« Bai On Stern and Labor | Main | Can Spam »
Glossing Jordan
Today's column, inspired by White House correspondent Terry Something and the Aardvark discusses the untamed fire of freedom's prospects in Jordan:
In December, Ali Hatar strode into the metaphorical town square in the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and delivered his lecture "Why We Boycott America." For his trouble, Hatar got arrested under Section 191 of the Jordanian penal code for slander of government officials. Jordan, in other words, flunked the town-square test. . . .And then there's this business in Egypt.
The trouble here is not especially that the president's policies are hypocritical, or at odds with his rhetoric. The rhetorical dissonance makes things worse, but the basic problem is that the policy is a bad one. Paradoxically, it is anti-American speakers in pro-American countries whose liberty is crucial to American security. Ali Hatar and others should be free to speak their minds and, if they desire, to elect a government that is less charitable toward the United States. This might be inconvenient. It is, however, far preferable to the alternative trajectory, which is well known to us from observing the biographies of the intellectual and organizational leaders of al-Qaeda and related movements. Down this other path, Arabs angered by their governments' policies realize that in order to change the policies, they must change the government. By force. But they can't overpower local governments backed by the many resources of the United States. So they decide to take the fight straight to the far enemy -- us.
February 1, 2005 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8345160fd69e200d8343a742553ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Glossing Jordan:
Comments
Excellent post. Bush comes off somewhat smooth in the transcript of the press conference ("I'm unaware of the case" blah blah) but it rings a bit hollow to hear him plead ignorace of the facts of the case. I'm sure he understands that similar episodes frequently occur. I guess one just has to constantly remind oneself that our leader is not a detail-oriented operations guy, he's the public face of the company.
Posted by: fnook | Feb 1, 2005 11:23:00 AM
MY, from your TAPPED post:
I only recall one instance in which they've tried to intervene on behalf of dissidents in a U.S.–aligned Arab state, and that one time they got results.
For those of us not necessarily paying as close attention, what was that one time?
Posted by: SoCalJustice | Feb 1, 2005 11:33:39 AM
And then there's this business in Egypt.
(from the link:)Will the Bush administration say or do anything about this?
Perhaps if Matthew was paying attention, he'd already know the answer:
"At a briefing at the White House on Monday, Mr. McClellan said Mr. Bush's conversations with both leaders were brief, and touched on the future of Israeli-Palestinian talks. But when pressed, he said that despite Mr. Bush's pledge in his Jan. 20 Inaugural Address to make the promotion of freedom the touchstone of his foreign policy, there was no discussion of how to make democracy radiate out from Iraq to Egypt, Saudi Arabia or other neighboring states.
Notably, the State Department sharply rebuked Egypt on Monday for arresting a major opposition leader ahead of what may be a sixth referendum on Mr. Mubarak's rule."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/01/politics/01diplo.html?pagewanted=2
Posted by: Al | Feb 1, 2005 11:42:21 AM
Also, this line from Matthew's TAP piece (why doesn't he link directly to the piece, BTW?) is just an out-and-out lie:
Naturally enough, Jordanians are less than thrilled by this situation, so now and again they venture into the town square to complain. And then they get arrested. The government of the United States, newly recommitted to freedom, had nothing whatsoever to say about this until an intrepid White House reporter asked the president about it on January 26.
As the WaPo piece made absolutely clear, the government of the United States was on the case BEFORE the reporter asked Bush about it:
"After the news conference, the White House directed the State Department to inquire about the case through the U.S. Embassy in Amman, a senior administration official said, declining to comment further.
But a senior State Department official said the embassy had been following the case and raising questions about it with the government. He said the incident and similar cases had already figured in the draft of the department's annual human rights report, scheduled to be released next month."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39783-2005Jan26.html
Other than that lie, though, I though the piece was quite good. I think there is a pretty good case to be made for increasing the pressure on our "allies" in the region. The only bone I have to pick is that I think Matthew should have recognized that doing so may, to some extent, undermine our other goals in the area. I think the piece would have been much better off if it explicitly recognized the balancing act the Bush administration must enter into. But there certainly is a case to be made that we could be more usefully balancing in favor of increasing pressure on Jordan and Egypt.
Posted by: Al | Feb 1, 2005 11:52:35 AM
Gosh, that'll really shake Mubarak up. He might get so scared that he'll forget all about the $1.3 billion in military aid we're sending him.
If this administration really cared about either advancing democracy or fighting terrorism, it would have started by dropping its support for the pro-U.S. regimes in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, and the Gulf States. There's a reason why 17 or 18 of the 19 September 11 hijackers came from those countries, while zero came from Iraq.
This is why the war in Iraq would have done absolutely nothing to reduce the appeal of radical Islamism in the Middle East, even if it had been successful. The vast majority of those who have turned to terrorism have come from pro-U.S. countries. And those people know perfectly well that the reason why they have to live under dictatorships has nothing to do with rogue leaders like Saddam Hussein, and has everything to do with the fact that their dictators are actively supported by the United States.
Posted by: JP | Feb 1, 2005 12:29:07 PM
Al, the fact that the embassy had been following the case doesn't mean that the government has had any formal position on the situation. The US embassy in Beijing has been far more vigilant about human rights than the administration as a whole has been for years (at least until Clark Randt was appointed). In my experience of embassies around the world, they are often marginalized when their on-the-ground experience doesn't jive with the policies decreed at home.
Posted by: Zoe | Feb 1, 2005 12:32:24 PM
JP,
I agree with almost everything you just wrote, but would add to it the fact that one of those "pro-U.S. countries" has a nasty habit of actively teaching its people to hate us while sending Adel al-Jubeir and Prince Bandar to local media outlets to play up U.S.-Saudi "cooperation."
At the same time, we have an administration who ignores the copious amounts of hatred being spread in the "Kingdom" and abroad, as well as redacted 28 pages of a Congressional report which purportedly "lays out a money trail between Saudi Arabia and supporters of al Qaeda."
Posted by: SoCalJustice | Feb 1, 2005 12:40:00 PM
JP - "This is why the war in Iraq would have done absolutely nothing to reduce the appeal of radical Islamism in the Middle East, even if it had been successful."
Did I miss something while sleeping over-night? Did the US withdraw all the troops (though they should) or did the administration admit defeat while I was sleeping? My fear is that it is far from over.
The problem I see with you guys is that you can't make up your mind. You same people who are belittling your administration for not taking action against your so called "Allies" are the same people just a few post ago who were saying that the US needs to stop interfering in other countries. I don't understand this ideology.
Posted by: Old Europe | Feb 1, 2005 1:06:40 PM
JP and USCJustice -- So, "the reason why they have to live under dictatorships has nothing to do with rogue leaders like Saddam Hussein, and has everything to do with the fact that their dictators are actively supported by the United States."
"THE reason" ... "EVERYTHING to do"? Thanks for the sophisticated, nuanced analysis. You really, really shouldn't have dropped out of high school, guys.
Posted by: ostap | Feb 1, 2005 1:09:34 PM
You're right of course, SoCal. I was just trying to keep it brief. Maybe a better way to put it is that most terrorist types come from countries that this administration thinks are pro-U.S., and that the fact that we support every ostensibly pro-U.S. undemocratic regime in the Middle East while we only oppose anti-U.S. undemocratic regimes - even when they're less undemocratic than the pro-U.S. regimes - shows that the administration really doesn't care at all about democracy except as a cheap-shot rhetorical device.
Anyway, seems to me like we have plenty of leverage against Egypt and Jordan. I know we give Egypt tons of aid, and I think we give some to Jordan too. We could easily go to them and say, no more $ unless you democratize and recognize freedom of the press, etc. That's what a real pro-democracy crusade would look like: declaring a virtual Cold War against our former allies. It would be unpleasant in the short term, especially for Israel, but in the long run it would probably be better for everyone. An undemocratic regime forcing a pro- or semipro-Israel stance on its people will never be a stable situation anyway. The only way to really solve things is to change people's minds, which can't really be done unless they're first given political power.
I'm not sure what we could really do about the Saudis and the Gulf States, since I don't think we really give them aid per se. But we just can't continue being their allies. Notwithstanding the oil benefits, there's just nothing good that comes out of that.
Posted by: JP | Feb 1, 2005 1:16:39 PM
You same people who are belittling your administration for not taking action against your so called "Allies" are the same people just a few post ago who were saying that the US needs to stop interfering in other countries.
No, we're not.
Posted by: JP | Feb 1, 2005 1:18:45 PM
You same people who are belittling your administration for not taking action against your so called "Allies" are the same people just a few post ago who were saying that the US needs to stop interfering in other countries.
There's 'interfering' and then there's the other 'interfering'.
Posted by: abb1 | Feb 1, 2005 1:40:53 PM
abb1 - I understand what you're saying but my point is to say you can't have it both ways, depending on how you feel about a particular issue. It is somewhat hypocritical.
Posted by: Old Europe | Feb 1, 2005 2:01:13 PM
Canceling military aid to a country like Egypt or Israel is a kind of interfering I'd like to see more often. Bombing a country like Egypt or Israel is a kind of interfering I'd hate to see. What's hypocritical about it? I ain't see nothing.
Posted by: abb1 | Feb 1, 2005 2:09:42 PM
JP,
I would say that any U.S. administration runs the risk of being charged with hypocrisy if, as part of their articulated foreign policy, they wish to "promote democracy" and then are extremely selective about where they "promote" it.
Having said that, I would say that different countries pose different problems to the U.S., irrespective of their relative levels of democratic institutions.
I don't have a problem with dealing with perceived problems first, but I would feel better about it if it weren't couched in terms of democratizing the entire Middle East - because we have no intention of putting any real pressure on countries like Saudi Arabia and Egypt, nor is it clear that "democratization" of each Middle Eastern country would mean the same thing or have the same benefits, if any.
I'm happy in general when people have more freedom and more rights. However, that should be balanced against how many people have to die in the name of those freedoms/rights. "Democratization" of a Wahhabi state could be exceedingly bloody. Not that we ever do anything but report on the lack of human rights in Saudi Arabia - as long as C.P. Abdullah keeps the spigots open.
Additionally, if we found "stockpiles of WMD" in Iraq anytime near when the statue of Saddam was torn down - let alone any time since the invasion occurred - I doubt the "democratization" rhetoric would have become the crux of all of Bush's foreign policy speeches.
Posted by: SoCalJustice | Feb 1, 2005 2:10:42 PM
I'm not sure what we could really do about the Saudis and the Gulf States, since I don't think we really give them aid per se. But we just can't continue being their allies. Notwithstanding the oil benefits, there's just nothing good that comes out of that.
So we should turn our back on the Saudis, perhaps sanction them? I guarantee you their oil would find its way back to the US market (and our money back to them) via intermediaries same way Iranian oil was trafficked in the 80's through the present day. This administration doesn't think the Saudis are "pro-US" -- it recognizes that clumsy levelling of threats through sanctions or similar measures (let alone an invasion) would be portrayed as colonialism and would accomplish very little, as it does in Iran. If anything it would end such cooperation on intelligence as the Saudis are most likely offering now. Your prescription for Egypt (whose history of anti-Western and anti-US fundamentalism predates our foreign aid policy by decades) seems equally vague.
less undemocratic than the pro-U.S. regimes
To which countries are you referring ?
Posted by: Tetra | Feb 1, 2005 2:27:21 PM
SoCal: Well, sure. Everything has to be looked at case by case. And Saudi Arabia is clearly the thorniest problem out there. And I certainly wouldn't want to "democratize" any of these countries via invasion. All I'm really advocating is a certain level of benign neglect. In a number of these countries, we are actually an active hindrance to political liberalization. That's simply an intolerable situation, and we just can't allow ourselves to keep going down that road.
Posted by: JP | Feb 1, 2005 2:31:18 PM
JP,
All I'm really advocating is a certain level of benign neglect.
I'm not sure yet what I advocate, but in the case of Saudi Arabia I think I'd prefer something more active than that - including cutting off diplomatic ties until they quit promoting their double dealing jihad.
Of course, there's no will for that in this White House - even though there's plenty of will to embark on more expensive and bloody endeavors. We're still trying to pretend that the Saudis are "our friends."
Posted by: SoCalJustice | Feb 1, 2005 2:49:41 PM
I guarantee you their oil would find its way back to the US market (and our money back to them) via intermediaries same way Iranian oil was trafficked in the 80's through the present day.
Yeah, well, no kidding. That's why it's a difficult situation. But the fact that we might not have much leverage against them doesn't mean that we should actively go out of our way to support the royal family.
To which countries are you referring?
Well, the Saudis are generally thought to be considerably worse than Iran, and on the same level as Iraq. Some of the "Stan" countries in Central Asia that we're allied with are probably about as bad as the Saudis too. I think Iran is in the same ballpark with Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan, and the Gulf states, all of whom are our allies.
Posted by: JP | Feb 1, 2005 2:51:13 PM
I think Iran is in the same ballpark with Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan, and the Gulf states, all of whom are our allies.
Well, Iran is worse in many regards than some of the more liberal Gulf states. But our 'friendliness' to any of these countries cannot possibly correlate with their 'openness' nor will adopting an unfriendly posture with any of them necessarily lead to reform: nb North Korea.
Posted by: Tetra | Feb 1, 2005 3:13:00 PM
abb1
I thought the topic was about the US administration placing pressure on their allies to respect human rights and the such. I too, don't see that rescinding financial aide to a country as "interfering" as long as it is just stopped, no strings attached, such as "we're going to take away your foreign aide if you don't stop arresting citizens who are vocal against your government."
Posted by: Old Europe | Feb 1, 2005 3:14:04 PM
Any diparities in our foreign policy toward authoritarian regimes fall away when you drop the 'democracy' filter (a fig leaf) and apply the only one that matters to those who rule: 'control'.
All discussions of what measures we should take toward different regimes (scolding, sanctions, bombing, invasion) is pointless, it simply won't happen unless the state is already ruled by US-unfriendly leaders, ie, Syria or Iran. People here seem to be mistaking the frame currently used to legitimize the war (democracy promotion) for actual foreign policy goals.
Posted by: ScrewyRabbit | Feb 1, 2005 3:48:02 PM
Old Europe, yeah, exactly. Cutting aid doesn't sound like much of an interference, does it. So, what do you mean by 'putting pressure'? And would they be 'putting pressure' to defend some radical Islam proponent? I guess not, huh?
That's why, I think, a government 'putting pressure' on another government 'to respect human rights' is bullshit, it's inherently political and has nothing to do with human rights; I guess I have to agree with you that it's hypocritical. Only non-government organizations (something like AI) can defend human rights and be actually consistent about it.
Posted by: abb1 | Feb 1, 2005 3:52:24 PM
Great column, Matt. BTW, the reporter was Terry Moran.
Posted by: sofia | Feb 1, 2005 4:13:56 PM
I'm looking for a 2-D graph, where one axis represents how good or bad a government is on human rights/democracy, the other axis represents how cooperative the government is with the US, different countries are scatter plotted in this space and, say, color coded based on how much pressure the US puts on them on human rights, etc. Say you put red dots for countries like Korea or Iran, lots of pressure, blue dots for countries like Pakistan or Egypt, little or no pressure. One could do a least squares fit to determine the line that best separates the blue from red dots, and which axis it is more aligned with, as a measure of how hypocritical US policy is. Someone must have done this before.
Posted by: Stephan Mertin | Feb 1, 2005 6:14:18 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
