U.S. still adrift in Mideast
Robert Jensen
School of Journalism
University of Texas
Austin, TX 78712
work: (512) 471-1990
fax: (512) 471-7979
rjensen@uts.cc.utexas.edu
copyright Robert Jensen 2004
Below is the full version of a piece that appeared in edited form in the Dallas Morning News, April 12, 2004, p. A-15.
by Robert
Jensen
In Monday’s meeting at the presidential ranch in Crawford, George Bush and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak are scheduled to discuss terrorism, freedom and the Israel/Palestine conflict -- under the rubric of Bush’s “Greater Middle East Initiative.”
The key question is: What new initiative is there?
In a November 2003 speech, Bush acknowledged that U.S.
officials have been on the wrong side of the region’s struggle for
democracy: “Sixty years of Western
nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East
did nothing to make us safe.”
Bush is right.
Through Republican and Democratic administrations, the United States has
chosen dictators over democratically elected leaders (such as in Iran, where
we installed the brutal Shah), backed anti-democratic monarchies to enhance
our influence over the flow of oil and oil profits (such as Saudi Arabia),
and supported the human-rights violations of allies (such as Israel’s
brutal occupation of Palestinian territory). The goal was never U.S.
citizens’ safety, but U.S. power.
But is Bush now
planning to pursue policies in the Middle East that commit the United States
to a “forward strategy of freedom”? The record suggests not.
Take one of our new friends in that part of the world, Uzbekistan. The State Department’s 2003 report called it “an authoritarian state with limited civil rights” that has a “very poor” human-rights record replete with “numerous serious abuses.” But in December 2003 Bush waived rules requiring a suspension of military aid if there weren’t improvements in human rights. But after 9/11 Uzbek President Islam Karimov gave Washington access to strategic bases, and U.S. forces still operate from Khanabad Air Base to support operations in Afghanistan. So much for democracy and freedom.
What
about Iraq? The most recent evidence of the United
States’ respect for freedom came when the Coalition Provisional Authority
shut down Al Hawza, the newspaper associated with Moktada al-Sadr, allegedly
for inciting violence even though
the paper had not called for violence. A more plausible analysis is that the
United States wants to weaken al-Sadr’s organization and push him out of
the political process well before elections.
Beyond
this single incident, the hypocrisy in U.S. policy is clear. Any
future Iraqi government that is to be deemed “legitimate” will provide
the United States with permanent military bases. The
“Law of Administration,” or interim constitution, signed in March by
Iraqis under U.S. “guidance,” guarantees that U.S. military
forces will stay at least through December 2005, and Iraqi forces will
remain under U.S. command -- hardly a recipe for a free and open political
process. Before that, the CPA had privatized much of the Iraqi economy,
dictating the very shape of Iraqi society.
As Rahul Mahajan, reporting from Iraq (see www.empirenotes.org),
put it last week, “There is no quicker way to get an Iraqi to laugh than
to talk about how the United States is bringing freedom or democracy to the
country.” Most Iraqis are glad Saddam Hussein is gone, but they have few
illusions about U.S. intentions.
But perhaps the most obvious
expression of contempt for democracy is the Untied States’ rejection of
international law and the international consensus for ending Israel’s
occupation. Until Washington supports the right of Palestinians to determine
their own future, out from under Israel’s harsh military occupation of the
West Bank and Gaza, no one will take seriously rhetoric about democracy. As
Israel’s primary backer -- financially, militarily, and diplomatically --
the United States refuses to exercise its considerable leverage over Israeli
policy.
Bush is right to say many people in the Middle East
and the Islamic world want democracy. The
question is whether U.S. policymakers will allow it.
-----------------------------
Robert Jensen is a journalism professor at the University of Texas at Austin, a founding member of the Nowar Collective, www.nowarcollective.com, and a member of the board of the Third Coast Activist He is the author of Citizens of the Empire: The Struggle to Claim Our Humanity (City Lights Books). He can be reached at rjensen@uts.cc.utexas.edu.
BACK TO ROBERT W. JENSEN'S HOME PAGE