George
W. Bush: "America Reshaped Our Approach to the Middle East"
Middle East
Quarterly
Spring 2009, pp. 75-80
http://www.meforum.org/2137/george-w-bush-america-reshaped-approach-middle-east
On December 5, 2008, President George W. Bush delivered
his valedictory Middle East policy speech (excerpted below) before the
Brookings Institution's Saban Forum in Washington, D.C.,[1] a tour d'horizon of developments in
the region, ranging from the fight against terrorism in the aftermath of
9/11 and the decision both to invade and democratize Iraq, to
rapprochement with Libya, the withdrawal of Syrian forces from Lebanon
and, finally, the Annapolis peace process.
Bush's omissions, however, are also illustrative. He
speaks of extremism but, more than seven years after the 9/11 attacks,
fails to mention Islamist ideology as a motivating factor. And while he
had declared a global war on terrorism, he draws equivalence between
Palestinians and Israelis killed during the Palestinian terrorist campaign
of 2001 and appears also to draw equivalence between the refusal of late
Palestinian Authority chairman Yasser Arafat to make peace and the
reluctance by Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon to offer territorial
concessions in the face of terror. He defends the logic of preemption,
which led to the invasion of Iraq, but curiously does not link Libyan
leader Mu'ammar al-Qadhafi's decision to surrender his nuclear program to
the demonstration of U.S. power.
While Bush defends his administration's support of
dissidents, he ignores the backsliding that occurred in his second term in
Egypt and Lebanon, which arguably left democrats and liberals in a worse
position than before. And, when discussing the Annapolis peace process, he
never reconciles this with his first-term refusal to deal with terrorist
leaders.[2] Nor does he address
his administration's reversal on Iran, offering incentives and diplomatic
concessions despite continuing Iranian defiance of U.N. Security Council
resolutions.
The Middle East constituted the chief U.S. foreign policy
challenge of the Bush years, and there is little doubt that 9/11
represented a paradigm shift in U.S. policy. But whether historians will
accept Bush's claims to success, outlined at the Saban Center, remain to
be seen.
—The Editors.
A Central Role in U.S. Policy
From our earliest days as a nation, the Middle East has
played a central role in American foreign policy. One of America's first
military engagements as an independent nation was with the Barbary
pirates. One of our first consulates was in Tangiers. Some of the most
fateful choices made by American Presidents have involved the Middle
East—including President Truman's decision to recognize Israel 60 years
ago this past May.
In the decades that followed that brave choice, American
policy in the Middle East was shaped by the realities of the Cold War.
Together with strong allies in the Middle East, we faced down and defeated
the threat of communism to the region. With the collapse of the Soviet
Union, the primary threat to America and the region became violent
religious extremism. Through painful experience, it became clear that the
old approach of promoting stability is unsuited to this new danger—and
that the pursuit of security at the expense of liberty would leave us with
neither one. Across the Middle East, many who sought a voice in the future
of their countries found the only places open to dissent were radical
mosques. Many turned to terror as a source of empowerment. And as a new
century dawned, the violent currents swirling beneath the Middle East
began to surface.
In the Holy Land, the dashed expectations resulting from the
collapse of the Camp David peace talks had given way to the second
intifada. Palestinian suicide bombers struck with horrific
frequency and lethality. They murdered innocent Israelis at a pizza
parlor, or aboard buses, or in the middle of a Passover Seder. Israeli
Defense Forces responded with large-scale operations. And in 2001, more
than 500 Israelis and Palestinians were killed.
Politically, the Palestinian Authority was led by a
terrorist who stole from his people and walked away from peace. In Israel,
Ariel Sharon was elected to fight terror and pursue a "Greater Israel"
policy that allowed for no territorial concessions. Neither side could
envision a return to negotiations or the realistic possibility of a
two-state solution.
Elsewhere in the Middle East, Saddam Hussein had begun his
third decade as the dictator of Iraq—a reign that included invading two
neighbors, developing and using weapons of mass destruction, attempting to
exterminate Marsh Arabs and many Kurds, paying the families of suicide
bombers, systematically violating U.N. resolutions, and firing routinely
at British and U.S. aircraft patrolling a no-fly zone.
Syria continued its occupation of Lebanon, with some 30,000
troops on Lebanese soil. Libya sponsored terror and pursued weapons of
mass destruction. And in Iran, the prospect of reform was fading, the
regime's sponsorship of terror continued, and its pursuit of nuclear
weapons was largely unchecked.
Throughout the region, suffering and stagnation were
rampant. The Arab Human Development Report revealed a bleak picture of
high unemployment, poor education, high mortality rates for mothers, and
almost no investment in technology. Above all, the Middle East suffered a
deep deficit in freedom. Most people had no choice and no voice in
choosing their leaders. Women enjoyed few rights. And there was little
conversation about democratic change.
Against this backdrop, the terrorist movement was growing in
strength and in ambition. For three decades, violent radicals had landed
painful blows against America—the Iranian hostage crisis, the attacks on
our embassy and Marine barracks in Beirut, the destruction of Pan Am
Flight 103, the truck bombing of the World Trade Center, the attack on
Khobar Towers, the bombing of our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the
strike on the USS Cole.
Post-9/11
And then came September the 11th, 2001, when 19 men from the
Middle East carried out the worst attack on the United States since the
strike on Pearl Harbor 67 years ago this weekend. In the space of a single
morning, 9/11 etched a sharp dividing line in our history. We realized
that we're in a struggle with fanatics pledged to our destruction. We saw
that conditions of repression and despair on the other side of the world
could bring suffering and death to our own streets.
With these new realities in mind, America reshaped our
approach to the Middle East. We made clear that we will defend our
friends, our interests, and our people against any hostile attempt to
dominate the Middle East—whether by terror, blackmail, or the pursuit of
weapons of mass destruction. We have carried out this new strategy by
following three overriding principles.
First, we took the offense against the terrorists overseas.
We are waging a relentless campaign to break up extremist networks and
deny them safe havens. As part of that offensive, we pledged to strengthen
our partnership with every nation that joins in the fight against terror.
We deepened our security cooperation with allies like Jordan and Egypt,
and with our friends in the Gulf. Saudi Arabia, long a breeding ground for
radicalism, has become a determined partner in the fight against
terror—killing or capturing hundreds of al Qaeda operatives in the
Kingdom. We dramatically expanded counterterrorism ties with partners in
North Africa. And we left no doubt that America would stand by our closest
ally in the Middle East—the state of Israel.
Second, we made clear that hostile regimes must end their
support for terror and their pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, or
face the concerted opposition of the world.
This was the approach we took in Iraq. It is true, as I've
said many times, that Saddam Hussein was not connected to the 9/11
attacks. But the decision to remove Saddam from power cannot be viewed in
isolation from 9/11. In a world where terrorists armed with box cutters
had just killed nearly 3,000 of our people, America had to decide whether
we could tolerate a sworn enemy that acted belligerently, that supported
terror, and that intelligence agencies around the world believed had
weapons of mass destruction.
It was clear to me; it was clear to members of both
political parties, and to many leaders around the world that after 9/11,
that was a risk we could not afford to take. So we went back to the United
Nations Security Council, which unanimously passed Resolution 1441 calling
on Saddam Hussein to disclose, disarm, or face serious consequences. With
this resolution, we offered Saddam Hussein a final chance to comply with
the demands of the world. And when he refused to resolve the issue
peacefully, we acted with a coalition of nations to protect our people and
liberated 25 million Iraqis.
… When Saddam's regime fell, we refused to take the easy
option and install a friendly strongman in his place. Even though it
required enormous sacrifice, we stood by the Iraqi people as they elected
their own leaders and built a young democracy. When the violence reached
its most dire point, pressure to withdraw reached its height. Yet failure
in Iraq would have unleashed chaos, widened the violence, and allowed the
terrorists to gain a new safe haven—a fundamental contradiction to our
vision for the Middle East.
So we adopted a new strategy and deployed more troops to
secure the Iraqi people. When the surge met its objective, we began to
bring our troops home under the policy of return on success. Yesterday,
building on the gains made by the surge, the democratic government of Iraq
approved two agreements with the United States that formalize our
diplomatic, economic, and security ties and set a framework for the
drawdown of American forces as the fight in Iraq nears its successful
end.
After 9/11, we also confronted Libya over its weapons of
mass destruction. The leader of Libya made a wise choice. In 2003, Colonel
Qadhafi announced that he would abandon his weapons of mass destruction
program. He concluded that the interests of his people would be best
served by improving relations with America, and Libya turned over its
nuclear centrifuges and other deadly equipment to the United States.
The defeat of Saddam also appears to have changed the
calculation of Iran. According to our intelligence community, the regime
in Tehran had started a nuclear weapons program in the late-1980s, and
they halted a key part of that program in 2003. America recognized that
the most effective way to … persuade Iran to … renounce its nuclear
weapons ambitions was to have partners at our side, so we supported an
international effort led by our allies in Europe. This diplomacy yielded
an encouraging result when Iran agreed to suspend its uranium
enrichment.
Sadly, after the election of President Ahmadinejad, Iran
reversed course and announced it would begin enriching again. Since then,
we've imposed tough sanctions through United Nations resolutions. We and
our partners have offered Iran diplomatic and economic incentives to
suspend enrichment. We have promised to support a peaceful, civilian
nuclear program. While Iran has not accepted these offers, we have made
our bottom line clear: For the safety of our people and the peace of the
world, America will not allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon.
In Defense of Freedom
Third, America identified the lack of freedom in the Middle
East as a principal cause of the threats coming from the region. We
concluded that if the region continued on the path it was headed—if
another generation grew up with no hope for the future, and no outlet to
express its views—the Middle East would continue to simmer in resentment
and export violence.
To stop this from happening, we resolved to help the region
steer itself toward a better course of freedom and dignity and hope. We're
engaged in a battle with the extremists that is broader than a military
conflict, and broader than a law enforcement operation. We are engaged in
an ideological struggle. And to advance our security interests and moral
interests, America is working to advance freedom and democracy as the
great alternatives to repression and terror.
As part of this effort, we're pressing nations across the
region—including our friends—to trust their people with greater freedom of
speech, and worship, and assembly. We're giving strong support to young
democracies. We're standing with reformers, and dissidents, and human
rights activists across the region. Through new efforts like the Middle
East Peace Partnership Initiative and the Broader Middle East and North
Africa Initiative, we're supporting the rise of vibrant civil
societies…
We're encouraging Middle Eastern women to get involved in
politics, and to start their own businesses, and take charge of their
health through wise practices like breast cancer screening. Efforts like
these extend hope to the corners of despair, and in this work we have had
a lot of help, but no finer ambassador of goodwill than my wife, Laura
Bush.
A Two-state Solution
…America has launched a sustained initiative to help bring
peace to the Holy Land. At the heart of this effort is the vision of two
democratic states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and
security. I was the first American President to call for a Palestinian
state … and build[ing] support for the two-state solution has been a top
priority of my administration.
To earn the trust of Israeli leaders, we made it clear that
no Palestinian state would be born of terror; we backed Prime Minister
Sharon's courageous withdrawal from Gaza, and we supported his decision to
build a security fence, not as a political border but to protect the
people from terror.
To help the Palestinian people achieve the state they
deserve, we insisted on Palestinian leadership that rejects terror and
recognizes Israel's right to exist. Now that this leadership has emerged,
we're strongly supporting its efforts to build institutions of a vibrant,
democratic state.
With good advice from leaders like former Prime Minister
Tony Blair and Generals Jones, Dayton, Fraser, and Selva, the Palestinians
are making progress toward capable security forces, a functioning legal
system, government ministries that deliver services without corruption,
and a market economy. In all our efforts to promote a two-state solution,
we have included Arab leaders from across the region because we fully
understand that their support will be essential for the creation of a
state and lasting peace.
Last fall at Annapolis, Israeli, Palestinian, and Arab
leaders came together at an historic summit. President Abbas and Prime
Minister Olmert agreed to launch direct negotiations on a peace agreement.
Nations around the globe, including many in the Arab world, pledged to
support them. The negotiations since Annapolis have been determined and
substantial….
Vision for the Future
…The Middle East in 2008 is a freer, more hopeful, and more
promising place than it was in 2001: For the first time in nearly three
decades, the people of Lebanon are free from Syria's military occupation.
Libya's nuclear weapons equipment is locked away in Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
Places like the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain are emerging as centers
of commerce… The regime in Iran is facing greater pressure from the
international community than ever before. Terrorist organizations like al
Qaeda have failed decisively in their attempts to take over nations.
They're increasingly facing ideological rejection in the Arab world.
Iraq has gone from an enemy of America to a friend of
America, from sponsoring terror to fighting terror, and from a brutal
dictatorship to a multi-religious, multi-ethnic constitutional democracy.
Instead of the Iraq we would see if a Saddam Hussein were in power—an
aggressive regime vastly enriched by oil, defying the United Nations,
bullying its Arab neighbors, threatening Israel, and pursuing a nuclear
arms race with Iran—we see an Iraq emerging peacefully with its neighbors,
welcoming Arab ambassadors back to Baghdad, and showing the Middle East a
powerful example of a moderate, prosperous, free nation.
On the most vexing problem in the region—the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict—there is now greater international consensus
than at any point in modern memory. Israelis, Palestinians, and Arabs
recognize the creation of a peaceful, democratic Palestinian state is in
their interests. And through the Annapolis process, they started down a
path that will end with two states living side by side in peace.
In fits and starts, political and economic reforms are
advancing across the Middle East. Women have run for office in several
nations and been named to important government positions in Bahrain and
Oman and Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, and Yemen. Trade and foreign
investment have expanded. Several nations have opened up private
universities, and Internet use has risen sharply. Across the region,
conversations about freedom and reform are growing louder. Expectations
about government responsiveness are rising. And people are defying the
condescending view that the culture of the Middle East is unfit for
freedom.
There are still serious challenges facing the Middle East.
Iran and Syria continue to sponsor terror. Iran's uranium enrichment
remains a major threat to peace. Many in the region still live under
oppression. Yet the changes of the past eight years herald the beginning
of something historic and new. At long last, the Middle East is closing a
chapter of darkness and fear, and opening a new one written in the
language of possibility and hope. For the first time in generations, the
region represents something more than a set of problems to be solved, or
the site of energy resources to be developed. A free and peaceful Middle
East will represent a source of promise, and home of opportunity, and a
vital contributor to the prosperity of the world.
Those who ask what this future will look like need only look
around. We see the new story of the Middle East in Iraqis waving
ink-stained fingers, with Lebanese taking to streets in the Cedar
Revolution. We see it in women taking their seats in elected parliaments,
and bloggers telling the world their dreams. We see it in the skyscrapers
rising above Abu Dhabi, and … thriving Middle Eastern businesses that are
now connected to the global economy. We see it in a Saudi king sponsoring
an interfaith dialogue, Palestinian reformers fighting corruption and
terror, and Israelis who love their ancient land but want to live in
peace.
These are striking images, and they do point the way to a
brighter future. I believe the day will come when the map of the Middle
East shows a peaceful, secure Israel beside a peaceful and democratic
Palestine. I believe the day will come when people from Cairo and Riyadh
to Baghdad and Beirut, to Damascus and Tehran, live in free and
independent societies, bound together by the ties of diplomacy and tourism
and trade. The day will come when al Qaeda and Hezbollah and Hamas are
marginalized and then wither away, as Muslims across the region realize
the emptiness of the terrorists' vision and the injustice of their
cause.
[1] "President Bush
Attends Saban
Forum 2008," The White House, Dec. 5, 2008.
[2] "President Bush Calls for New Palestinian Leadership,"
The White House, June 24, 2002. Related Topics: US policy | 
Send
RSS
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment