Bush speech not a 'prelude to bellicose foreign policy'
Bush Sr., others, say inaugural speech not start of 'new militarism.'
Clearly "taken aback" after allies (including Britain) and many other countries signaled a confusion about the direction of US foreign policy after last week's inaugural speech by President George W. Bush,
ABC News reported on Sunday that the president's father, the first President Bush, told reporters that his son's "
call for an end to tyranny worldwide should not be interpreted by foreign governments and the American people as a prelude to a more aggressive and bellicose foreign policy in his second term."
'People want to read a lot into it – that this means new aggression or newly asserted military forces,' former President George H.W. Bush said. "That's not what that speech is about. It's about freedom.'
London's
Daily Telegraph reports on Monday that an unnamed White House official told the media Sunday that the current President Bush has "
explicitly stated" that armed force would not be the US's first response to tyranny.
The speech was merely a continuation of policy. "It's not a discontinuity, a right turn, but an acceleration, a raising of the priority," the official said.
But
The Washington Post noted on Friday that Mr. Bush's words about encouraging freedom around the world are "at odds with the administration's
increasingly close relations with repressive governments in every corner of the world."
Some of the administration's allies in the war against terrorism – including Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Uzbekistan – are ranked by the State Department as among the worst human rights abusers. The president has proudly proclaimed his friendship with Russian President Vladimir Putin while remaining largely silent about Putin's dismantling of democratic institutions in the past four years. The administration, eager to enlist China as an ally in the effort to restrain North Korea's nuclear ambitions, has played down human rights concerns there, as well. Kenneth Roth, executive director of the New York-based Human Rights Watch, which recently
harshly criticized the Bush administration's human rights record, noted that while Bush used the word "liberty" many times, he did not mention human rights "as an overriding goal."
"The decision to speak in terms of liberty instead of human rights was deliberate,' Mr. Roth said. 'Liberty is an abstract concept, but human rights bind everyone, including the Bush administration. It's easy to say I'm for liberty but difficult to say I'm for human rights when he's overseeing what we know is a conscious policy of coercive interrogation, including inhuman treatment and sometimes torture.' An editorial on the left-leaning political website
ThomasPaine.com also said Bush's speech
consciously avoided mentioning the activities of his and past US administrations.
As if the United States has always stood for freedom and democracy around the world, rather than tyranny. As if the government of South Vietnam, the Greek colonels, the Brazilian generals, the Central American death squads, the South African apartheid regime, Indonesia's military thugs, General Zia of Pakistan, and the countless others who were warmly embraced as freedom-loving leaders by US presidents from Truman to Clinton didn't ever exist.
But Stephen Vincent, writing in the
National Review, accuses
the opponents of Bush, particularly on the left, of hypocrisy about their attitudes towards issues like civil rights, especially in terms of Iraq. Mr. Vincent compares incidents in Iraq today with the struggles of African-Americans in the 60s and 70s.
Over 40 years ago, men organized by the Christian preacher Edgar Ray Killen tracked down and murdered men whose sole crime was to attempt to expand voting rights throughout the south. Two decades later, similar killers, perhaps organized by a Muslim cleric, assassinated two Americans and one Iraqi in a similar fashion. Different times, different conflicts, but the principles for which these people died democracy, equality, and freedom – remain the same ... What will it take for the people of the world, particularly on the American left, to understand that this war is not about oil, US imperialism, or corporate greed – but the very bedrock of democracy, civil rights? In fact, Charles Colson argues in a column on the conservative
Townhall.org that Bush's speech is actually about no less an "
extraordinary moment" than Bush "seizing the mantle of idealism from contemporary liberalism."
There has now been a complete role reversal. It is the conservatives who, led by President Bush, are summoning us to greatness: to spread liberty, to free the slaves, to defend human dignity. As my White House friend said, "This president is intent on shaping history, not impeding it.' It's the liberals who are reacting, unwilling to defend liberty. A
CNN-Gallup poll conducted after the speech showed that
two-thirds of Americans shared the president's goal about the spread of democracy as being important to US foreign policy. But 60 percent of those surveyed also said they doubted the goal of ending tyranny worldwide was attainable.
Also...
•
Iran nuclear program 'near point of no return' (
Jerusalem Post)
•
US adds Israel to the Iran equation (
L.A. Times)
•
Noam Chomsky: 'Controlling the oil in Iraq puts America in a strong position to exert influence on the world' (
Independent)
• Feedback appreciated. E-mail
Tom Regan
.
|
RSS feed