Arabs Say U.S.
Rhetoric Rings Hollow
By Scott Wilson
The Washington Post
Amman,
Jordan
- President Bush's inaugural address placing the fostering of democratic
freedoms around the world at the center of
U.S. foreign policy drew a skeptical
reaction Friday in the Arab world, where analysts questioned whether the
rhetoric of the speech was consistent with the administration's actions in
the Middle East.
With Arab countries
mostly shuttered for a four-day Islamic holiday that marks the end of the
annual pilgrimage to Mecca, there was little public reaction to Bush's
address. Many newspapers have not published for days, and government
offices closed earlier than usual this week.
In interviews,
however, a number of political analysts and commentators commended the
values outlined in Bush's speech, in which he proclaimed that the United
States "will persistently clarify the choice before every ruler and every
nation, the moral choice between oppression, which is always wrong, and
freedom, which is eternally right." But they said the words belied the
fact that the United States supports several authoritarian governments in
the Middle East and would ring hollow to the many Arabs who perceive U.S.
policy in the oil-rich region as motivated by financial concerns and
support for Israel.
Although the
president did not mention the daily violence in Iraq and in the
Palestinian territories, the U.S. role in those conflicts frequently spurs
Arabs to question American credibility regarding the goals Bush outlined
in his address. Several writers called the speech "messianic" in tone and
language and potentially harmful to fledgling reform movements across the
region.
"It's scary stuff, so
sweeping and overarching you don't know what to make of it," said Sadiq
Azm, a Syrian writer and reform advocate. "He's saying that what's good
for America is good for everyone else. We are used to this kind of bombast
from our Arab leaders. But it's been a long time since I've heard it in
English."
Bush's speech came as
some Middle Eastern governments - most of them kingdoms, emirates and Arab
republics ruled by unelected leaders - are considering how to balance the
pressure to implement the kinds of reforms called for by the United States
with their desire to maintain a firm grip on power. Many are emphasizing
economic reforms to relieve domestic pressures caused by rising
unemployment but moving cautiously - if at all - on political changes.
Saudi Arabia plans to
hold limited municipal elections next month that will serve as a test case
for what voting might mean for the ruling Saud family, which founded the
kingdom more than 70 years ago.
Syria and
Jordan have adopted free-market changes in
the past year while maintaining a tight hold on political dissent. A
number of Persian Gulf states have allowed greater public displays of
political opinion, including free elections for local councils in Bahrain.
But the pace of
change has been glacial, and many frustrated reformers say the apparent
disarray of the U.S. project in Iraq has given autocratic governments an
excuse to forgo even the most modest political reforms. Offering a
clean-government alternative to administrations rife with corruption,
Islamic parties are surging in popularity, a trend that deeply frightens
many secular Arabs and dampens their enthusiasm for free elections.
Many Arabs, including
some involved in democratic reform movements, also say the U.S. record of
alliances in the Middle East is at
odds with Bush's agenda. The United
States supported Saddam Hussein in the 1980s during Iraq's long war with
Iran. The Bush administration has applied steady pressure on largely
resourceless Syria, including economic sanctions for its military presence
in Lebanon, while leaving alone the ruling family of Saudi Arabia, which
sits atop a quarter of world's petroleum reserves.
"What he said is
great, and we completely agree," said Abdulaziz Alsebail, a professor of
modern literature at King Saud University in Riyadh and part of a reform
movement in Saudi Arabia that is nudging the ruling family toward allowing
more public participation in politics. "But the question is: How can you
impose freedom? Is military intervention the right way to do it? I don't
think it's been a very successful attempt at all."
Some analysts
welcomed what they saw as a renewed commitment to diplomacy in Bush's
speech. But others said the rhetoric, while stirring, failed because it
lacked specifics of how the U.S. goals of political freedom would be
reached.
"Are we going to see
more military intervention, or are we talking about something like a
Marshall Plan?" said Mohamed Alayyan, publisher of the al-Ghad daily
newspaper in Amman. "To achieve this objective, the perception of the
people in the Middle East must be changed, especially regarding the
Palestinian dilemma and the treatment of prisoners of war. You cannot
forget the effect Abu Ghraib had on American credibility here."
Azm called Bush's
language "Churchillian, but at a time without an adversary as serious as
the Nazi regime." He said the speech would likely alarm governments such
as Syria's, already fearful of U.S. military intervention, as well as the
reform movement that has been pushing Syrian President Bashar Assad to
allow for more open government.
"People will see in
this the old civilizing mission, the old colonialism," Azm said. "He has
adopted the reformers' agenda, but in such a messianic way that even we
are not ready to go that far."
Several analysts and
activists said Bush's assertion that the United States would be
encouraging reform in other governments "by making clear that success in
our relations will require the decent treatment of their own people" would
be best served by brokering an equitable solution to the Arab-Israeli
conflict.
A number of
governments in the region operate under decades-old emergency laws, which
Syria's government justifies by Israel's occupation of the Golan Heights.
The laws give the military and domestic security services broad powers to
arrest political dissidents, authority that might vanish if the two
countries were to achieve peace.
"The best way to
begin any reform is to solve this problem," said Adib Dahdouh, a Christian
lawyer in Damascus who is part of a movement that advocates the gradual
implementation of a free press, institutional reform and open
parliamentary elections.
Jan. 22, 2005
BACK TO TOP ■
COMMENT
© 2004 Bulatlat
■ Alipato Publications
Permission is granted to reprint or redistribute this article, provided its author/s and Bulatlat are properly credited and notified.