This argument went even beyond the Bush administration. You'd think that Obama supporters would have embraced the idea that their man could credibly support dissidents in a way that the hated Bush could not. Wasn't that the whole point of President Obama's outreach to the Moslem world in his Cairo speech? But no, during Iran's Green revolt, the Obama administration stood by almost completely mute as the mullah regime brutally suppressed the dissidents.
And then we had the Tunisia revolt. We were silent during the brief period leading up to Ali's flight. So what was the reaction in the Arab world?
[One] thing is clear from the "Tunisian example": People in the Middle East have given up any hope that the United States can be a force for democratic change. As the uprising spread in Tunisia, the administration of U.S. President Barack Obama stayed largely silent until the day Ben Ali fled. That was when Obama issued a statement condemning the use of violence against peaceful protesters and applauding "the courage and dignity" of Tunisians. By then, it was too late: The U.S.-backed dictator was gone, and the Arab world chalked up another example of how Washington favors stability over democracy.
Recall that the Bush administration in its second term finally abandoned pressing Arab allies to expand rule of law and democracy under pressure from liberal critics who slammed the whole "democracy" project. They demanded foreign policy "realism" that would support stability over freedom, in contrast to the then-raging Iraq War.
Look, it isn't like I'm not comfortable on a case-by-case basis for supporting an autocrat when we need that country for our national interests. It is true that such regimes can be better than the alternative for both the country's own people and for our national interests. But while it may be necessary it is nothing to be proud of. And it is nothing we should enshrine as national policy if we don't have to do it. Victory in the Cold War meant we could afford to press freedom as a long term macro-goal rather than worry about the short-term bad effects that could result on a local basis.
Our brethren on the left told us that Arabs neither wanted nor deserved freedom. (And we who disagreed with that cynical view were the heartless ones!) We gave the democrats in the Arab world what our liberals told us these democratic dissidents wanted. Now we find that Arab democrats have given up on us--the once shining light on the hill for freedom.
How's that Cairo outreach hope and change working out?
UPDATE: Even aside from all the faux elections in the Arab world undermining the claim of many leftists here that Arabs don't want or value democracy, Tunisia is showing that people, once unshackled from their chains, value freedom:
There is a pervading sense among Tunisians that they are, at last, on the doorstep of democracy and this opportunity to get it right must not be missed. Street demonstrations small and large, often dispersed in chaos by police firing tear gas, funnel the joy, anger and fear of Tunisians trying to ensure that their "people's revolution" doesn't stop.
But hey, even if the "they don't want freedom" argument is obviously false, you can always claim they don't deserve freedom, huh?
UPDATE: More thoughts on this issue. Do read it.
