Home >> United States & Canada >> Foreign Policy & Military

     Email   Print 

George W. Bush: Will Words Match Deeds?

Marc Johnson - 2/9/2005

Over-reaching. Audacious. Dogmatic. Unrealistic. Reckless. Naïve. Though the inaugural address was to some extent lost in the media frenzy surrounding the state of the union, the former deserves another look. The denizens of Punditry Inc. were quick to congratulate the president on a rhetorically soaring inaugural speech, but they wasted no time in criticizing him for reaching out to the oppressed people of the world with a heartlessly tantalizing offer of support that he couldn't deliver on.

Not to be outdone, some members of the president's own party knocked the speech as being only a few steps short of outright hypocrisy because of the wide-ranging implications of taking his words literally. William F. Buckley, the arch-conservative icon, called Bush's speech confusing and hinted broadly that the president might not have given sufficient thought to the full meaning of his words.

Even members of the White House staff rushed to pour cold water on the world's expectations, as if placating nervous European and allied Middle Eastern governments was preferable to allowing citizens of tyrannical regimes a breath of fresh air from America's shores.

The problem is, people couldn't believe their ears.

American foreign policy hasn't been internally consistent since Benjamin Franklin was Ambassador to France (perhaps not even then). America stands up for principles but applies them unevenly. America throws the rhetoric of freedom around but acts out of motives based on political realism. America talks of lofty ideals while planting its feet firmly on the ground. To be blunt, America makes sweeping foreign policy pronouncements that are never intended to be applied globally except in the individual circumstances that they were designed for.

But maybe it's time for a change. Perhaps it is, in fact, the moment to set a good example for the rest of the world. Can America put its money where its collective mouth is?

Bush said, "…it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world."

Every member of the audience surely had his own views on what country Bush was specifically talking about in this sentence, but it is a fair bet that the top suspects included Iran, North Korea, and Cuba. All three are unquestionably undemocratic, oppress their people, and fall generally under the heading of tyrannical regimes. And from president to president for the last twenty or so years, America's rhetoric has changed little when it comes to these regimes. But what of other, greyer shades of tyranny?

China clearly heads the second tier list. From the Cultural Revolution to Tiananmen Square to the present day, China perseveres in its belief in an occasionally odd but always repressive version of communism. The ruling elites are mainly shadowy figures exerting enormous influence over the world's most populous country from behind the Byzantine veil of The Party. And yet, as a member of the World Trade Organization, China receives Most Favored Nation trading status with the US and is looking forward the end of the European arms embargo. America essentially decoupled the questions of trade and human rights during the Clinton administration, and the relationship has settled firmly into a look-the-other-way partnership. Taking a harder stand with China, including in the trade arena, is a necessary component of the type of approach Bush advocates. While the United States unquestionably depends on China economically - some estimates place the number of China-related US jobs at over 200,000 - China depends more on America for its livelihood. Not surprisingly, there isn't much data available on how many Chinese rely on America for their jobs. Is the president prepared to be tougher on China?

Our words also seem detached from our policies in Egypt. Cairo receives nearly $2 billion a year in foreign aid - most of it in the form of military sales - and has been the second largest recipient of such aid (after Israel) for many years. According to the Council on Foreign Relations, Egypt gets about 10% of the US's annual foreign aid budget. But Egypt continues to rebuff American governmental transparency initiatives and persists in semi-covertly supporting all manner of anti-American and anti-democratic sentiments. Hosni Mubarak hasn't decided whether he will seek a fifth six-year term. Much has been made of the fact that 15 of the 19 World Trade Center hijackers were Saudi, but it's often forgotten that the other four, including the ringleader, Mohammed Atta, were Egyptian. As with Pakistan, Middle East realists argue that a deal with the devil on terrorism will result in more short-term security, but will this be at the price of America's principles? Is America prepared to ask Mubarak, as Bush said in the inaugural speech, to "encourage reform … by making clear that success in our relations will require the decent treatment of [his] own people"?

And what of Russia? Bush's personally warm relationship with Vladimir Putin belies our understanding that Russia is a society in deep turmoil, not least because of Putin's own authoritarian tendencies. With the connivance of the oligarchs and often under the guise of fighting terrorism, Putin has consolidated power, undermined press freedoms and made his country, on balance, a less free place than it was when he took power. When should we expect Secretary Rice to fully "clarify the choice" between freedom and oppression for Putin?

There are others. Burma has stayed under the radar. Sudan, recently in the news as part of an international debate over the meaning of 'genocide,' appears poised to emerge with its own morally corrupt leadership intact. Zimbabweans, suffering as they do under the yoke of Robert Mugabe, no doubt wonder when the "concerted effort of free nations to promote democracy" will make its way to Harare. Venezuelans are waiting for relief from their own kleptocracy. And let's not forget that while Libya, Kuwait, Indonesia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and others have made incremental if modest progress, the road that lies ahead is surely longer than the one traveled so far.

President Bush realizes that this endeavor is by definition a long one, and it will surely be an uphill battle. His speech, though, was an appeal to the better angels of the world's nature to stifle the shrill cries of American foreign policy's realistic reflexes. Having won a second term, Bush is now mercifully released from the pressure of campaigning. He seemed refreshed by that, which may give him energy for the task he has seemingly set himself to. In some ways, Bush seemed to be reaching for the words of Robert Browning: "…a man's reach should exceed his grasp, or what's a Heaven for?"