... first, President Bush breaks his own rule and negotiates with TERRORISTS, N. Korea and Iran; now, he shows the world how to adandon your friends (Israel), and how to lose influence (Egypt) ...
... HAIL! King Wimpy! ...
" ... Evidence is also growing that China would both support and welcome a post-Mubarak Islamist state to counter U.S. interests in the region. A Paris-based intelligence newsletter released in June noted that an intelligence agent of China’s Ministry of State Security (MSS) has covertly aided the ruling Palestinian Hamas government and its military wing, ..."
2 comments:
I hesitate to be argumentative but I don't think the article support your idea about Bush's Failing Foreign Policy.
First, the author writes:
"But Premier Wen’s words of reassurance come at a difficult juncture in U.S.-Egypt relations. Recently, President Mubarak has withdrawn from contact with key U.S. leaders, reportedly angered by continued criticism of his regime’s human rights record and attempts by the U.S. Congress to redirect portions of Egyptian assistance to international humanitarian efforts. In his place, the 77-year old Mubarak has sent his son Gamal to Washington, with the 42-year old briefly meeting with President Bush and U.S. Defense Secretary Dick Cheney in late May."
He seems to contradict himself with his closing paragraph:
"It is time for the Bush administration to press Cairo for greater commitments to democracy, human rights and U.S.-led regional security alliances. Otherwise, the U.S. could soon face an Islamist-led Egyptian government in control of the Suez Canal with China as a primary economic and military backer."
So the author says that US policy has caused Mubarak to withdraw and look to the Chinese but that it is time for the Bush Administration to administer more of the same US policy that estranged Mubarak to begin with.
Like the rest of the Arab world, Egypt is a complicated country. One thing that we have learned lately is that democracy isn't the be all and end of of foreign policy remedies. After all, we have seen the results of two democratically elected governments; In the Palestian territory and now sadly in Lebanon.
I think Hitler was democratically elected too wasn't he?
Argument is good! : )
I'll agree with you that the author's recommendation to continue with the same old "diplomacy" is bad advice, it most certainly is. And, this failure with Egypt is just one example out of many. In fact, you've pointed out one of the main problems with the "Bush Doctrine". He believes that "democracy" can be spread like butter all over the middle east and elsewhere and that this magic ointment will somehow make things right. Bush has forgotten that freedom has to be fought for, earned - NOT BY A SECOND PARTY - but by the people of that country. Iraq will degenerate back into an Islamic dark age as soon as we leave. This is probably why Bush keeps talking about a generational responsibility in Iraq and Afghanistan. We will have to secure the "democracy", because they certainly won’t! People give Japan and Germany as examples of this "spreading of butter". Bad examples! These countries were literally beaten into submission, twice for Germany.
Look at what's happening in Israel. Israel has been warning the Bush administration for a long time to "press" the disarming of Hezbollah and Hamas, as per U.N. agreement. I realize Bush can't be held responsible for everything in the world, but one would think an all out effort would have been made to protect Israel's security. According to most all the experts, judged by watching too much news, Iran and Syria are the core supporters and initiators of Hezbollah and Hamas. Can we talk our way out of this? Look at history in the region since 1948 and answer is clearly no! Is the Bush doctrine of “taking over countries and securing democracy" a valid one or not!?! Do we continue to talk or is ACTION NEEDED!
This brings up another problem; Bush seems to believe that talk solves everything, the Iraq and Afghan fighting notwithstanding. Those two efforts were done for reasons mentioned above (and other reasons). Perhaps I'm ignorant concerning the Diplomatic Corp, but one would think that a diplomat would be used to exchange policy information with a foreign government thereby communicating expectations between the two countries on specified subjects, possibly leading to a treaty, to be ratified by the Senate, I would add (another Bush problem). Instead, our diplomats are attempting to solve problems better left to the military.
Another example, which should be laid at Carter's feet, is Panama. There is heavy Chinese influence in Panama. We should have redone the treaty and secured Panama for our future. Now, China has growing influence in South America. Bush is really just following the path of his predecessors.
I'm going to become a Dymphna now and say that Bush's Methodist outlook is as bad as his dad's Presbyterian outlook!
Post a Comment