Bush Sets New Course in the Mideast; Analysts Praise Directive on Democratization, but Some Wonder If Action Will Follow

By Patterson, Margot | National Catholic Reporter, November 28, 2003 | Go to article overview

Bush Sets New Course in the Mideast; Analysts Praise Directive on Democratization, but Some Wonder If Action Will Follow


Patterson, Margot, National Catholic Reporter


On Nov. 6, President Bush delivered a foreign policy speech in which he pledged the United States to the advancement of democracy in the Middle East and repudiated "60 years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East."

The speech delivered at the 20th anniversary of the nonprofit National Endowment for Democracy represented at least rhetorically a major departure from U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, a policy that historically had stability as its keystone rather than commitment to human rights or democracy. The strategy, said Bush, has not served the long-term interests of the United States because "stability cannot be purchased at the price of liberty."

Behind the News

Mideast scholars said the speech signaled a major formal change of U.S. policy in the region but added it remains to be seen whether the speech will be backed up by action. It should be viewed, they said, within the context of the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq.

"We need to understand that the president's speech is part and parcel of a major campaign on the part of the White House in order to respond to domestic criticisms about America's strategy in Iraq," said Fawaz Gerges, the Christian A. Johnson Chair in International Affairs and Middle East Studies at Sarah Lawrence College and the author of America and Political Islam: Clash of Cultures or Clash of Interests? "The speech was informed by America's challenges in Iraq itself."

William B. Quandt, professor of government and foreign affairs at the University of Virginia, called the decision to go into Iraq a watershed moment for U.S. policy in the Mideast. Quandt was a member of the National Security Council in the Nixon and Carter administrations who helped negotiate the Camp David peace agreement reached under Carter. Bush's speech, he said, is "part of the refocusing of U.S. policy in the Middle East [to] make this turn out for the best."

"The problem I have with the speech is whether it is really intended to reflect a change of policy in the region or is intended to make Americans feel good about what we are doing in Iraq--that is, to give a positive vision for what lies ahead for Iraq and the rest of the region," said Quandt.

"The missing ingredient in the speech--and we don't know yet about the policy to come out of it--is will there really be any carrots and sticks attached to it? Will our relationship with Egypt change? Will our relationship with Saudi Arabia change or is this just a way of having a rhetorical club to beat Syria and Iran with?"

Quandt said Egypt, a long-standing U.S. ally valued both for its stability and its willingness to make peace with Israel, will be a test case of whether the United States is serious about democratization.

"If we don't try to encourage Egypt in the direction of greater democracy, then a lot of people are going to look at it and say nothing has changed. This is just 'feel good' stuff," Quandt said.

That is, in fact, the perception of most Middle Easterners, said Ian Lustick, a professor or political science at the University of Pennsylvania and a consultant on the Middle East to four presidential administrations.

"President Bush never mentioned Israel in his talk. From the point of view of most of his listeners, this is proof positive that it's not a serious speech. It's a vision cooked up to justify what some in the administration want to do in Iraq. That is the reality of what Middle Easterners think."

Lustick said it was striking that Bush's speech cast democratization as the main concern of U.S. foreign policy. "It's hard not to notice that WMD [weapons of mass destruction] was not even mentioned in the speech. This is a virtual transformation in the justification for the war, taking it from a minor theme to the major objective. The fact is, as it's heard in the Middle East, this is not really a change because this is more of the United States saying one thing and doing another.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Bush Sets New Course in the Mideast; Analysts Praise Directive on Democratization, but Some Wonder If Action Will Follow
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.