2003, 03:19 PM
from csmonitor.com
Bush speech greeted by praise, skepticism
MSNBC reports that President George Bush's speech about the need for democracy in the Middle East was greeted with both "rare praise" and severe skepticism in the region Thursday. While Mr. Bush made a similar speech six months before invading Iraq earlier this year, this was the first time he actually named states he felt needed to be transformed. Some Arab commentators called the speech "historic," because Bush acknowleged that the United States and other nations share blame for the lack of democratic freedoms in the Middle East.
"It is an historical speech, and I agree with what the president had to say, and this is the first time," said Hafez Abu Se’da, head of the Egyptian Organization for Human Rights. "It is a new vision from the United States now because they focus on democracy. For a long time, they focused on economy and commercial interests. It is historical because the United States is talking about democracy and the interest of the people in these countries."
But the Associated Press reports that others in the region say it was the "right message, but the wrong messenger."
"Arabs want democracy. They hate their corrupt regimes more than they hate the United States," wrote Abdul Bari Atwan, editor-in-chief of the London-based Arabic daily Al-Quds Al-Arabi. "But," he added, "they are not going to listen attentively to the speech of the American president, first, because the consecutive American administrations, in the past 50 years, supported those regimes ... And because all true democracies in the world came as a result of internal struggle, not due to foreign intervention, particularly American."
Other Arab commentators felt the speech did not go far enough in dealing with Israel's actions towards the Palestinians, or the real reasons for the invasion of Iraq.
Syrian political analyst Haitham Kilani told the AP that Bush's government is "not qualified to lead a democratic trend in the world," particularly in the Middle East. "How can we believe that the one who is biased in favor of Israel ... can bring acceptable democratic projects to the people of the region?" said another Syrian analyst, Imad Fawzi al-Shueibi.
Robin Wright of The Washington Post writes that Bush "waxed eloquent" Thursday about his dream of democracy coexisting with Islam, and transforming an important geostrategic region that has defiantly held out against the global tide of political change.
But Bush failed to acknowledge the tough realities that are likely to limit significant political progress in the foreseeable future: America's all-consuming commitment to fighting a global war on terrorism and confronting Islamic militancy. Washington still relies heavily on alliances with autocratic regimes to achieve these top priorities.
The Financial Times says that many in the Middle East, and around the world, however, will see the speech as little more than an attempt to justify the war in Iraq and a long-term commitment there, especially now that there appears little likelihood of finding weapons of mass destruction. The major problem for the US, the Times says, will be the perception that the US is only interested in democracy as long as countries have pro-American leadership. "Our surveys show people don't believe the US is interested in promoting democracy. No one believes the US is genuine," said Mustafa Hamarne, head of the Center for Strategic Studies at Jordan University. Khaled al-Maeena, editor-in-chief of the English language Arab News daily in Saudi Arabia asked how Bush could call for greater freedoms while ignoring "Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories."
"We in the Arab world believe that if freedom and democracy come in the area, they should come to all, not a selective group," he said. "We also demand freedom and democracy for the Palestinian people. Then (Bush's comments) would have credibility."
Islam Online notes that while people of the Middle East want democracy, Bush's call for change will not be "credible" in the eyes of the "Arab street."
"There is a lack of democracy but democracy cannot be imposed from outside," Mohammed Faeq, head of the Cairo-based Arab Organization for Human Rights, was quoted by Agence France-Presse (AFP) as saying. "Especially if it comes from the United States because it lacks credibility due to its support of Israel and its occupation of Iraq," Faeq added.
In an analysis piece, the BBC said the speech had two purposes: the first, was part of the Bush administration's larger campaign to get the American public to look past the first set of reasons given for the war with Iraq (WMD, how the US would be greeted as liberators, etc.), and see Iraq as part of a larger context. Second, since 9/11 the White House has concluded that "the biggest threat to US security is now posed by Islamic militants, and that the only long-term solution to that threat is reform of the Arab Muslim nations that produce those militants." The BBC's also offers a long page of world-wide response to President Bush's vision of democracy.
Leon Hadar, of the libertarian Cato Institute, writes in the Baltimore Sun that by pushing the "dream of democracy" for Iraq in the Middle East, President Bush is only "digging himself a deeper hole," and that the problem can be laid squarely at the feet of the neoconservatives in the Bush administration.
Mr. Bush should recognize before it's too late that, not unlike other dogmatic ideologues in history, the neo-conservative intellectuals who argue that Iraq could be turned into a shining model of democracy for the Middle East are advancing their own wishful thinking and political agendas. They are not advancing the interests of the rest of America.
The Washington Times, however, called the speech "Wilsonian" in its scope and vision. The paper compares Thursday's speech with Ronald Reagan's call for Mikhail Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall. It also says it should quiet some of the president's critics.
In recent weeks, skeptics, both domestic and foreign, have been making the assumption that Mr. Bush is looking for an exit strategy from Iraq. This speech should disabuse them of that theory. Rather, he is staking both his presidency and our national security on his conviction that he was strategically right to seek democracy in Iraq and the Middle East, even at the cost of temporary instability and higher casualties. We concur.
Meanwhile, The Times of India gleefully notes that India was held up as a paragon of democracy, while its arch-enemy, Pakistan, was "not listed ... as one of the countries following democratic norms as accepted by the international community."
Bush speech greeted by praise, skepticism
MSNBC reports that President George Bush's speech about the need for democracy in the Middle East was greeted with both "rare praise" and severe skepticism in the region Thursday. While Mr. Bush made a similar speech six months before invading Iraq earlier this year, this was the first time he actually named states he felt needed to be transformed. Some Arab commentators called the speech "historic," because Bush acknowleged that the United States and other nations share blame for the lack of democratic freedoms in the Middle East.
"It is an historical speech, and I agree with what the president had to say, and this is the first time," said Hafez Abu Se’da, head of the Egyptian Organization for Human Rights. "It is a new vision from the United States now because they focus on democracy. For a long time, they focused on economy and commercial interests. It is historical because the United States is talking about democracy and the interest of the people in these countries."
But the Associated Press reports that others in the region say it was the "right message, but the wrong messenger."
"Arabs want democracy. They hate their corrupt regimes more than they hate the United States," wrote Abdul Bari Atwan, editor-in-chief of the London-based Arabic daily Al-Quds Al-Arabi. "But," he added, "they are not going to listen attentively to the speech of the American president, first, because the consecutive American administrations, in the past 50 years, supported those regimes ... And because all true democracies in the world came as a result of internal struggle, not due to foreign intervention, particularly American."
Other Arab commentators felt the speech did not go far enough in dealing with Israel's actions towards the Palestinians, or the real reasons for the invasion of Iraq.
Syrian political analyst Haitham Kilani told the AP that Bush's government is "not qualified to lead a democratic trend in the world," particularly in the Middle East. "How can we believe that the one who is biased in favor of Israel ... can bring acceptable democratic projects to the people of the region?" said another Syrian analyst, Imad Fawzi al-Shueibi.
Robin Wright of The Washington Post writes that Bush "waxed eloquent" Thursday about his dream of democracy coexisting with Islam, and transforming an important geostrategic region that has defiantly held out against the global tide of political change.
But Bush failed to acknowledge the tough realities that are likely to limit significant political progress in the foreseeable future: America's all-consuming commitment to fighting a global war on terrorism and confronting Islamic militancy. Washington still relies heavily on alliances with autocratic regimes to achieve these top priorities.
The Financial Times says that many in the Middle East, and around the world, however, will see the speech as little more than an attempt to justify the war in Iraq and a long-term commitment there, especially now that there appears little likelihood of finding weapons of mass destruction. The major problem for the US, the Times says, will be the perception that the US is only interested in democracy as long as countries have pro-American leadership. "Our surveys show people don't believe the US is interested in promoting democracy. No one believes the US is genuine," said Mustafa Hamarne, head of the Center for Strategic Studies at Jordan University. Khaled al-Maeena, editor-in-chief of the English language Arab News daily in Saudi Arabia asked how Bush could call for greater freedoms while ignoring "Israel's occupation of Palestinian territories."
"We in the Arab world believe that if freedom and democracy come in the area, they should come to all, not a selective group," he said. "We also demand freedom and democracy for the Palestinian people. Then (Bush's comments) would have credibility."
Islam Online notes that while people of the Middle East want democracy, Bush's call for change will not be "credible" in the eyes of the "Arab street."
"There is a lack of democracy but democracy cannot be imposed from outside," Mohammed Faeq, head of the Cairo-based Arab Organization for Human Rights, was quoted by Agence France-Presse (AFP) as saying. "Especially if it comes from the United States because it lacks credibility due to its support of Israel and its occupation of Iraq," Faeq added.
In an analysis piece, the BBC said the speech had two purposes: the first, was part of the Bush administration's larger campaign to get the American public to look past the first set of reasons given for the war with Iraq (WMD, how the US would be greeted as liberators, etc.), and see Iraq as part of a larger context. Second, since 9/11 the White House has concluded that "the biggest threat to US security is now posed by Islamic militants, and that the only long-term solution to that threat is reform of the Arab Muslim nations that produce those militants." The BBC's also offers a long page of world-wide response to President Bush's vision of democracy.
Leon Hadar, of the libertarian Cato Institute, writes in the Baltimore Sun that by pushing the "dream of democracy" for Iraq in the Middle East, President Bush is only "digging himself a deeper hole," and that the problem can be laid squarely at the feet of the neoconservatives in the Bush administration.
Mr. Bush should recognize before it's too late that, not unlike other dogmatic ideologues in history, the neo-conservative intellectuals who argue that Iraq could be turned into a shining model of democracy for the Middle East are advancing their own wishful thinking and political agendas. They are not advancing the interests of the rest of America.
The Washington Times, however, called the speech "Wilsonian" in its scope and vision. The paper compares Thursday's speech with Ronald Reagan's call for Mikhail Gorbachev to tear down the Berlin Wall. It also says it should quiet some of the president's critics.
In recent weeks, skeptics, both domestic and foreign, have been making the assumption that Mr. Bush is looking for an exit strategy from Iraq. This speech should disabuse them of that theory. Rather, he is staking both his presidency and our national security on his conviction that he was strategically right to seek democracy in Iraq and the Middle East, even at the cost of temporary instability and higher casualties. We concur.
Meanwhile, The Times of India gleefully notes that India was held up as a paragon of democracy, while its arch-enemy, Pakistan, was "not listed ... as one of the countries following democratic norms as accepted by the international community."