"The World’s Leading Dissident"
By Aaron Goldstein (01/24/05)
President George W. Bush has been described in many ways. And yes, many of the ways in which he has been described have been, to put it charitably, less than complimentary.
Now no one, not even President Bush, likes to be called names. But, of course, one must consider who is uttering the names. If it is the likes of Michael Moore, International A.N.S.W.E.R. moveon.org or Jessica Lange are calling President Bush a war criminal or a Nazi one must sigh, smile and take their verbiage with a grain of salt. Well, perhaps a bucketful. Though one might be appalled by the ignorance of the speakers in question at the end of the day their thoughts really don’t mean anything. It is part and parcel of living in a democracy. President Bush’s enemies did everything in their power to ridicule, smear and vilify him. The American people patiently listened to their arguments (again I’m being charitable) and told them to take a hike.
There are some names, however, that are worth being called. These words are badges of honor. If the person in question who bestows the badge of honor has himself been called names and has paid the price for it the compliment is that much more meaningful.
Shortly after his re-election, President Bush met with former Soviet dissident and now Israeli Cabinet Minister Natan Sharansky. Bush has read Sharansky’s “The Case for Democracy” as have several of his Cabinet members including incoming Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice. For his part, Sharansky called President Bush, “The world’s leading dissident.”
Now that is a compliment!
When you consider that Sharansky spent nearly a decade in a Soviet jail having been convicted of treason in a show trial and having endured unspeakable physical torture the compliment carries that much more weight. If Sharansky calls an American President “the world’s leading dissident” that means he has earned it.
Prior to September 11, 2001, there was little reason to believe that Bush’s foreign policy would be that much different from the first President Bush. If anything, it might have well been a tad isolationist. But after the events of 9/11, President Bush was left with little practical choice.
With al-Qaeda being harbored by the Taliban government in Afghanistan, President Bush had little choice but to remove that government. Now a democratically elected government is in place under the leadership of Hamid Karzai. Afghanistan, of course, has a long way to go but to paraphrase President Reagan Afghanistan “is better off now than it was four years ago.”
Given that Saddam Hussein had on 17 separate occasions violated UN Security Council resolutions citing breaches of the Gulf War Ceasefire; given Saddam’s relations with terrorist organizations ranging from al-Qaeda to Hamas and given that there was a global consensus that Saddam had WMDs or was at the very least capable of restocking them in a short period of time, President Bush had little choice but to lead the way and liberate Iraq so that Iraqis might finally have a chance to govern themselves.
President Bush could also not go on legitimizing the now departed Yasser Arafat as Bill Clinton had done. The late PLO Chairman lied to the President about not having any knowledge about weapons that had been shipped to the Palestinian Authority on the Iranian ship, “Karine A.” President Bush could not accept Arafat’s active role in encouraging suicide bombers be it through schools, state controlled media, the mosques as well as his own statements to Palestinians in Arabic. In June 2002, President Bush threw down the gauntlet to the Palestinians – they could have a state or terrorism but not both.
Whatever one might think of the quality of the election, the Palestinian people have now given Mahmoud Abbas a chance to govern them. It, of course, remains to be seen if he will clip the wings Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad and the al-Asqa brigades. Abbas must prove that his efforts are more than to put on a show for the Western media. A significant mass of the Israeli populace believes that the Palestinians ought to rule themselves but in so doing they must stop trying to turn Israel into ruins.
When one considers what has occurred in Afghanistan, Iraq and with the Palestinian Authority, it should come as little surprise to anyone that President Bush would state in his Inaugural Address that “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.”
Of course, tyranny will not cease when President Bush leaves office on January 20, 2009. This is hardly a four year project. More like a forty year project and that is an optimistic prognosis. President Bush acknowledged, “The great objective of ending tyranny is the concentrated work of generations.”
Yes, the Loony Left and a few on the isolationist Right, will say, “You can’t invade every country.” And they would be right. It is neither desirable nor feasible to conduct a military intervention in every rogue nation in the world. More often than not, diplomatic pressure will work best. Take the recent events in Sharansky’s native Ukraine as a case in point. The Ukrainian people made it clear that they would not accept a fraudulent election and had the evidence to back it up. America agreed with the Ukrainian people and said so. Even if that meant stubbing Vladimir Putin’s toes.
Those on the Loony Left and Buchananite Right might also be moved to say, “Well, why not invade Saudi Arabia or Sudan?” Of course, such a statement would be disingenuous on their part because neither the Loony Left nor the editorial page of “The American Conservative” would support a military intervention in Saudi Arabia, Sudan or anywhere else?
There has been much chatter that there might be a military invasion in Iran. In his article, “The Coming Wars,” that appeared in the most recent issue of “The New Yorker,” Seymour M. Hersh argues that a war in Iran would be conducted in secret by the Pentagon and the Department of Defense. Of course, Hersh relies on anonymous sources in the CIA who have an axe to grind with the Bush Administration because of the reforms that are occurring in the field of intelligence so the information is at best self-serving and at worst dubious. Isn’t it weird that Hersh is defending the CIA? I have no doubt that there are some sort of clandestine operations going on in Iran and I would not expect the Bush Administration to compromise the secret nature of these missions. It must be remembered that unlike Saddam’s Iraq where nearly all dissidents resided outside Iraq, Iran has an active internal pro-democracy movement and American efforts would be ideally suited to encouraging that movement. But since it appears that Iran is developing a nuclear bomb despite the efforts of the International Atomic Energy Agency and the European Union there is a certain urgency to the situation. Some argue that Israel might do to Iran what it did to the Osarik nuclear facility in Iraq back in 1981. But given Prime Minister Sharon’s commitments to the Road Map this scenario might not come about. Again, President Bush may be left with no choice.
But let us consider two countries whose people have been subject to tyranny for many years – Cuba and Zimbabwe. Although half a world away from each other, these two countries possess one thing in common – aging dictators. Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe turned 80 last year and Cuba’s Fidel Castro turned 78 this past November. Mugabe and Castro may be Presidents for Life but they will not live forever. Despite Cuba and Zimbabwe’s links to socialism these countries have been governed by cult of personality and opposition to those personalities has been strongly suppressed. What is to happen to the people of Cuba and Zimbabwe when Castro and Mugabe meet their makers? Will Castro and Mugabe’s cronies hold onto power or will decisions from Havana and Harare be conducted with the consent of the governed? President Bush declared, “When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you.” When Castro and Mugabe pass on I predict that Cubans and Zimbabweans will stand for their liberty. The only question that remains is should this come to pass after Bush leaves office will his successor stand with Cubans and Zimbabweans?
I have no doubt that Bush had Sharansky in mind when he said, “Democratic reformers facing repression, prison, or exile can know: America sees you for who you are: the future leaders of your free country.” I’m also sure that he was thinking about Daw Aung San Suu Kyi of Burma. She has been under house arrest since 1990 after winning a landslide election and the ruling party would not hand over power. I’m also sure that he was thinking about Dr. Oscar Elias Biscet of Cuba who is currently serving 25 years in a Havana prison for flying the Cuban flag upside down. I’m also sure that he was also thinking about the millions of people who suffer indignity in anonymity and obscurity.
The Sharanskys, the Suu Kyis, the Biscets may live continents apart but all of them seek liberty. President Bush’s challenge to America and to the world is to speak on behalf of those who cannot now speak for themselves.
(Printer friendly version) Email: Aaron Goldstein
