BASED on President Bush's past advocacy of democracy across the globe, one might have expected that he would pledge in his recent State of the Union address to topple what he has repeatedly characterized as the antidemocratic government of Iran and replace itwith a "true democracy."
After all, way back in 2002, Bush named Iran as a part of the "axis of evil," along with Iraq and North Korea, and since that time Iran has pledged to wipe Israel off the map and has continued in its quest to develop nuclear technology. A clearer case for war could not be made under the premises of the Bush doctrine, which pledges an unhesitating commitment to spread democracy and individual rights across the globe as well as a promise to utilize force if necessary, even in the absence of a direct security threat.
Bush made no such pledge in his most recent State of the Union address, and his refusal to do so shows the utter bankruptcy of the promise Bush made in his 2005 inaugural address to "all who live in tyranny and hopelessness," that "the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors." Yet the limits of Bush's commitment to this promise are all too conspicuous. For example, Bush has made no attempt, not even rhetorical, to curb obvious human rights abuses by the Chinese government against dissidents and minority groups. The all-too- apparent limits of the Bush doctrine indicate that future U.S. foreign policy should be grounded more in the realities of state sovereignty than in the natural rights of man.
For every step forward Bush has achieved through foreign policy -- and the political situations prevailing in Iraq, Egypt and Palestine only arguably represent the triumph of liberal democracy -- the Bush doctrine has produced ominous complications. Political parties firmly committed to the destruction of Israel now stand in firm control of the governments of Iran and Palestine, while bloodshed and instability continue in Iraq.
It is the situation in Iran that most clearly suggests the abject failure of the Bush doctrine. After the "axis of evil" speech, Iran's relationship with the United States, which had been moving unmistakably towards closer ties, deteriorated rapidly. As a result, the election in 2005 of hard-liner Mahmoud Ahmadinejan, who has disregarded American interests entirely.
Why Bush refuses to consider Iran a "democracy," given Iran's relatively free and frequent elections, is especially puzzling considering Bush's statement that "democracies in the Middle East will not look like our own, because they will reflect the traditions of their own citizens." Bush's inconsistency on this ground is even more apparent given that Pakistan, a country that holds no elections and that has developed weapons of mass destruction, continues to receive American support despite Bush's grandiose claims about America's role in the world.
But Bush's qualification about the uniqueness of the new democracies he plans to create undermines his broad theory. For while Bush high-mindedly refuses to consider the possibility that democracy is not a natural, inalienable right, he apparently concedes that tradition will inform the governments that are actually created in these countries. But in pushing for universal democracy, Bush has laid out an impossible foreign policy mandate for the United States -- otherwise, China would be a target. The Bush doctrine serves as little more than a rhetoricial tool.
Moreover, the Bush doctrine is a rhetorical tool whose utility is limited to building domestic support for the President's foreign policy in Iraq because it is difficult to see how this rhetoric advances our global standing. Bush spoke directly to the Iranian people in his speech, insisting on American good will. One could not help but to compare this the address President George H.W. Bush broadcasted on Iraqi radion stations after the Persian Gulf War, in which he encouraged the Shi'ite people to rise up and topple Saddam Hussein. The Shi'ite, inspired by Bush, fought valiantly, but were slaughtered without American support. By using rhetoric to create false hopes in the oppressed citizenry across the globe, we are courting similar disasters.
While our soaring rhetoric is infinite, our weaponry, troops and will are limited. And by tossing around rhetoric indiscriminately, such as Bush's labeling of Iran in 2002 as "evil," we risk starting conflicts we cannot resolve. In facing the dilemmas now present in Iran and Palestine, we will have to rely on basic diplomatic realities -- trade sanctions and the potential withdrawal of foreign aid -- to ensure that these governments do not threaten us and our global interests.
There was a time when a President's direct address to the citizens of another nation would have been unthinkable because of the idea of sovereignty-- that nations are expected to be the judge of their own affairs. Whatever the utility of the sovereignty principle, we ignore it at our peril, for however much we may wish to help the downtrodden global masses, the oppressed people will always prefer their own institutions to whatever institutions we wish to impose upon them.
While there may be some situations where human rights imperatives justify our intervention, the sovereignty principle, so conspicuously ignored by Bush, gives citizens of other nations the breathing space essential to construct their own institutions and perhaps to blaze their own paths toward freedom.
Noah Peters' column appears Mondays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at npeters@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 3 days agoThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | 4 days agoAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
YOUNIS: Why every U.Va. student should say yes to English
By Ayat Younis | January 9, 2025Every student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
