President Bush’s press conference confirms the emptiness of “the freedom speech.”
President Bush’s impromptu news conference this morning revealed just how empty is President Bush’s new policy, or ideal, or goal of replacing tyranny with freedom. It is also a step in the right direction, as President Bush moves to sweep his mistaken, impulsive speech under the rug in favor of a reasonable and prudent approach. (*)
Because our own freedom is enhanced by the expansion of freedom in other nations, I set out the long-term goal of ending tyranny in our world. This will require the commitment of generations, but we’re seeing much progress in our time. . . .
Q Sir, your inaugural address has been interpreted as a new, aggressive posture against certain countries, in particular Iran. Should we view it that way?
THE PRESIDENT: My inaugural address reflected the policies of the past four years that said — that we’re implementing in Afghanistan and Iraq. And it talked about a way forward. I think America is at its best when it leads toward an ideal. And certainly, a world without tyranny is an ideal world. The spread of freedom is important for future generations of Americans. I firmly believe that free societies are peaceful societies, and I believe every person desires to be free. And so I look forward to leading the world in that direction for the next four years.
Q Do you see it as a policy shift?
THE PRESIDENT: No, as I said, it reflects the policy of the past, but it sets a bold, new goal for the future. And I believe this country is best when it heads toward an ideal world. We are at our best. And in doing so, we’re reflecting universal values and universal ideas that honor each man and woman, that recognize human rights and human dignity depends upon human liberty. And it’s — I’m looking forward to the challenge, and I’m looking forward to reaching out to our friends and allies to convince them of the necessity to continue to work together to help liberate people.
Yes, Terry.
Q Mr. President, let me take you up on that, if I may. Last month in Jordan, a gentleman named Ali Hatar was arrested after delivering a lecture called, “Why We Boycott America.” He was charged under section 191 of their penal code for slander of government officials. He stood up for democracy, you might say. And I wonder if here and now, you will specifically condemn this abuse of human rights by a key American ally. And if you won’t, sir, then what, in a practical sense, do your fine words mean?
THE PRESIDENT: I’m unaware of the case. You’ve asked me to comment on something that I didn’t know took place. I urge my friend, His Majesty, to make sure that democracy continues to advance in Jordan. I noticed today that he put forth a reform that will help more people participate in future governments of Jordan. I appreciate His Majesty’s understanding of the need for democracy to advance in the greater Middle East. We visited with him at the G8, and he has been a strong advocate of the advance of freedom and democracy.
Now, let me finish. Obviously, we’re discussing a process. As I said in my speech, not every nation is going to immediately adopt America’s vision of democracy, and I fully understand that. But we expect nations to adopt the values inherent in a democracy, which is human rights and human dignity, that every person matters and every person ought to have a voice. And His Majesty is making progress toward that goal.
I can’t speak specifically to the case. You’re asking me to speak about a case that I don’t know the facts.
(emphases added)
Of course, President Bush need not know the facts in Ali Hatar’s case to know that Jordan has a repressive government. Jordan is better than China, but still has progress to make.
In the speech, Bush announced he was making a “policy” of bringing freedom to the world. Now it is only a goal.
The press conference continued:
Q Mr. President, if I could return for a moment to your inaugural address. Dr. Rice referred in her testimony to six outposts of tyranny, countries where we clearly, I think, have a pretty good idea of your policies. What we’re confused by right now, I think — or, at least, I’m confused by, is how you deal with those countries like Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, with whom we have enormous broad interests. Should the leaders of those countries now be on notice that the primary measure of their relationship with the United States should be their progress toward liberty? Or can they rest assured that, in fact, you’ve got this broad agenda with them and you’re willing to measure liberty up against what China does for you on North Korea, what Russia does for you in other areas?
THE PRESIDENT: I don’t think foreign policy is an either/or proposition. I think it is possible when you’re a nation like the United States to be able to achieve both objectives — one objective, the practical objective of dealing, for example, as you mentioned, with North Korea. But I — in my meetings with Chinese leadership in the past, and my meetings with Chinese leadership in the future, I will constantly remind them of the benefits of a society that honors their people and respects human rights and human dignity. I have — for example, in meetings with the Chinese in the past, I have brought up the Dalai Lama, I’ve brought up concerns of the Catholic church. I have discussed my belief that a society that welcomes religious freedom is a wholesome and — religious freedom is a part of a wholesome society and an important part of a society.
Vladimir Putin — I have discussed with Vladimir Putin some of his decisions. I will continue — as you might remember in our meeting in Chile. I will continue to do so. I will remind him that if he intends to continue to look West, we in the West believe in Western values.
I — democracy is a progress — you’ll see progress toward a goal. There won’t be instant democracy. And I remind people that our own country is a work in progress. We declared all people equal, and yet, all people weren’t treated equally for a century. We said, everybody counts, but everybody didn’t count.
And so I fully understand developing a democratic society in the — adhering to the traditions and customs of other nations will be a work in process. That’s why I said we’re talking about the work of generations. And so in my talks, in my discussions with world leaders to solve the problem of the day, I will constantly remind them about our strong belief that democracy is the way forward.
What is this work that will take generations? Shall we merely remind them again and again what we stand for? Will we become the great international nag? Of course, what it means is that President Bush’s stand on replacing ending tyranny was an empty one.
Give President Bush credit for downplaying “the freedom speech.” At this point, he should continue to downplay it, keep moving ahead, and try to make people to forget all about it.