Posted on 11/07/2003 4:59:36 AM PST by HarleyD
President Bush’s speech about the need for democracy in the Middle East was met with a mixture of rare praise and skepticism here Thursday. While commentators condemned the U.S. leader for again, in their view, ignoring Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territory, some hailed his remarks as “historic.” In fact, analysts and commentators who are usually outraged over the U.S. administration’s policy in the region found themselves in agreement on many points.
THE PRESIDENT made a plea for democratic reforms in the Middle East the cornerstone of a speech dealing with democratic values across the globe.
And he acknowledged shortcomings in past policy, saying the United States and other nations shared blame for the lack of democratic freedoms in the Middle East. “Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe, because in the long run stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty,” Bush said Thursday.
The president spoke to the National Endowment for Democracy, a group that champions democratic gains around the world, on the same day that he was signing an $87.5 billion package approved by Congress for military and reconstruction operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
U.S. war in those two Islamic countries, notably to oust Saddam Hussein in Iraq, have served to seriously damage America’s reputation across the Arab world. And what’s seen as Washington’s bias toward Israel in the conflict with the Palestinians has undermined its credibility in the Middle East.
HISTORIC
Consequently words of praise were unexpected. “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.”
The human rights advocate also praised what Bush had to say about democracy’s being compatible with Islam and Arab culture. “I agree with him. Always we hear from the governments of this region saying our culture is not ready for democracy, that we have our own type of democracy. This is not true. Democracy is democracy, freedom is freedom…. Islam is compatible with democracy and is not against democracy,” Abu Se’da said.
But Abu Se’da said that just as the area needs democracy and justice, the United States has an important role to play by solving the Israeli-Palestinian problem in a just way. Abu Se’da said he believes that Arab regimes will condemn the speech because “democracy means they will lose their seats.” While he said he feels Bush’s words will be welcomed by intellectuals and human rights advocates, Abu Se’da suggested that Arab governments may use the media to turn public opinion against Washington’s call for democracy. He also agreed that Egypt has a role to play in leading the region toward democracy as it has led the region toward peace.
RECOGNITION OF ISLAM
Suzy al Guindi, an Egyptian journalist, liked the way Bush spoke about Islam and the fact that he recognized that the Middle East doesn’t need the same style of democracy as Western countries. But she said she wanted to see a more even-handed approach toward Israel.
“It was a good speech, it was a very good speech, but we need to see more actions…. We need to see a more moderate way of thinking and acting, especially in the way they are dealing with the Palestinians and Iraq. Israel is doing a lot, but nothing is said by the United States. They criticized the wall [that Israel is building to isolate the Palestinians] but now are keeping silent about it.”
Political science professor Mona Makram Obeid said the speech will be welcomed with reservations in the Arab world, because “like so many times, things that smack of truth fall short of the administration’s interest.” People will question the depth of the U.S. commitment because the speech came at a time when the administration’s credibility is at an all-time low, Obeid said. “The region has never been as anti-American as it has in the past weeks, so this speech comes at a time when there is not much credibility in the Bush administration,” Obeid said. “People are outraged by Iraq, by the bias toward Israel.”
Obeid said she thinks that Bush’s words will provoke wide and intense debate because while people are hungry for democracy, they don’t like the way the United States has imposed it by force. “Some feel that the administration has previously shown a heavy-handed way of wanting to impose something that is good for us,” she said. But she conceded, “People have noted the change of tone and conciliatory way in which he has presented his idea. People are yearning for change, for more modernized systems.”
Obeid said she believes that Bush chose to promote democracy for political reasons. “He needed something, anything today to show some balance in the way that people look at the Bush administration.”
RINGING HOLLOW?
In Saudi Arabia, Khaled Al-Maeena, editor-in-chief of the Arab Times daily, said he agreed with much of what Bush had to say. “Everybody likes democracy and wants empowerment,” he said. But Al-Maeena also said Bush’s message rang hollow because “America’s goodwill is tainted by its blatant support for Israel.
“Had [Bush] also said that tomorrow there will be freedom for the Palestinians,” his message would have been credible, Al-Maeena said. Although Bush criticized the Palestinian government, Al-Maeena countered, “You cannot have good government when you are occupied.”
While he said he believes that the movement toward democracy must be spearheaded by the people of the region, Al-Maeena, like many others, found something positive in Bush’s comments on Islam. “At least those people who are anti-Islam know that Islam is not anti-democratic.”
And you're not going to get un-occupied until you develop an accountable government. So quit with making excuses.
Khaled's idea of democracy is 3 wolves and 1 sheep deciding whats for dinner.
The middle east does crave democracy but they have much to learn about the concept.
Truth bump.
All nations and religions have men of reason, men of peace...and all have the opposite. This was a very brave step for President Bush and our nation, and hopefully will become a very brave step for Arabs of reason.
No according to the conclusion reached by every top respected, (by the muslim world), scholars of Islam. They said Islam and democracy can't coexist.
In the natural world, you are correct. But some nations have a policy of teaching their young to hate and murder, while others teach love and fair play. Therein lies the difference.
Let me see if I understand this,
1 praises President Bush for supporting democracy
2 slams President Bush for supporting a democracy
Question, should I be having this pain in my head?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.