Bush punts on freedom in Jordan

At Bush's press conference yesterday, a reporter posed an extremely important question, touching on something I've written about frequently here:  the deterioration of democratic freedoms in Jordan.  Here's the exchange:

Q:  Mr. President, let me take you up on that, if I may.  Last month in Jordan, a gentleman named Ali Hatar was arrested after delivering a lecture called, "Why We Boycott America."  He was charged under section 191 of their penal code for slander of government officials.  He stood up for democracy, you might say.  And I wonder if here and now, you will specifically condemn this abuse of human rights by a key American ally. And if you won't, sir, then what, in a practical sense, do your fine words mean?

  THE PRESIDENT:  I'm unaware of the case.  You've asked me to comment on something that I didn't know took place.  I urge my friend, His Majesty, to make sure that democracy continues to advance in Jordan.  I noticed today that he put forth a reform that will help more people participate in future governments of Jordan.  I appreciate His Majesty's understanding of the need for democracy to advance in the greater Middle East.  We visited with him at the G8, and he has been a strong advocate of the advance of freedom and democracy.  Now, let me finish.  Obviously, we're discussing a process.  As I said in my speech, not every nation is going to immediately adopt America's vision of democracy, and I fully understand that.  But we expect nations to adopt the values inherent in a democracy, which is human rights and human  dignity, that every person matters and every person ought to have a voice. And His Majesty is making progress toward that goal.  I can't speak specifically to the case.  You're asking me to speak about a case that I don't know the facts.

Q:  Fair enough.  If I could just follow up.  Will you then -- does your inaugural address mean that when it comes to people like Mr. Hatar, you won't compromise because of a U.S. ally and you will stand --

THE PRESIDENT:  Again, I don't know the facts, Terry.  You're asking me to comment on something I do not know the facts.  Perhaps you're accurate in your description of the facts, but I have not seen those facts.  Now, nevertheless, we have spoken out in the past and we'll continue to speak out for human rights and human dignity, and the right for people to express themselves in the public square.

"Terry", whoever that is, is asking the right questions.  The Ali Hattar case doesn't have anything to do with elections or the rotation of power - items we've already noted were conspicuously absent from Bush's inaugural address.   It is precisely an issue of "the right to speak out in the public square," the issue which both Rice and Bush stressed so heavily last week.   Let's remember what Rice said: 

"The world should apply what Natan Sharansky calls the "town square test": if a person cannot walk into the middle of the town square and express his or her views without fear of arrest, imprisonment, or physical harm, then that person is living in a fear society, not a free society. We cannot rest until every person living in a "fear society" has finally won their freedom."

Ali Hattar spoke out for his political views.  He was arrested for them.  He therefore can not walk into the middle of the town square and express his views without fear of arrest, imprisonment, or physical harm. Jordan, therefore, is by Rice's definition a "fear society." Jordan is almost entirely dependent on American military, economic, and political support, which one might think would give Bush considerable influence over its policies.   But given the chance for a near-perfect, low-cost application of his new "fire of freedom" doctrine, Bush first pleads ignorance, and then punts.

Bush's plea of ignorance might well be honest, but is in itself an indictment.  Bush by his own testimony is simply unaware of a fairly high profile setback in the right to free political speech in a major American Arab ally.  How seriously can we take the rhetoric if Bush freely admits to not knowing what's going on in the real world?   

Even taking Bush's self-described ignorance of reality into account, his answer is weak - he falls back on platitudes about speaking out for human dignity but refuses to commit to actually doing anything to make Jordan behave more democratically if it does in fact turn out that the interviewer's facts turn out to be correct.   He doesn't say "let me check that out and get back to you."  He doesn't say "if that's true, then I will need to talk to my friend the King about how seriously I take democratic freedoms."   

So where does that leave Bush's grand new vision?  "We have spoken out in the past and we'll continue to speak out"  sounds an awful lot to me like "same old same old."

UPDATE: shortly after Bush's press conference, King Abdullah announced some vague plans to "introduce some limited democratic reforms in his kingdom."  His plans to establish elected councils to oversee development in Jordan - with unclear relations to the existing councils - sound nice enough.  But a bit tangential to the whole crackdown on the press, tight control over public assembly, continued reliance on 'temporary laws' issued while Parliament was out of session, assault on the political role of the professional associations, gerrymandering a compliant Parliament, and so on and on.

Another UPDATE:  al Quds al Arabi reports that security forces surrounded the professional associations building to prevent a "political" meeting to be held there.  On the march, freedom is.  Or was that the security forces on the march?  I get confused, sometimes.

Comments

[praktike]

In light of this post, what do you think of this argument?

http://oxblog.blogspot.com/2005_01_23_oxblog_archive.html#110676686047571636

Do you think that the speech can be used for good, to hold Bush's feet to the fire?

[Nash]

""Terry", whoever that is, is asking the right questions."

That would be Moran, of ABC.

[Lewis Carroll]

"The world should apply what Natan Sharansky calls the "town square test": if a person cannot walk into the middle of the town square and express his or her views without fear of arrest, imprisonment, or physical harm, then that person is living in a fear society, not a free society. We cannot rest until every person living in a "fear society" has finally won their freedom."

The problem is, based on this test, we in the US are currently living in a fear society, not a free society.

[am]

"The problem is, based on this test, we in the US are currently living in a fear society, not a free society."

Oh bullshit.

Or are you describing your fear of criticizing Islam?

[Dave Schuler]

Have you noticed a tendency to something I'm calling a reductio ad elections (the idea that everything positive that happens in the Middle East is as a result of Iraqi elections)? That's what I've written about in my post this morning that tracks back to you.

[evariste]

Were you aware of Hattar's case before now, Abu A?

[the aardvark]

evariste: yes. I blogged about it here:

http://abuaardvark.typepad.com/abuaardvark/2004/12/jordanian_natio.html

I'm pretty close to certain that the Jordan desk at the State Department knew about it too.

[evariste]

Thanks, I wasn't sure (I only today discovered your blog).