| Right up to the moment that United States President George W. Bush delivered his State of the Union in Washington on Wednesday, speculation had been rife about his supposed decision to soften, if not totally abandon, key aspects of his foreign policy.
Robin Cook, a former British Foreign Secretary and leading opponent of the liberation of Iraq, was touring radio studios in London predicting that Bush, supposedly chastened by reality, would come up with a mea-culpa and beg the "Europeans" for pardon. The Parisian daily Le Monde went even further by claiming that Bush had telephoned French President Jacques Chirac, another opponent of the liberation of Iraq, presumably to promise a "softer American foreign policy". Similar claims were made in sections of the German and British media that still lament the demise of former Iraqi president Saddam Hussain. The implication was that it was not Bush but John Kerry the Americans had elected last November. Puncturing illusions However, Bush reminded all those who needed to be reminded that he was in no mood to apply for membership of the club of post-modernist appeasers who are prepared to shine the boots of every Third World despot provided he happens to be anti-American. Bush's speech punctured at least three illusions. The first was that Bush would abandon his doctrine of pre-emption in favour of a Kerry-esque promise to use force only after the United States has been attacked. Bush, however, reiterated his commitment to pre-emption. Speaking of the war against terrorists he said "We will stay on the offensive", adding that "pursuing our enemies is a vital commitment of the war on terror". The second illusion that Bush punctured was that he might scale down his expectations in the war against terrorists to some fishtail compromise of the kind Cook would love: allowing the terrorists and their sponsors to avoid destruction in exchange for some kind of dialogue with the Europeans or, even worse, a "diplomatic engagement" with the United Nations. Bush went out of his way to rule out any scaling down of the war's objectives. In tones that recalled President Franklin Roosevelt's in 1941, Bush said the United States and its allies will not be satisfied "until the fight is won". The third illusion discarded by Bush was that he may set a marker for a slow but steady disengagement from Iraq before the newly-liberated country is able to stand on its feet and consolidate its hard-won freedom. Cook and company had proposed a number of schemes, including the replacement of American and British troops by mythical soldiers from other unspecified countries acting under a UN flag. Bush, however, made it clear that under his stewardship America is determined to stay the course in Iraq and the terrorists there "cannot wait us out". Having reassured everyone he was determined to stay the course in Iraq, Bush reiterated his commitment to work for a change of the status quo in the Middle East. The status quo developed since the late 1940s, partly with US support, had not only failed to provide the stability it had promised but had also turned the region into a breeding ground for international terrorism. For almost six decades the key word in American policy towards the Middle East had been "stability". Bush has replaced that with a new key word: freedom. And the first response to that key word, coming from Iraq showed the response is certain to be overwhelmingly positive. Bush promises to switch the US and its immense power from a policy of support for despotic regimes in the name of stability to one of regime change in the name of freedom. This is an historic development compared only to President Ronald Reagan's decision to scrap détente and use American power not to sweet-talk the Soviet despots but to undermine their power. To be sure, regime change need not be achieved solely through military action. Co-liberators The two examples of regime change we already have, in Afghanistan and Iraq, show that any use of force is tempered by the conditions on the ground. In both Afghanistan and Iraq the peoples of those countries were co-liberators of their own homelands. In Afghanistan much of the ground fighting against the Taliban was done by the Northern Alliance and other Afghan guerrilla groups. The first American troops arrived in Kabul 24 hours after it had been liberated by Afghan freedom-fighters. In Iraq, the fact the Iraqi army decided not to fight meant the overwhelming majority of the people wished to be liberated. Grand Ayatollah Ali Mohammad Al Sistani's call on Iraqis not to hinder the progress of the US-led coalition was also crucial in ensuring the speedy demise of Saddam and his death machine. Over the past 20 months or so the people of Iraq have stayed the course along with the US-led coalition. They have rejected the remnants of Saddamite regime and its Islamist allies, and started building a new system based on freedom and pluralism. That is why Bush has appealed to "democratic reformers" throughout the region and promised support for all those fighting for freedom in the Middle East. In his State of the Union address, Bush made it clear that the United States expects even its closest traditional allies to switch from a policy of ensuring stability at all cost to one of expanding freedom and developing democratic institutions and practices. It was in that context that he specifically mentioned such close and traditional allies as Morocco, Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. While military action is not ruled out, priority will be given to efforts to achieve democratisation through political, judicial and economic reforms. Bush made it clear that from now on the despots will not be treated the same way as democrats. One example of this was when Bush referred to the newly-elected Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas as "President Abbas". This was the first time an American president used the term "president" for a Palestinian leader. Yasser Arafat had always been referred to as "Chairman Arafat", signalling American doubts about his democratic credentials. In his address Bush offered the outline of an ambitious agenda, one likely to be opposed not only by terrorists but also by other reactionary forces in the region along with some European and other powers that, for different reasons or out of cynicism, prefer the status quo. The next four years promise to be even more interesting than the last four. Amir Taheri, Iranian author of ten books on the Middle East and Islam, is a member of Benador Associates. |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||