Before leaving Egypt, I e-mailed some experts on the region to ask them how they thought President Bush's trip came off.
I was able to post a few responses before we boarded the White House press corps plane for the 13-hour flight home. We're now on the ground, and I've received a few more responses.
David Mack, of the Middle East Institute, was the second guy to actually hand out marks. I love it.
He graded the president tardy for his attendance, incomplete on containing Iran, and gave him an A for effort on the peace process "considering the steep odds against success," and a B for his democracy agenda.
"[He] should have done something like this in 2002 or at least 2003, after the road map speech, rather than assuming that all we had to do was overthrow Saddam and then everything else -- taming Iran, peace and security for Israel, security of oil and gas, democracy, etc -- would fall into place," Mr. Mack said.
Mr. Mack's take on the democracy and freedom agenda was interesting. Steven Lee Myers piece in the New York Times today addresses Mr. Bush's praise for Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, in spite of Mr. Mubarak's long track record of crushing dissent and opposition.
But Mr. Mack doesn't necessarily see hypocrisy there.
"I see signs that the Bush is getting a more nuanced and realistic notion of what constitutes democratic progress in these countries," Mr. Mack said, adding that perhaps the president is "redefining" democracy "to come closer to our strategic needs and
the realities of the region."
Mr. Mack said the president's trip has "bolstered the moderate Arab states for now," but "how long that will last depends on his follow through, not just with security cooperation but with energetic promotion of an Israeli-Palestinian peace."
Tom Lippman, a fellow Middle East Instituter, was far less impressed.
"I guess I would say he did as well as could be expected, given that I didn't expect anything. I was surprised he didn't go to meet with some troops in Iraq; he should have. I was disappointed at his pathetic attempts to jawbone the Saudis on oil prices -- he knows, or should know, that oil supply is not the problem and that any additional Saudi production would be high-sulfur heavy crude anyway and thus would do nothing for the gasoline market," Mr. Lippman said.
"And he really ought to have said something in Egypt about [Egyptian opposition leader] Ayman Nour. Still, he didn't make things worse, and that's a blessing."
Lastly, Jim Phillips of the Heritage Foundation was impressed with the president's main speech over the weekend in Abu Dhabi (most of the press were not).
"I think the high point was his speech in the UAE on his vision of a freedom agenda for the Middle East. Many of the small gulf states have made significant progress in recent years on democratic reforms that have been overshadowed by news about the continuing conflict in Iraq, the rising power of Iran, and chronic Israeli-Palestinian tensions," Mr. Phillips said.
— Jon Ward, White House correspondent, The Washington Times
Comments (2)
Jon,
I have also asked readers of my blog to rate the president's trip in regards to how they believed the president was perceived culturally. Saudi Arabia is among the most conservative of countries and most world leaders who visit are more polite and reserved. Whereas President Bush by comparison was continually filmed patting Saudis on the shoulder, linking hands, beckoning to the man providing him and others with arabic kawa, stopping to speak with the Royal Guards. These are unusual actions for world leaders and I have sought my viewers' reactions.
Regards,
Carol
Posted by Carol | January 17, 2008 3:19 PM
Everyone seems so concerned about how the public percieves world leaders that a great disconnect has occured in the public mindset as to how world leaders perceive them.
To wit, if a world leader respects the individual, they also are worthy of it.
I speak globally, not nationalisticly in this.
As it is soon to be a day in honor of a global thinker, thought I'd pass on a quote for human consumption, assuming there are hearts and minds with ears to hear, and something functioning between them...(chuckle).
"Today there is no longer a choice between violence and nonviolence. It is either nonviolence or nonexistence. I feel that we've got to look at this total thing anew and recognize that we must live together. That the whole world now it is one--not only geographically but it has to become one in terms of brotherly concern. Whether we live in America or Asia or Africa we are all tied in a single garment of destiny and whatever effects one directly, effects one in-directly.
"I'm concerned about living with my conscience and searching for that which is right and that which is true, and I cannot live with the idea of being just a conformist following a path that everybody else follows. And this has happened to us. As I've said in one of my books, so often we live by the philosophy 'Everybody's doing it, it must be alright.' We tend to determine what is right and wrong by taking a sort of Gallup poll of the majority opinion, and I don't think this is the way to get at what is right.
"Arnold Toynbee talks about the creative minority and I think more and more we must have in our world that creative minority that will take a stand for that which conscience tells them is right, even though it brings about criticism and misunderstanding and even abuse."
Excerpted from a 1967 interview of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. by Arnold Michaelis.
Posted by Eric Jette | January 17, 2008 10:47 PM