Gamal Essam El-Din speaks with two leading American analysts about George Bush's foreign policy and calls for democratisation in the Middle East. Joshua Muravchik is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute for Public Research Policy while Larry Wilkerson is a close aide of former US secretary of state Colin Powell and a former chief of staff at the State Department The Arab democratic spring is over Interview with Joshua Muravchik At the beginning of his second term in office President Bush made a strong call for democratisation in the Middle East, with special emphasis on Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Two and a half years later how do you see this call? Nearly a year ago Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, in a speech at the American University in Cairo, said that "for 60 years the US pursued stability at the expense of democracy in the Middle East and it achieved neither". Now, added Rice, "we are taking a different course. We are supporting the democratic aspirations of all people." These words reflected a potentially new US foreign policy approach, especially towards Egypt -- the political, cultural and demographic centre of the Arab world. A year later, however, it is clear the Bush administration never took this new policy seriously. The Bush administration put its strategic interests with these two countries ahead of its push for democracy and respect of human rights. As a result 2005 and 2006 saw several setbacks. President Hosni Mubarak, contrary to campaign promises, extended the 25-year- old emergency law for two more years and delayed municipal elections. None of the setbacks, though, echoed more loudly than Mubarak's decision to take Ayman Nour, the one truly independent candidate who had the temerity to run against him, and clap him in jail. When the US Congress voiced its concern over the setback of "Egypt's democratic spring" in terms of cutting annual aid to this country by $250 million, the Bush administration intervened and said no way. Some American, and even Egyptian, political analysts have asked the US to use its economic and military assistance to Egypt as a tool to pressure officials towards embracing democracy. Do you approve this measure? Yes, very much. The US administration has to show that its calls for democratisation in the Middle East are more than rhetoric. Using annual aid to exert pressure would send a strong message to Egyptian and Middle Eastern officials that the United States is serious about its calls for democratisation, even if these calls harm its relations with some strategic partners such as Egypt. It would also send a message to democracy lobbyists in the region that the US is serious about rallying behind them and helping them turn their countries into true democracies. The US should do its best in terms of promoting democracy in the Middle East. But many political reformists in the Arab world believe that the Bush administration's staunch support for Israel has undermined efforts to muster popular support for democratisation... This could be partially true but the fact remains that the American people greatly sympathise with Israel. The American people believe that Israel did its best to reach peace with the Palestinians, but it is the latter that still refuse to accept the idea of the right of Israel to exist. During the 1990s the US accepted the idea of an independent Palestinian state and President Clinton put this issue on top of his foreign policy agenda. At the time the late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat became a frequent guest at the White House. Arafat, however, never rose to the status of a statesman. He preferred to remain a revolutionary hero. He rejected the peace offer in the Camp David negotiations with Israeli prime minister Ehoud Barak. After Camp David there were the Taba negotiations in which the Israelis gave more concessions, but Arafat again rejected them. President Clinton called him a failed leader, and it became evident to the American people that Israel had done its best to make peace and so deserved support and protection. What the US should do now is press on two fronts: encourage the voices of moderation, peace and democracy in the Arab world and exert more efforts to turn President Bush's roadmap into action. The White House cabal Interview with Larry Wilkerson You were a close aide of former secretary of state Colin Powell. How do you see President Bush's calls for advancing democracy in the Middle East, mainly in Egypt and Saudi Arabia? This is a new approach in US foreign policy but the problem is that Bush has never been sincere about putting it into action. The policy is the brainchild of what we call the neo-conservatives. They believed in implementing democracy in the Middle East, even if this necessitated the use of military force. They stood behind Bush in invading Iraq and now they want him to hit Iran. Bush argued the war in Iraq was to disarm Saddam Hussein but when this argument proved false he alleged the war was to make Iraq a model of democracy in the Middle East. What makes Bush insincere about advancing democracy in the Middle East is that he is not himself democratic. This is a US president who is chronically fond of ignoring the civil rights of US citizens. He has concentrated too much power in his administration's hands. The US has also got one of the most influential vice- presidents. US Vice-President Dick Cheney is the one behind most of Bush's foreign policy mistakes. He believes that calls for democratisation, especially in the Middle East and Russia, could be a great tool for extorting leaders in these regions to toe the American line. During previous administrations we have had powerful people like Cheney, but with a difference. Henry Kissenger, for example, was a powerful and smart American foreign policy-maker. But he used his influence for the good of the US and many other countries. He put an end to war in Vietnam and put Egypt and Israel on the road towards peace. He made use of his good relations with Sadat and with Israeli leaders for the benefit of the two countries and the Arab world. So do you think that most of Bush's foreign policies have been drawn up by neo-conservatives? In Bush's first term some of the most important decisions about US national security and foreign policy -- including vital decisions about post-war Iraq -- were made by a secretive, little-known neo- conservative cabal. It was made up of a very small group of people led by Vice-President Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. This secret process was ultimately a failure. It produced a series of disastrous decisions and virtually ensured that the agencies charged with implementing them could not execute them well. Most of the crucial decisions, from 2001 to 2005, were not made within the traditional National Security Council process but were the decisions of this cabal. The invasion of Iraq, huge budget for defence ($0.5 trillion), use of force in what they call preventive wars and blind support of Israel are clear examples. At the same time this cabal has caused a creeping usurpation of civil power by the military. So do you believe President Bush places Israeli interests on top of his Middle East agenda? Yes. This is quite true. You should know that most of the neo-conservatives are evangelists. They feel a religious affinity with the people of Israel. One of these neo- conservatives is Douglas Feith, who was number two in the Pentagon for many years. He believes in Israel more than in America. It is this man and his like that were behind the invasion of Iraq. Now they are urging Bush to hit Iran. They are against peaceful solutions. They are fond of wars and military confrontations. Bush's blind support of Israel is the reason why anti-Americanism has reached unprecedented heights. Israel may have been a strategic asset during the Cold War but now it is a strategic burden in the war on terror and broader US efforts to deal with rogue states. The US gives Israel support that far exceeds that provided to all other states combined.
