White House: Middle East part of 'freedom agenda'

By Mark Silva

President Bush traveled to Prague this year to meet with political dissidents – and declared himself a “dissident’’ in the cause of freedom – to advance what the White House calls “the freedom agenda.’’

Steve Hadley, the president’s national security adviser, traveled across town last night – to the Washington campus of the Johns Hopkins Unversity Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies – to talk about that freedom agenda.

This comes on the heels of The Annapolis Conference, at which Israeli and Palestinian leaders – in the presence of many Arab leaders – pledged to begin negotiations aimed at producing a lasting peace in the Middle East. This, too, is part of the White House’s freedom agenda. Hadley contends that the opportunity for peace in the Middle East has something to do with President Bush’s commitment to confront terrorism in the region.

“Why do we believe that there is an opportunity to achieve a Middle East peace at this particular time?’’ Hadley asked. “Why is it important to seize that opportunity?... How did we get to this moment of opportunity? ‘’

“And finally,’’ he asked himself, “how is Annapolis linked to the president's broader agenda of promoting freedom in the Middle East and beyond?’’

This is his answer:

“There are three reasons why we believe there is an opportunity to achieve a Middle East peace at this time. First, there has been a dramatic change in the Israeli assessment of their strategic position and their long-term interests.

“Key segments of the Israeli public have given up the aspiration for a "Greater Israel," and no longer wish to retain control over the West Bank and populate it with Israeli settlers. They've recognized that this approach -- combined with current demographic trends -- would threaten the Jewish character of the state of Israel.

“A much larger portion of the Israeli public, who once opposed the establishment of a Palestinian state, have begun to embrace the idea. They have come to understand that the establishment of a free and democratic Palestinian state as a homeland for the Palestinian people can advance international recognition and acceptance of a free and democratic Israel as a homeland for the Jewish people.

“And a growing number of Israelis understand that a Palestinian state supported by its people and the will and capability to maintain peace within its borders will advance Israel's own security against terrorist attack.

“There's also been a change in the Palestinian community. President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad are Palestinian leaders whose first priority is bettering the lives of the Palestinian people. They've committed themselves to building the institutions of an independent, democratic, and viable Palestinian state that can provide dignity and hope to their people. They have rejected the terrorist violence that has made victims of so many Palestinians and Israelis.

“They are committed to establishing a Palestinian state -- and they understand that it cannot be achieved through terror. They want to negotiate with Israel for the creation of that state and to live side by side in peace and security with Israel….

“Third, the Arab states have been engaged. While giving rhetorical support to the Palestinian cause, Arab states, until recently, have not made the major investment required to build the institutions of a free and independent Palestinian state. Arab states now are increasingly seeing it as in their interest to put the Israeli-Palestinian issue behind them and to focus instead on the pressing security challenges confronting the region. …

“It is important to seize now the opportunity presented by these developments. Key leaders of Israel and the Palestinians have their own reasons -- have come to the conclusion that it is in their interest to launch negotiations…

“Having decided to pursue negotiations, it is critical that they not fail. If the effort to establish a Palestinian state through negotiations is abandoned, it will appear to vindicate those who preach violence and practice terror. It will almost ensure that the next generation of leaders of the Palestinian people will come from Hamas or other terrorist groups. This would represent a clear and present danger to Israelis, to responsible Palestinians, and to their Arab neighbors.

“We've reached this moment of opportunity in the Middle East for many reasons. But among them are the policies that President Bush has pursued over the last six years. First, the president identified terrorism as the primary obstacle to peace in the Middle East. Terror and violent extremism threaten the Palestinian people, the Israeli people, and the hopes of many nations for peace in the Middle East. So fighting terror, and discrediting the apologists for terror, has been at the center of the president's approach to Middle East peace.

“The president has sought to discredit violence against innocents as a means to pursue political objectives. Those of us who lived through the '60s can remember the justifications made of national liberation, or national struggle, that were used to justify the use of violence for political causes. We have come a long way since then, and the president has led the case, strongly arguing that violence against innocents is never justified by any cause. He made the connection between Hamas, Hezbollah, and al Qaeda as different faces of the same evil: a radical ideology seeking to impose its worldview throughout the Middle East and beyond. And the President has largely won the argument.

“He has further demonstrated his commitment to fight and discredit terror in refusing to deal with Yassir Arafat early on in the President's first term. The world was shocked by this decision. But the President saw Arafat as a failed leader who was complicit in terror and who did not deliver for his people. The President called for a new Palestinian leadership -- one that put the interests of the Palestinian people first and understood that violence and terror compromised those interests…

“Success in establishing an independent, democratic and viable Palestinian state -- and an Israeli-Palestinian peace -- will represent a crucial advance in promoting freedom in the Middle East and beyond. The president believes in the Freedom Agenda because he believes that freedom is the right of every person. As he said many times, freedom is not America's gift to the world; it is God's gift to every person in the world. The United States promotes freedom because it is right to do so, and because it is a part of our heritage as a nation.

“The Freedom Agenda is visionary, but it is not new,’’ Hadley said. “Promoting freedom emphatically does not mean imposing freedom. People must struggle for and win their own freedom. Democratic reform comes at its own pace and in its own time. And when it comes, the free institutions of a free people will reflect their unique historical and cultural experience.’’

“Yet for much of the last century the Freedom Agenda seemed to inform U.S. policy in every region of the world except the Middle East. The results were tragic. Tyranny and oppression fueled resentment, and violent extremists, including al Qaeda, exploited that resentment. There can no longer be, in this 21st century, a "Middle East exception" to the progress of democracy in the 20th Century.’’