Freedom's Just Another WordBush's deluded speech to the world's oppressed.
Posted Tuesday, June 5, 2007, at 6:55 PM ET
For those who have detected a "return to realism" in recent American foreign policy, President George W. Bush went to Prague today to say it isn't so.
PRINT
DISCUSS
E-MAIL
RSS
RECOMMEND...
Facebook
MySpace
Mixx
Digg
Reddit
del.icio.us
Furl
Ma.gnolia
Sphere
StumbleUponSpeaking at a conference of democratic activists from around the world, Bush renewed his call for "the end of tyranny," proclaimed that countries on the "path to freedom … will find a loyal partner in the United States," and said to those suffering under tyranny, "We will never excuse your oppressors, and we will always stand for your freedom."
The speech was, by Bush's description, a reprise of the "freedom agenda" laid out in his Second Inaugural Address of January 2005—but without the slightest acknowledgement of the catastrophic failures and retreats that have taken place (nor of the conceptual fallacies that have been so clearly exposed) in the two and a half years since.
The Second Inaugural Address was widely considered utopian. Today's Prague speech is, at best, delusional. "Freedom can be resisted, and freedom can be delayed, but freedom cannot be denied," Bush said to applause. A noble notion, but no student of history or politics would seriously claim that it's true.
Then again, if it were true, if—as Bush has said on numerous occasions—freedom is God's gift and hence the natural state of mankind, then its flowering would be inevitable, and no mere mortal, not even the president of the United States, would have to lift a finger to make it so.
Which may explain why this godly president has done so little on the idea's behalf.
"In the eyes of America," Bush said in Prague, "the democratic dissidents of today are the democratic leaders of tomorrow. So we are taking new steps to strengthen our support for them."
He listed the steps he's taking: "We recently created a Human Rights Defenders Fund, which provides grants for the legal defense and medical expenses of activists arrested or beaten by repressive government." He didn't say so, but a State Department Web site notes that the fund contains $1 million. (That's million, not billion.)
Another step: "I strongly support the Prague Document that your conference plans to issue, which states that 'the protection of human rights is critical to international peace and security.' " That requires no sweat or risk.
Finally: "I have asked Secretary Rice to send a directive to every U.S. ambassador in an unfree nation: Seek out and meet with activists for democracy and human rights." The question here is whether such activists will want to meet with the U.S. ambassador. Last year, when Rice asked Congress for $75 million to help democratic movements in Iran, the Iranian activists said that they didn't want the money—that any association with American money would hurt their credibility and make them look like spies.
He added, a bit later in the speech, that the United States "has nearly doubled funding for democracy projects." A White House fact sheet, e-mailed to me by a National Security Council press official, elaborates that Bush is requesting $1.5 billion in fiscal year 2008 for "Democracy, Governance, and Human Rights"—and that this sum is up from $700 million in 2001. It's impossible to judge from budget documents (or even from a background interview I had with a "senior administration official") where this money is going, and for what. It's unclear whether this number is significant or not. (I'll report further if and when I find out.)
Bush went on, "We are working with our partners in the G-8 to promote the rise of a vibrant civil society in the Middle East through initiatives like the Forum for the Future." This is, famously, a forum with no teeth, obligations, or significant investment.
"We congratulate the people of Yemen on their landmark presidential election." Ah, thank you, now how about some real assistance.
The Hilarious Results of Slate's "Write Like Sarah Palin" Contest
Does Your iPhone Really Need a Titanium Case?
Vice Presidents Say the Darnedest Things
The Golden Scissors Awards Are the Oscars of Black Hair
Slate's Complete Coverage of the Tiger Woods Scandal
The Awesome Spectacle of Glenn Beck's Live Performance of The Christmas Sweater
Remarks from the Fray:
Kaplan's incessant demand for a return to realism is a bit like demanding the revival of disco. It can't be done, and you wouldn't want to do it anyway.
"Realism" meant propping up military dictators on the premise that their kind of order was better than no kind of order at all.
Trouble is, all the dictators have gone. Wikipedia provides a handy summary of what's happened to military dictatorships over the last 20 years. Where once half the world was ruled by them, the Wikis reckon there are only five left. Of these, none of them is an out-and-out dictatorship in the mould of Saddam Hussein's.
Kaplan has never explained how he expected Saddam to buck this trend. "Realism" is a dead as disco, alongside the victims of the dictators it supported.
--GreenwichJ
(To reply, click here.)
(6/6)