Hassan Nafaa* examines the chilling rhetoric of George W Bush's inaugural speech George W Bush's inaugural address was unlike that of any of his predecessors. Whereas they attempted to strike a conciliatory mood as they laid out their domestic and foreign policy programmes his was nothing less than a neo-conservative manifesto that came perilously close to declaring holy war. The speech must have come as a shock to the many who had hoped that Bush had learned from the mistakes his administration made during his first term. Certainly four years in office should have furnished the experience necessary to lead the world towards greater security and stability. It hasn't -- there was nothing in his speech to give comfort, not one hint of an admission that he may have made some mistakes, not a single sign that he has absorbed the lessons of the consequences of his actions. He made no reference to the wars he declared during his first term or to a timeframe for withdrawal from the Iraqi quagmire in which American forces have sunk up to their ears. There was no indication that he has begun to fathom the limits of recourse to force or the value of diplomacy in resolving international problems. As for the events of 11 September, 2001 which handed him the opportunity to metamorphose from a presidential novice who scraped into power through a dubious process into a latter day Alexander the Great, as his admires would have it, he did not refer to them by name. Instead he spoke of the "day of the conflagration". It would be a great mistake to dismiss Bush's inaugural address on the grounds that it was merely a formality in which ideological platitudes were spouted with a rhetorical fervour suited to the occasion. This was a very significant speech, and it was drafted carefully. Michael Girson, Bush's favourite speechwriter, wrote it and Bush read and revised it 21 times before settling on the final version delivered to Congress on 20 January. The speech serves as an outline of the agenda of the American ultra-right. Bush wasted no time in getting down to what his administration has identified as the primary threat to US national security. The most frequently repeated word in his address in this regard was not terrorism, as has been the case in so many of his speeches since 11 September, but dictatorship. It would be foolish, though, to assume that the change in terminology heralds a shift in US foreign policy. There may be some change in means and tactics but not in general strategies and objectives. The neo-conservatives whom Bush represents still believe terrorism is the major peril, but they have also come to realise that the phenomenon is an offshoot of despotism and that their objectives would be better served by treating the ailment and not just its symptoms. I have no doubt whatsoever that America's ultra-conservatives, who now hold the reins of power in the US, are convinced that the terrorism that struck New York and Washington in September 2001 was a product of dictatorial regimes and of nothing else. It follows that uprooting terrorism requires the destruction of the soil in which it breeds. If Bush's inaugural address was clear about anything it was about the nature of that soil -- dictatorial regimes that whip their people into subjugation and fetter their will. These have to be done away with and replaced by democratic governments with established mechanisms for the peaceful rotation of power. Although Bush stated that the US would not attempt to accomplish this aim by force of arms, and that it would not impose its system of government on others he did vow that the US would not turn a blind eye to oppression or condone despots and that it would come to the aid of people fighting for freedom and democracy. Not that he entirely ruled out the possibility of military intervention: "We will defend ourselves and our friends with force of arms if needed," he said. The speech was held together by the illusory thread that links freedom, democracy and peace in the US with freedom, democracy and peace abroad. The spread of freedom and democracy abroad was just as necessary to promote universal peace as the rule of freedom and democracy at home was necessary to maintain domestic peace. But there was more: "Events and logic lead us to one conclusion which is that the protection of freedom in our country is increasingly contingent upon the success of freedom in other countries. The best hope for peace is to spread freedom to all the countries in the world." Bush was at pains to head off any contradiction Americans might feel between the notion of spreading democracy and freedom in the world and the pursuit and defence of American interests abroad. Global freedom and democracy are, in themselves, in America's interests: the two are different sides of the same coin. And on the basis of this premise he pledged not to commit the same mistake made by previous administrations, which was to go easy on dictators in order to protect American interests abroad. A close reading of Bush's inaugural address leads to four conclusions. Firstly, his administration plans to follow an energetic policy of intervention. This policy will have no regard for international law and conventions. No longer will it take the alleged possession of WMD or aiding and abetting terrorism -- let alone aggression or a tangible threat of aggression -- to justify intervention. The charge of dictatorship, or not doing enough in the way of political reform, will suffice. Secondly, his administration regards spreading democracy as an American rather than international responsibility. The UN and other international agencies were conspicuously absent from his speech. True, he did praise Europe's role in promoting democracy in the world but this was less an invitation to partnership an attempt to smooth ruffled feathers and enlist support. Thirdly, the Bush administration has identified the Middle East as the main target for intervention. Russia and China, even from the perspective of this administration, are among other states that could use a good democratic housecleaning though Washington is perfectly aware that it is in no position to intervene directly in their domestic affairs. It may continue to tighten the noose around them by intervening in neighbouring countries but it will be very careful not to provoke an open clash. The only candidates for direct intervention through means that include recourse to arms and full-scale war are in the "greater" or "extended" Middle East, Washington jargon for the Arab and Islamic worlds. The countries included had better prepare themselves for mounting pressure from Washington to implement its recipe for reform. There are already signs that Iran and Syria have been slated for military action aimed at regime change and that the go-ahead only awaits a decision on whether these goals can be accomplished at a political and human cost acceptable to the American public. And, last but not least, Israel will have the US administration wrapped ever more tightly around its little finger as Washington defends its policies and actions however much they violate international and humanitarian norms. From the Bush perspective Israel, after all, is a democratic oasis in the greater Middle East. The world, we can assume from Bush's speech, is in for difficult times, and nowhere more so than in the Middle East. Do the governments and peoples of the Arab and Islamic worlds know what is in store for them? Should we not pre-empt the anticipated bullying and intimidation by undertaking the necessary political reforms which will strengthen our societies in the face of the forthcoming storm? Would it not be wiser to remove the pretext -- "dictatorship" -- that the US will cite as grounds for retailoring the region to fit Israeli designs? The answer to these questions is obvious. Doing it is another matter altogether. * The writer is professor of political science at Cairo University.
