Dissecting Bush Policy towards the Muslim world

By Kazi Anwarul Masud (former Secretary and ambassador of Bangladesh)

Now that curtain has been drawn on the rule of one of the most unpopular Presidents in US history perhaps time has come to delve into the question whether allegation against Bush of waging “war against Islam” is a tenable proposition or that his obsession on security after 9/11, partly influenced by the neo-cons who surrounded the Bush White House should be held responsible.    Perhaps the events of  nine-eleven terrorist attacks had expedited the formulation of the Bush National Security Strategy (NSS) of September 2002. The NSS document declared that President Bush’s foreign policy aims to be (a) to promote human dignity through political and economic freedom; (b) to provide security against terrorism and weapons of mass destructions; and (c) to engage in conflict areas and with allies. While the aims were laudable the most worrisome aspects of the NSS were the concept of American exceptionalism and the doctrine of preemption. The document declared “The US national security strategy will be based on a distinctly American internationalism that reflects the union of our values and our national interests”. The most  worrying aspect of the Bush NSS document remains   the doctrine of preemption. Bush’s doctrine has expanded the relatively non-controversial concept of true preemption, allowed under the UN Charter which could be legitimized if under taken against an imminent, specific, near certain attack. The most basic reference to legality of any war under the UN Charter is under articles 42 and 51—either one is acting in self-defense or acting under the authority of the UNSC. War in any other form would be illegal and unjust. But the framers of the UN Charter could not have foreseen the devastating role played by non-state actors; the problem of failing and failed states; and the technological nature of the threat. One can therefore find some logic in the assertion  that preemption is not a new concept and that there could be no moral or legal justification for a country to wait to be attacked before it can address the existential threat.

Critics of Bush doctrine have asserted that the doctrine represents a major redirection of policy and a radical revision of existing security rules. It has been argued that preemptive military actions reflect policy failures and not triumph of superior values or virtues. The basic argument remains that terrorism can not be fought by terrorist means because it would more likely serve the interest of the terrorists who depend on the victim’s instinctive impulse to retaliate and thereby compounding the problem and changing the complexion of the original scenario for the worse.   Despite popular perception that the aggressive foreign policy of the Bush administration had undergone a perceptible change towards multilarealism Bush National Security Strategy of 2006 compared to his earlier one of 2002 did not reflect the popular belief of a change in policy.  President Bush  remained totally committed to what he called for eradication of “Islamic fanaticism”. Contrary to common belief   fundamentalism does lie in Islam alone. Walter Russell Mead of the US Council of Foreign Relations (God’s country—Foreign Affairs—September/October 2006) has described the US, the only super power in the world today, as a nation where religion shapes its character, helps form America’s ideas about the world, and influences ways Americans respond to events beyond its shores.   On the  question of Israel, increasing evangelical political power have translated into deepening US support for Israel in the US administration and Congress as opposed to liberal Christian establishment who prefer to take a moderate view of the crisis in the Middle East.    The liberals, however, have come to sympathize with the Palestinian movement because of Israel’s human rights abuses in the occupied lands. But the liberal Christians and secular intellectuals have been losing ground simply because evangelicals have been increasing social and political power.

In Europe, however, despite collective guilt still felt by the Europeans for the holocaust they are by and large more just and equitable in their judgment on the Middle East crisis. The Europeans have been more strident in their denunciation of Israeli wanton aggression of Lebanon.

But then the Muslim world could, perhaps, try to mitigate the clash of two competing ideologies within the Islamic world and disengage the clash of civilizations between Islam and Christianity now being propagated.   Question has, however, arisen whether democratization of Muslim societies would necessarily reduce terrorism and prevent fresh recruits to the terrorist outfits. Vermont University Professor Gregory Gause holds the view that since the al-Qaidists are not fighting for democracy but for the establishment of what they believe to be a purist version of an Islamic state there is no reason to believe that a tidal wave of democracy would wash away terrorist activities. Political reforms, therefore, has been suggested by some as a possible solution.  But liberal thinker Paul Berman states that this approach may not succeed as al-Qaida ideology and radical Islam are driven by a fear and hatred of liberal Islam which they see as a “hideous schizophrenia” of the West that divides the state from religion and promotes individual freedom. Some believe that modernity rather than democracy should be used as the most important tool to fight global terrorism. Since modernity involves more than improved material conditions and entails a transformation in beliefs and philosophies, al-Qaedists with their narrow interpretation of religious dogmas would lose their appeal. But then again it has also been argued that al-Qaedist appeal is not due to lack of modernity in the Islamic society but due to its excess which in the view of so-called purists is instrumental in contributing to social “degeneration” of the Western culture having contagion-effect on Muslim societies. 

 It would have been unrealistic to expect the American troops to depart Iraq during the  Bush administration but President Obama’s announcement to bring back home a large number of soldiers by the end of next year has changed the scenario. Despite its penchant for the display of muscularity and disdainful treatment of international law the Bush administration must be credited with its public realization that since democracies do not wage wars against each other, democratic values must be instilled in those societies where people have little say in the governance of their own countries.

Bush administration’s reluctance to admit that the root cause of the turbulence in the Middle East was its refusal to pressurize Israel for an equitable solution of the Palestinian problem is putting the moderate rulers in the Islamic world on a confrontational course with their citizens. This difficulty faced by many Arab governments was recently voiced by King Abdullah of Jordan where governments with failed political and economic policies are treading on razor’s edge to find a common ground between those clamoring for Western model of liberal democracy and market economy and those refusing modernity are trying to take the society back to its pristine 6^th century roots. While this struggle for the soul of Islam is raging in the Islamic world the Bush administration had taken the lead for the atonement of Western guilt complex for the holocaust perpetrated by the Nazis and centuries of injustice meted out to the Jews by the Christians by giving Israel a free hand in Palestine and  in Lebanon. It is encouraging that US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton addressing the Asia Society on 13^th February this year said “Existing problems, we believe, are opportunities as well. Exercising smart power begins with realistic assessment of the world we inhabi. And this obliges us, no less than other nations, to acknowledge our own contribution to the global problems we face”.  Though in the present day world of US nuclear primacy and her uncontestable military might it may sound academic, yet the argument advanced by Richard Nixon in the 1970s that the only time in history the world had seen extended period of peace was when there was a balance of power is profoundly meaningful. “It is when one nation becomes infinitely more powerful” Nixon added “in relation to its potential competitor that the danger of war arises”. After the Second World War President s Roosevelt and Truman could have created a great Roman empire (intervening in another polity without actually governing it) but they preferred to establish the United Nations and the Breton Woods institutions. Fifty years anther US armed with the doctrine of preemption is asking the international community to subordinate to its hard power the principles of the UN Charter( articles1 section 4, article 2 section 4, articles 41, 42 and 51; principles VI and VII of the Nuremberg Tribunal; and article VI of the US Constitution)—all of which in spirit and letter hold the doctrine of preemption as a flagrant and unconscionable violation of law.

 Bush administration’s wish to usher in the fourth wave of democratization (first being pre-colonial, the second being post-colonial and the third being in East Europe, Latin America and East Asia) in Broader Middle East and North Africa, the first card already dealt through Iraq elections, then the White House may be in for disappointment. Western thinkers are unanimous in their belief that building blocks for a modern democratic political culture are not elections, parties and legislatures. Rather building blocks are supportive cultural values—political trust, social tolerance, basic political liberties and gender equality. While it may not be possible to build these blocks in an election or two, unwavering international cooperation with Iraq preceded by an unambiguous US declaration that US forces have no design on Iraqi resources nor any intention to stay longer than necessary, preferably giving a time limit to end the current occupation of Iraq would help calm the prevailing restless situation.