Guest Authors

We are Watching a Golden Moment Slip Away in Iran.

19 June 2009

'No Comment' Is Not an Option

The Washington Post
By Paul Wolfowitz
Friday, June 19, 2009

President Obama's first response to the protests in Iran was silence, followed by a cautious, almost neutral stance designed to avoid "meddling" in Iranian affairs. I am reminded of Ronald Reagan's initially neutral response to the crisis following the Philippine election of 1986, and of George H.W. Bush's initially neutral response to the attempted coup against Mikhail Gorbachev in 1991. Both Reagan and Bush were able to abandon their mistaken neutrality in time to make a difference. It's not too late for Obama to do the same.

In 1986, Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos had called a snap election, calculating that a divided opposition would hand him a clear victory that would undercut pressure from the Reagan administration for broad-based reform. Instead, the opposition parties united behind Corazon Aquino, and only massive fraud could produce a "victory" for Marcos.

On Feb. 11, as the votes were still being counted, Reagan announced a neutral position, reminding Americans that it was a "Philippine election" and praising "the extraordinary enthusiasm of Filipinos for the democratic process." Rather than blame Marcos for the fraud, which he called "disturbing," Reagan said that there may have been fraud "on both sides."

At the time, I was working for Secretary of State George Shultz as assistant secretary of state for East Asian and Pacific affairs, and I shared Shultz's dismay at the president's comments. For more than two years, with the president's support, we had carefully pressed Marcos for reform. Reagan himself once cited Lord Acton's famous dictum, that "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely," while speaking of Marcos. Nevertheless Reagan's unfortunate comment about fraud on "both sides" threatened to put the United States on the wrong side at a critical moment.

Fortunately, Shultz managed to convince the president that he had made a serious mistake. On Feb. 15, the White House issued a new statement: "The elections were marred by widespread fraud and violence perpetrated largely by the ruling party." The following day, Marcos and Aquino each claimed victory. On Feb. 22, when Marcos ordered the arrest of two key reformers, as many as a million Filipinos poured into EDSA Square in Manila to block the arrests in a dramatic demonstration of "people power."

Reagan's final message to Marcos was delivered two days later, when the president's close friend, Sen. Paul Laxalt, warned that Reagan opposed any use of force against the crowds and urged him "to cut and cut clean." The next day, Marcos left the Philippines.

As an undersecretary of defense in George H.W. Bush's administration, I witnessed a replay of the Philippine scenario on Aug. 19, 1991, when reactionary forces in the Soviet Union attempted a coup against Soviet President Gorbachev and Russian President Boris Yeltsin. Bush was initially very cautious: uncertain about the facts and reluctant to interfere or to alienate a possible successor to Gorbachev.

Responding early that morning, the president refused to condemn the coup, calling it merely "a disturbing development." He expressed only lukewarm support for Gorbachev and even less for Yeltsin, and neither was among the world leaders that he tried to contact about the crisis. He seemed focused on working with the new Soviet team, hoping that their leader, Gennady Yanayev, was committed to "reform."

Although Defense Secretary Dick Cheney had argued consistently for the United States to support the peaceful aspirations of the Russians, Ukrainians and other Soviet peoples, it was Yeltsin -- with a powerful personal letter -- who persuaded Bush to abandon equivocation and oppose the coup. By late afternoon, the White House had reversed course, condemning the coup attempt as "misguided and illegitimate." Bush then called Yeltsin to assure him of his support.

No two situations are identical. But the reform the Iranian demonstrators seek is something that we should be supporting. In such a situation, the United States does not have a "no comment" option. Coming from America, silence is itself a comment -- a comment in support of those holding power and against those protesting the status quo.

It would be a cruel irony if, in an effort to avoid imposing democracy, the United States were to tip the scale toward dictators who impose their will on people struggling for freedom. And if we appear so desperate for negotiations that we will abandon those who support our principles, we weaken our own negotiating hand.

That does not mean that we need to pick sides in an Iranian election or claim to know its result. Obama could send a powerful message simply by placing his enormous personal prestige behind the peaceful conduct of the demonstrators and their demand for reform -- exactly the kind of peaceful, democratic change that he praised in his speech in Cairo.

Like the rest of the world, President Obama must have been surprised by the magnitude of the protests in Iran. Iranians are protesting not just election fraud but also the growing abuses of the Iranian people by a dictatorial regime. Now is not the time for the president to dig in to a neutral posture. It is time to change course.

Paul Wolfowitz, a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, was deputy secretary of defense from 2001 to 2005.

 

Comments   

 
# WIZ0101 2009-06-20 03:45
THE PRESIDENT: To which I say, the last thing that I want to do is to have the United States be a foil for those forces inside Iran who would love nothing better than to make this an argument about the United States. That's what they do. That's what we're already seeing. We shouldn't be playing into that. There should be no distractions from the fact that the Iranian people are seeking to let their voices be heard.

What we can do is bear witness and say to the world that the incredible demonstrations that we've seen is a testimony to I think what Dr. King called the "arc of the moral universal." It's long but it bends towards justice.
Reply | Report to administrator
 
 
# Paul Cox 2009-06-20 09:04
Paul Wolfowitz should be completely discredited by now. He did terrific work in the first Bush Administration, marshalling support for the first Gulf War, but then never let his obsession with taking out Saddam Hussein overrule what common sense that he had. As a member of the second Bush Administration' s inner circle, he helped create the policy of preemptive defense- which was basically used as an excuse to take out any nation's leadership that the Bushies decided they didn't like.

Shades of this policy (which has turned out to be a really stupid idea for America and for the world) run through this editorial. His belief is that the United States needs to stick its nose into other nations' business. President Obama's statements have expressed support for people exercising their free rights, support for a true and honest election, yet refrained from coming across to the Iranians as the US dictating to them how things should go.

Despite this, the mullahs and regime in power in Iran immediately tried to paint it as though Americans were interfering with their affairs. Obama is wisely trying to avoid exactly that; by not giving the Iranian power mongers an excuse to make this about them defending their Islamic Republic against the meddling Americans Obama is steering a cautious course.

But whether we choose to agree or disagree on the President's course, one thing that should be obvious is that listening to nitwits like Wolfowitz is not going to help us. He led us into an unnecessary war in Iraq that has sapped our nation's armed forces, leaving us far less capable to deal with the threats in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Wolfowitz supported going after Iraq on 9/11, despite the fact that Iraq had nothing to DO with the 9/11 attacks.

Using 9/11 as a pretext for achieving personal agendas is about as heinous as you can get, yet Wolfowitz led the Bush Administration in doing exactly that. He was a strong proponent of the idea that the Iraqi war would pay for itself via oil revenues. He believed, despite a lack of actual evidence, that Iraq had a large WMD program. He couldn't imagine that it might take even 100,000 troops to stabilize Iraq after the war. He was a strong supporter of Chalabi, despite the fact that the CIA knew perfectly well that Chalabi was full of crap and useless.

Wolfowitz was crucial in setting up the OSP (Office of Special Plans), the group that came to be relied upon for "evidence" of WMD. The DIA and CIA both disagreed with the OSP on the WMD issue, but because Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld desperately wanted to believe Iraq had WMD, the OSP wound up creating the impression that Iraq had the weapons- and the President listened to them.

Of all the people to listen to, on BOTH sides of the aisle, Paul Wolfowitz is definitely not one of them. Someone who has shown himself to be more than willing to use the power of the United States of America to carry out personal agendas (Wolfowitz was big in the Project for a New American Century) and who's shown himself willing to ignore reality and create his own idea of things is not someone that we should pay attention to.

President Obama would be wise to ignore Wolfowitz, just as President George W Bush would have been wise to ignore him (and sadly didn't).
Reply | Report to administrator
 

Add comment

Due to the large amount of spam, all comments will be moderated before publication. Please be patient if you do not see your comment right away. Registered users who login first will have their comments posted immediately.


Security code
Refresh

Reader support is crucial to this mission. Weekly or monthly recurring ‘subscription’ based support is the best, though all are greatly appreciated.  Recurring and one-time donations are available through PayPal or Authorize.net.

supp

supp

subscribe

You can now help support the next dispatch with bitcoins:

Donate Bitcoins

My BitCoin QR Code

This is for use with BitCoin apps:

189