World as canvas for US President

WHEN George Bush spoke, words came out on expected lines to those of us who are familiar with his style. He has outlined the spread of freedom and democracy across the world as his, and America's, top priority. So much so, this turned out to be the main burden of his inaugural speech.

Dear readers, this is exactly what I had anticipated and stated in this column the other day: that, Bush has an international agenda, and that he wants to create history during his second term, just as Ronald Reagan got the USSR dismantled and facilitated an end to the Cold War. Reagan had converted the east European nations into democracies. Today, they are prosperous countries and part of the EU. Reagan thus became a legend. Now, Bush is seeking to do something similar, and become another legend.

Bush's second term in office, he declares, will be a period marked by a quest to spread freedom around the world, a pursuit that is both an "urgent requirement" and the "calling of our time". Freedom means freedom of speech and freedom of expression. It also means freedom of the press. Spread of freedom is an integral part of the reforms that Bush has been advocating for governments and societies across the world, and the Middle East in particular.

Bush vows to overthrow tyranny, wherever it is, and spread freedom and democracy to the "darkest corners" of the world. "It is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world", says he.

The Bush speech, no doubt, was more of symbolism and less of specifics. He outlined his vision, while didn't specify how he would accomplish the tasks ahead. He wants dictators to ease restrictions on dissent and has declared that victory over terrorism requires promoting freedom around the globe. Fires had been rekindled in many people's minds, and "one day, this untamed fire of freedom will reach the darkest corners of our world". The question is of specifics: how he intends to facilitate it. It need not necessarily be a war; and yet a war is not being ruled out either.

There's both promise and warning: The speech has held out hope for those who seek freedom in their countries. It said, "Democratic reformers facing repression, prison or exile can know: America sees you for who you are — the future leaders of your free country". Alongside, it puts dictators on notice: that "America would no longer ignore or excuse oppression, wherever it happened". He didn't raise the threat of war; and he didn't rule it out either, especially on countries where people are linked to terror gangs. The only way for the Muslim world to free itself of these gangs is to spread freedom and liberty. Then there will be no need for frustrated young men to join the gangs of terrorists. Freedom will make a difference in the Muslim world.

The tone and tenor of US relations with other countries in future, he says, is linked directly to the theme of liberty and freedom. Clearly, it would be "based on how those governments treated their own people". War is not necessarily the best way to tackle such situations, as had happened in Iraq, for instance. Admitted the president, "Spreading freedom is not primarily the task of arms, though we will defend ourselves and our friends by force of arms when necessary".

Of Iraq, he explained his nation's predicament thus: "Our country has accepted obligations that are difficult to fulfill (but) would be dishonourable to abandon". So, the course open to America for the moment is to stay on and fight back; with an Iyad Allawi, or another Iraqi, in the lead role. Getting out of Iraq is clearly in the US scheme of things, as the President himself has reiterated, but, as he had often explained, it was conditional to the restoration of peace and stability there. The ball, I must say, is in Iraqis' court. To begin with, there has to be maximum, if not full, participation in the January 30 elections. It should be the starting point for a turn for the better. There is need to isolate the gangs who are somewhat respectably termed as insurgents, but who are killing Iraqis themselves — something that goes to prove they are Iraq's enemies.

The speech apart, the beauty of America's democracy came into full view on the Bush inaugural day, when groups of protesters lined up the streets between the Capitol and White House. That showed how much America respects dissent, which is integral to the concept of democracy. They were the Opposition Democrats, who formed the minority opinion in the US. The majority went along with Bush and his policies, as was proved in the November elections. Liberal societies tolerate dissent. And this is the tolerance that Bush seeks to build in societies around the world.

Dear readers, I am pleasantly surprised at the way the Bush speech went. In the last three decades, I have never heard a head of state from a developed country showing so much concern for other people's welfare and well being. For the first time, an American president has made the welfare of the people around the world — through spread of democracy and freedom — the central theme of his inaugural speech. Reagan had come close to it, though his target was limited to the communist and totalitarian regimes in Eastern Europe.

Nice article with the exception of this incorrect remark:

Bush vows to overthrow tyranny, wherever it is, and spread freedom and democracy to the "darkest corners" of the world.

A positive and accurate view! ::applause::
I agree it is a to be commended goal!

Now if he would just start a war against the mexican government's obvious attempt to take over our Country!

He missed the bigger point that our freedom is only secure when we support the freedom of others around the world. If future Presidents go back to the past of looking the other way and leaving it all up to the UN our freedom is in jepordized.

Then there will be no need for frustrated young men to join the gangs of terrorists.

These young men are frustrated because they are bombarded daily with propaganda against the U.S. Tyrants need external enemies and "The Great Satan" is the obvious choice.

I understood Bush to say that we will encourage the overthrow of tyranny anywhere in the world, primarily for the reason stated above. Free countries don't start wars against other free countries.

5 posted on 01/22/2005 7:35:49 AM PST by Mind-numbed Robot (Not all things that need to be done need to be done by the government.)

Even tho "overthrow" is probably a litte harsh, it still reflects what was said.

If you more, you find out that the author stated that the President 'didn't say exactly how he would do this'.

There are many ways to overthrow a dictatorship, without going to war.

Supporting the oppressed is one way, which is exactly what President Bush said.

Tyrants need external enemies and "The Great Satan" is the obvious choice.

There's a thought. The UberKonservativ Know-Nothings who try to smear this author and members of his ethnicity or religion as demons are really just petty tyrants-in-waiting.

Although I am familiar with your name I don't recall the verbal battles you have fought. I do agree with your premise. Anyone, right or left, though it is a favored tool of the left, who dismisses an argument because of the arguer or tries to shout down its presentation, is a tyrant and a coward. I am sometimes guilty myself though I try not to be.

9 posted on 01/22/2005 8:06:42 AM PST by Mind-numbed Robot (Not all things that need to be done need to be done by the government.)

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.