Mr. Bush Goes to Belgium

President Bush gave a fine speech in Belgium today, attempting to bridge the gap in the Western democracies and to explain his vision for spreading democracy in the Middle East and beyond.

He opens with an anecdote about the warm accolades that Benjamin Franklin received on a visit to Europe over two centuries ago.  President Bush jokes:

"The observer went on to say, There was scarcely a peasant or citizen who did not consider him as a friend to humankind. I've been hoping for a similar reception.(LAUGHTER)

But Secretary Rice told me I should be a realist. (LAUGHTER)"

While the joke is funny in itself, there is a deeper message here and a foreshadowing of comments to follow.  Bush is playing on the Idealism/Realism theme that I blogged about last week.  After a good reminder of the shared accomplishments of the US and Europe, including D-Day, liberation of death camps, a democratic post-war Western Europe, and the fall of the Berlin Wall, President Bush states:

"In a new century, the alliance of Europe and North America is the main pillar of our security....Seizing this moment requires idealism; we must see in every person the right and the capacity to live in freedom. Seizing this moment requires realism; we must act wisely and deliberately in the face of complex challenges. And seizing this moment also requires cooperation, because when Europe and America stand together, no problem can stand against us."

President Bush is echoing Dr. Rice's comments on her way to Ireland.  It is clear by this example that the State Department and White House are of one mind when it comes to their strategic vision for a new world order. Idealism is required of Europeans to think beyond their borders, to envision a world where liberty is spread and freedom enjoyed.  Realism is the strategy for creating a lasting partnership and system, including hard and soft power, to spread democracy in a complex Middle East.

President Bush signals his desire to see two democratic states, that of Israel and Palestine, "living side by side in peace and security".  To the leaders of the Middle East he says:

"Arab states must end incitement in their own media, cut off public and private funding for terrorism, stop their support for extremist education, and establish normal relations with Israel."

All of the above ideas would require the focus to be removed from the current Arab government policy of "blame Israel" or blame the West and increase internal scrutiny on their own failing regimes.  Later in the speech President Bush says,

"Governments must invest in the health and education of their people, and take responsibility for solving problems instead of simply blaming others. Citizens must choose to hold their governments accountable. "

I will be interested to see if the Bush administration puts energy behind the above declaration. 

To loud applause the President states that Palestine should be "contiguous".  This will be a contentious proposal to the Israelis.  Bush is engaged in the "road map" to peace for this idealistic reason:

"We also know that a free and peaceful Palestine can add to the momentum of reform throughout the broader Middle East."

If the Palestinians are free, why not the Saudis, the Persians or the Syrian people?  I suspect that President Bush will work hard in his second term to establish a democratic Palestinian state.  He encourages men and women in the Middle East to embrace reform and progress, noting that our own history is still working through expanding freedom to women and minorities.

"Yet while our expectations must be realistic, our ideals must be firm and they must be clear. We must expect higher standards from our friends and partners in the Middle East."

This is a clear message to our friends, not our enemies, that we have expectations for greater progress and freedom from their regimes.  He calls on the Saudis and Egyptians to allow their people to determine their future. President Bush lends support to the Lebanese in their desire to have Syrian troops leave.  He points to the success of elections in Karbul, Ramallah and Baghdad and " without Syrian interference, Lebanon's parliamentary elections in the spring can be another milestone of liberty."

His main thrust and logic in his argument for greater European cooperation is to link the current conflict to the Europeans' own history. 

"Across the Middle East, from the Palestinian territories to Lebanon to Iraq to Iran, I believe that the advance of freedom within nations will build a peace among nations.  And one reason for this belief is the experience of Europe. In two world wars, Europe saw the aggressive nature of tyranny and the terrible cost of mistrust and division.

In the Cold War, Europe saw the so-called stability of Yalta was a constant source of injustice and fear. And Europe also saw how the rise of democratic movements like Solidarity could part an iron curtain drawn by tyrants. The spread of freedom has helped to resolve old disputes, and the enlargement of NATO and the European Union have made partners out of former rivals.

America supports Europe's democratic unity for the same reason we support the spread of democracy in the Middle East: because freedom leads to peace.  America supports a strong Europe because we need a strong partner in the hard work of advancing freedom and peace in the world.

A democratic Middle East promotes security and peace, just as Europe has proved.  While the left will argue yet again that democracy is foreign to the Arab world, the recent elections in three Middle Eastern countries and protests in Lebanon suggest otherwise.

President Bush lends support for the EU to better integrate Yushenko's Ukraine into Europe, and thanks our Polish friends for their help in the Orange Revolution.

He has tough words for Russia with their backsliding on democracy and calls for the Europeans to put this issue at the "heart" of their discussions with Russia.

Credit must be given Mr. Bush for the following line:

We must reject anti-Semitism from any source, and we must condemn violence such as we have witnessed in the Netherlands.

It is encouraging that the leader of the free world speaks out on the death of Theo Van Gogh (Roger Simon should be happy as well as all of us who condemn anti-Semitism).

I will let the end of his speech speak for itself, giving a good defense of the US-European alliance and explaining why we must go the distance in our pursuit of expanding democracy.

Our alliance has the ability and the duty to tip the balance of history in the favor of freedom. We know there are many obstacles and we know the road is long. Albert Camus said that freedom is a long-distance race. We're in that race for the duration.

And there is reason for optimism. Oppression is not the wave of the future; it is the desperate tactic of a few backward-looking men.

Democratic nations grow in strength because they reward and respect the creative gifts of their people. Freedom is the direction of history, because freedom is the permanent hope of humanity.

America holds these values because of ideals long held on this continent. We proudly stand in the tradition of the Magna Carta, the Declaration of the Rights of Man, and the North Atlantic Treaty. The signers of that treaty pledged to safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilization of their people's founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law.

In this new century, the United States and Europe reaffirm that commitment and renew our great alliance of freedom. May God bless you all.

Comments

[Thomas Hazlewood]

It was a good talking-to that Bush gave them. However, Bush is now talking to a Western Europe in which many believe that the US has fallen under fascism, where people get propaganda, not news, from a one-sided media.

This is a Europe in which many believe that the US is the major threat to peace or is, perhaps, second to Israel in that. The leading countries in Western Europe are in a rush to arm China to 'counter' the US on the world stage. Or, maybe they aren't even that far-sighted. Maybe they're just rushing to get orders to keep their stagnant economies afloat.

Imo, we are betting on a old favorite and that's a bad way to choose stocks, or contests, or allies.

Regards,

[Pedantius]

Sir,

Great blog, great photographs. One minor point; the helicopter pictured is a Coast Guard HH-60J Jayhawk, not an H-3 Sea King.

Regards,

Pedantius

[taspundit]

Good post.

It's a bit triumphalist though. What if Saudi Arabia were to democratically elect a radical Islamist? i.e. What if so-called "radical Islam" is not so radical in parts of the world, if it is more mainstream?

I certainly hope that the experiment in democracy with Iraq works. I still think it's the best and least violent option we haven't tried yet. Hopefully a free and capitalist Iraq will spread the corrosive influence of its (and America's) pop culture around the Middle East and so reduce the numbers of fundamentalists.

But that is no guarantee. If women get a vote... I think that could be the deciding factor.

Because, face it, with the exception of having to study the Koran (*yawn*), and have a few other restrictions, you really have it made if you are a man in an Islamic society. You

a) Have as much power over women - your wives are essentially chattel;
b) Can have as many wives as you want;
c) If you are in power you are not going to be hurting for wives anyway.
d) Can have sex with infidel women whether they like it or not.

And it's all backed up by your local cleric and holy book!

In a democracy where all men (and no women) are enfranchised, I can see a majority voting to outlaw polygamy, out of jealousy.

Still, the other things are going to be attractive and that would parlay itself into women not getting enfranchised.

If women are enfranchised and they don't immediately elect someone who abolishes elections, then over time moderates would almost certainly come to power.

[taspundit]

If you look at who came to power in Iraq, it was Sistani's puppet.

I don't think that Iraq will become a theocratic state in the long run simply because of the way the constitution is set up. Den Beste has an excellent post on this:

http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2004/03/Structuralsolutions.shtml

The structure of the constitution and Iraqi population encourages a secular, capitalist democracy long term IMO.

In the absence of this sort of thing, there is no guarantee against an Ayatollah coming to power and imposing Sharia in other states such as Pakistan or Saudi Arabia.

But I guess we will cross that bridge when we come to it.

[BlueSky]

There is a commonplace confusion that the difference between US and European foreign policy (or Repulican and Democrat for that matter) is unilateralism versus world consensus.

This is a mistaken analysis. The difference is between preemption and containment. Consensus is an end result which may follow depending on which strategy is chosen.

There will typically be broad consensus for a containment policy, but not for a policy of preemption. Has nothing to do with which one is wiser.

It should come as no surprise to anyone that the still war-shocked French and German populace doesn't have the stomach for preemption, and may not for generations. Americans by contrast are divided but seem,in the aggregate, to understand preemption's value with some clarity and balance.

[D. B. Light]

Nice overview. Brilliant speech. Bush is on a roll and is inviting Europe along for the ride. By offering to enlist European states in support of his freedom initiative Bush is giving his critics a face-saving way to join in his larger goals without having to admit that they were wrong. And, as a realist, Bush knows that serving notice on non-western governments, demanding that they reform, will produce results only if Europe joins in and stops subverting his efforts. Together the US and Europe can take advantage of a historic opportunity, when enthusiasm for democratic reform is spreading like wildfire, to reshape the world.