Some people on the right are trying to do to same thing with Egyptian democracy promotion that they’ve done with the International Criminal Court (ICC) – fallaciously argue that Obama’s policy has been drastically different than that of Bush. From Clifford May at the National Review:
…[T]he fact is that Bush did push for democratic reforms around the world — including Egypt — and that did contribute to the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon in 2005, as well as Georgia’s Rose Revolution in 2003, Ukraine’s Orange Revolution in 2004, and, of course, the Purple Revolution of Iraq in 2005 (perhaps, too, the Green Revolution in Iran, which began in 2009 and may not be entirely extinguished yet).
If the Obama administration had maintained that policy, the Lotus Revolution in Egypt — and the Jasmine Revolution that immediately preceded it in Tunisia — might have been seen as waves in an American-generated tide.
Instead, Obama rejected Bush’s policy. He took the view, shared by most European leaders, that in such regions as the Middle East, stability trumps liberty. As a result, those marching in the streets now do not view Obama as a proponent of hope and change.
One could argue that Obama did not show democracy the money – in 2008, Obama cut funding for Egyptian democracy and governance programming from $50 million to $20 million and funding for civil society programs and NGOs from $23 million to $7 million. But May doesn’t make this case. Instead, he argues that Obama didn’t push for democracy in his Cairo speech and didn’t support the Green movement in Iran. As for Cairo, he did speak about the importance of democracy. It was one of the seven issues he discussed:
Suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. America respects the right of all peaceful and law-abiding voices to be heard around the world, even if we disagree with them. And we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments — provided they govern with respect for all their people… So no matter where it takes hold, government of the people and by the people sets a single standard for all who would hold power: You must maintain your power through consent, not coercion; you must respect the rights of minorities, and participate with a spirit of tolerance and compromise; you must place the interests of your people and the legitimate workings of the political process above your party. Without these ingredients, elections alone do not make true democracy.
As for Iran, strongly supporting the protesters would have surely had the opposite of the intended effect. The appearance of U.S. support would have undermined the credibility of the protesters.
But May’s most egregious error is suggesting that Bush chose democracy while Obama chose stability. May’s only evidence that Bush supported democracy in Egypt is a link to an article about how, in 2005, Condoleeza Rice cancelled a trip to Egypt to protest Mubarak’s arrest of the Egyptian democracy activist Ayman Nour. However, the same article, a couple paragraphs later, states that the Bush administration did not follow through with any serious push for Egyptian democracy. After Mubarak’s election in 2005, the U.S. ambassador to Egypt appeared on Egyptian television to congratulate Muabrak on his victory. And, though Ayman Nour was placed back in jail, Rice opposed a Congressional effort to reduce the $2 billion in foreign aid that the U.S. gives annually to Egypt. As the article notes, the Bush doctrine was not “deep-sixed” by Obama, but rather, “[i]t was under Bush.”
Another insightful article on Bush’s Egyptian democracy policy is one written by Matt Latimer, a Bush speechwriter. He tells the story of Bush’s speech at the World Economic Forum in 2008. Latimer wrote a speech in which Bush would come down hard on Mubarak’s democracy promotion failures and demand that Mubarak release Ayman Nour. Bush loved the speech, as did the State Department, but the Saudis and the Egyptians (who were tipped off about the speech beforehand) did not. The speech was watered down, and as Latimer writes, “the name Ayman Nour was never uttered.”
And if that’s not enough, over the weekend, Dick Cheney called Mubarak “a good man, a good friend and ally to the United States.” Bush and Obama were not different on this issue. They both chose stability over reform.
