New Sisyphus
Another member of the State Department Republican Underground writing on all matters, foreign or domestic. Email us at NewSisyphus@yahoo.com "The struggle itself toward the heights is enough to fill a man's heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy." - Albert Camus, The Myth of Sisyphus
Secretary Rice Goes To Paris: The Phenomena of American Timidity Abroad
By NewSisyphus
To say we're disappointed would be an understatement. In its advance billing, Sec. Rice's speech in Paris today, given at the Insitut d'Etudes Politiques, was to be a major policy speech. It was supposed to lay out the Bush Administration's position on where U.S.-E.U. relations are going and what was required to move the Atlantic alliance back to primary importance.
Instead, what we received was another sad example of American timidity. In its foreign policy, and, sadly, its public diplomacy (see today's Daily Demarche for an indispensable look at the sad state of affairs in this area), the United States punches way below its weight. Too cognizant by far of its role as Leader of the Free World, the United States is constantly pulling its verbal punches, not speaking its mind, and generally mumbling platitudes in the hope that muddling through as we always have will get us by and smooth feathers we, as top dog, naturally ruffle just by our mere presence.
There was a time, during the 1990's for example, when the United States could afford to coast on business-as-usual. Now, however, is not such a time. The times cry out for bold leadership, for clear vision and for plain speaking. In the domestic realm, the President is not adverse to offending some when he outlines his vision for the future. In the foreign realm, however, the United States remains a monotone speaker, never speaking directly, let alone engage if the type of freewheeling exchange necessary to win any debate.
Unfortunately, the Boss' speech today is a classic example of the genre. Before we go on, we want to make two things absolutely clear. First, we admire and respect the Boss and we're happy beyond measure that she is our new leader. Second, we admit that today's speech did accomplish its immediate objective; as posted below, France was extending an olive branch, willing to put the disagreement over the Iraq War behind us and move forward. Today's speech grasped that olive branch firmly. There is no doubt now that both governments are committed to improving relationships and renewing the old alliance. But speeches such as today's should not be judged merely by their immediate effect.
Instead, they should be judged by how clearly and forcefully the put forward America's view of the world in these dangerous times. We have collectively judged the situation so dangerous as to justify sending our men and women halfway around to world to kill people. Surely, in such a situation our diplomats can speak with passion about why we came to that decision, why we think it was the right decision and why, exactly, we want our friends and allies on board with that position.
Today's speech accomplished none of that. Instead, once again, our timidity, our needless fear, expressed itself in a series of Hallmark card blandishments, each more cliched than the next. All too often, our spokesmen take the weight of the world on themselves, thinking that since the U.S. is one of the few responsible powers in the world it is incumbent upon us to restrain ourselves, to not express exactly how we feel, so that we are a calming, soothing presence.
The result today was a bland speech, virtually empty of content, that was sure to please every anti-American heart that glows with knowing glee every time it hears America pronounce another simplistic statement. In her introduction, for example, Sec. Rice told what must have been a bemused audience of sophisticated political science students that:
The history of the United States and that of France are intertwined. Our history is a history of shared values, of shared sacrifice and of shared successes. So, too, will be our shared future.
I remember well my first visit to Paris -- here -- my visit to Paris here in 1989, when I had the honor of accompanying President George Herbert Walker Bush to the bicentennial celebration of the French Revolution and the Declaration of the Rights of Man. Americans celebrated our own bicentennial in that same year, the 200th anniversary of our nation's Constitution and our Bill of Rights.
Those shared celebrations were more than mere coincidence. The founders of both the French and American republics were inspired by the very same values, and by each other. They shared the universal values of freedom and democracy and human dignity that have inspired men and women across the globe for centuries.
Does Secretary Rice and her speechwriters really think the French are unaware of the similarity of impulses that brought both the American and French Revolutions? This is the sort of pabulum more suited to a speech by an American mayor at a French consulate on Bastille Day. We wish we could say it got better, and, to be honest, we actually skimmed over the introduction as the usual diplomatic niceties. Imagine our surprise when the substance turned out to make the introduction look like a PhD thesis. We can spare you a 5-minute read by summarizing: in the past, advances were made against tyranny and for freedom when Europe and America worked together and the time has come for us to do so again.
The speech basically had three points, but none strayed from the central thesis. The first was the importance of the Middle East Initiative and its executive body, the Forum of the Future:
Individual EU member-states have also been working for years to nurture the attitudes and institutions of liberal democracy in the Arab and Muslim worlds.
And it is not just our governments that are promoting freedom. American- and European-based non-governmental organizations devote huge efforts to the reform process.
Our people exemplify the values of free society as they work in their private capacities. Our societies, not just our governments, are advancing women's rights and minority rights.
Our societies, not just our governments, are making space for free media, for independent judiciaries, for the right of labor to organize. The full vitality of our free societies is infusing the process of reform, and that is a reason for optimism.
We don't know exactly when American political speeches devolved into a one-sentence-one-paragraph format, but we do know that we don't like it. The point here seems to be that since the U.S. loves freedom and the E.U. loves freedom, we have a mutual interest in seeing freedom in the Middle East. But that begs the question: how? How, exactly, is this to occur and what will be the United States' role? How does the E.U. fit into the equation? How will legitimate differences of opinion on the question of Palestine be resolved? None of these most basic questions are referred to, let alone explained.
The second point is that the E.U. must now help the U.S. stabilize and advance democratic progress in Afghanistan and Iraq. Why must Europe do this? Well....because......
There is much more to do to create a democratic and unified Iraq; and the Iraqis themselves must lead the way. But we in the transatlantic partnership must rise to the challenge that the Iraqi people have set for us.
They have shown extraordinary bravery and determination. We must show them solidarity and generosity in equal measure.
We're not sure there is an answer in there, but to the extent we find one it's that the Iraqi and Afghan people have been so brave the E.U. has to help them. Somehow we don't expect that to be enough to get the governments of the E.U. truly committed to our cause; and we sure don't expect it to influence European public opinion.
The third (and final!) point is that peace in the Middle East is at hand because "America and Europe both support a two-state solution: An independent and democratic Palestinian state living side by side in peace with the Jewish State of Israel." This is simply stated as fact, yet bears little relation to the facts on the ground. Most of the governments in the E.U. do not support a two-state solution; they support the "redress" of Palestinian "grievances" against the "occupiers." The position our Secretary stated was the position only of the United States and, on alternate Thursdays, the U.K.
The most dangerous aspect of this speech was that this third point will serve to accomplish no more than to reinforce the dangerous and foolhardy belief in Europe that no progress whatsoever is possible in the Middle East until Israel and Palestine are at peace. This shibboleth has, in fact, never been less true than now. By raising hopes once again, by raising the "Palestinian Authority" back to where it was at the time of Oslo, the Bush Administration is running the very likely risk of creating nothing more than an excuse for Europe to continue to do nothing about the problem of Islamic Fascism. "What's the point, we can't do anything, our hands are tied, until you solve the Israeli-Palestinian problem there is nothing to be done."
This is the exact opposite of the message we should be sending.
The only bright spot was the unscripted question-and-answer period, once we got over the fact that the students' questions sounded much more relevant to the real world than the Secretary's speech. This question from a brave Arab comrade, for example, cheered us:
QUESTION: Good afternoon, Madam Secretary. I am the president of the Council of Democratic Muslims in France. As a French citizen, originated from Bagram, I'd like to -- here we have a few people from left and right, who live democracy, and we know them, we love them because they speak sincerely. If you put yourselves in the position of an Arab -- French or American -- he lives in a Western country. He lives democracy. He lives his freedom.
Do you think for a single moment when going around the Arab world or Muslim world, is there one single country, one country, Madame Secretary, where freedom of expression or democracy is respected? When President Bush tells us, I am here to free the world from tyranny, theocracy, dictatorship, every Arab dreams, dreams of this feeling of finding himself again in a country that you want to build for them.
Unfortunately, and my question is: Is there a single Arab or Muslim country, which deserves to be defended by Bush and by America? Is there a single Arab country, which is making an effort? Please allow the Secretary to respond.
QUESTION: (VIA FEMALE INTERPRETER) Yes, good afternoon. I'm the President of the French Council of Muslims, and I'd like to understand, as a citizen myself of a democratic country. And here we have a lot of political people from the left and the right, political people, which I, who I represent -- sorry -- whom I like and know because they speak the truth. Is there one single Arab country; is there one single Arab country in the world, which really deserves to be defended by the President Bush?
SECRETARY RICE: Well, it was somewhat longer than that, I believe, and I understand [NOTE: The Secretary speaks French]. Let's talk about the Arab people. The Arab people deserve a better future than is currently in front of them. This is a part of the world in which the status quo is not going to be acceptable.
You have large populations that are not receiving proper education. As the report to the United Nations by Arab intellectuals noted, you have 22 countries that have a GDP that is not the size of Spain. This is just not acceptable for a culture -- the Arab cultures -- that were, in many ways, part of the cradle of civilization. How can this be?
And so the freedom deficit, the absence of freedom, has had very dramatic, negative effects in this part of the world. And unfortunately, we in the West, for too long, turned a blind eye to that freedom deficit.
When the President spoke at Whitehall in London, he talked about 60 years of trying to buy stability at the expense of freedom, and getting neither. And what we have gotten instead, is a level of hopelessness that has produced an ideology of hatred so virulent, so thorough, that people flew airplanes into American buildings on a fine September morning; blew up a train station in Madrid; people in another part of the world from another tradition, but the same ideology of hatred, that took helpless children hostage in Russia. This can't be the future of the Middle East.
And so both our security and our moral conscience tell us that this is a part of the world that can no longer be isolated from the prosperity and human dignity that freedom brings. And so it is not what President Bush defends; and certainly, I want to be very clear.
As I said earlier, this is not an issue of military power. This is an issue of the power of ideas, of the power of being able to support people in those societies who are just tired of being denied their freedom.
And so this is a great goal, not just for the United States, but for all of us who are fortunate enough to live on the right side of freedom because in each and every case, for all of us, somebody cared enough about human dignity and human liberty to make a stand in our past. Our ancestors did.
And that's why we all enjoy the liberty and freedom that we do. And sometime in the past, others stood up for us so that we could defeat tyranny and we could live in freedom. And we simply have to do the same thing for the people of the Middle East who are seeking a different future.
The sad thing about this excellent exchange is that it throws into sharp relief the drab shabbiness of the main address. Here, unscripted, the Secretary was able to speak with passion and sincerity about our core beliefs and why we fight the War on Terror. We need much more of this if America is to get over its timidity and start the dangerous and hard work of convincing the people of the world that the War on Terror is their war, that it implicates their future. |
