As President Bush surveyed America's relations with the outside world
in his address to Congress, three positive developments received applause
from his critics: the removal of the bloody Baath regime of Saddam Hussein,
the development of orderly and representative government in Afghanistan,
and Muammar Qaddafi's renunciation of nuclear weapons in Libya.
Beyond these successes, however, Mr. Bush insisted upon staying the
same course that has aroused more anger and despair in Muslim societies
and more criticism from Europeans than any other American policy in
recent memory. Mr. Bush would have substantially improved his reputation
as a world leader, had he dealt with the major objections to his initiatives.
He should have apologized for his erroneous claims about nuclear, chemical,
and biological weapons in Iraq before and since the American invasion
and about alleged collaboration between Hussein and al-Qaida. Instead,
he continues to make the world believe that miraculously some day somebody
might discover hidden caches of weapons of mass destruction somewhere
in Iraq: "We're seeking all the facts."
Mr. Bush praised America's main supporters in the occupation of Iraq--Britain,
Australia, Poland--but he did not recognize the countries rendering
substantial assistance in Afghanistan--as if this is less important.
He told Americans who opposed the invasion of Iraq that he respects
their principles, but he did not reach out in the same manner to the
leaders of Russia, Germany, and France who faced overwhelming popular
opposition to the war.
Still bearing a grudge against the dissenters at the United Nations
Security Council, Mr. Bush remained defiant: "America will never
seek a permission slip to defend the security of our people." Actually,
nobody ever said that America should not defend itself when attacked.
Most foreign leaders did not see the invasion of Iraq as an imperative
act of self-defense, but they backed the war on al-Qaida as justified
and unavoidable.
As usual, Mr. Bush gave the impression that he believes terrorism can
be subdued by military force alone. It surely is progress that "nearly
two- thirds of their known leaders have now been captured or killed."
Yet, he still does not seem to recognize that wherever Muslims are being
killed, particularly as collateral victims, some of their kin may decide
to avenge their deaths even by acts of terror and self-sacrifice. That
response has become typical of powerless people in the face of what
they experience as unbearable injustice and humiliation.
The President, more than anybody else, can eliminate the root cause
of such Muslim terrorism if he compelled Israel's hard-line rulers to
end their blood-drenched occupation of Palestinian lands and agree to
an equitable peace settlement. The world knows only too well of the
billions of American dollars buttressing Israel's armed might.
"Our aim is a democratic peace -- a peace founded upon the dignity
and rights of every man and woman," Mr. Bush asserted. Yet, he
never once mentioned the Israelis and Palestinians who need this peace
more than anybody else in the region. It is in their national interest,
and it is in America's national interest.
Condescendingly, Mr. Bush proposed to develop "free elections and
free markets, free press and free labor unions in the Middle East."
In reality, the political cultures of the different Arab countries vary
so greatly from each other that the President's generalization about
the absence of those freedoms only shows the extent of his and his advisers'
ignorance.
There are genuine features of democracy in at least some Arab countries.
I personally observed the functioning of representative government in
Lebanon, Bahrain, and Yemen. Surely, Condoleezza Rice fails as the President's
National Security Adviser if she does not inform him of well-known facts.