No Unilateralism in Vision, Either

One of the most bandied-about canards over the past year is that the war in Iraq is a "unilateral" undertaking by America. It now appears that the vision behind that war, which sees a freer Middle East as a key to greater security around the world, isn't unilateral, either. In spite of very real problems in reconstructing and pacifying Iraq, the spread of Bush's vision -- even when it isn't acknowledged as such -- is a sign real progress in shifting world opinion.

Jackson Diel, deputy editorial editor at the Washington Post and a columnist there, writes this morning about the spread of enthusiasm for promoting pro-democracy forces to camps not always on board with the Bush administration.

Diehl writes: "[T]here . . . now exists the beginning of a broad pro-reform coalition in and outside the region. It includes a handful of people in Arab governments, but many more outside, in rapidly growing civic and human rights movements. There are European parliamentarians and policymakers in expanding numbers, especially in Germany. And in Washington, there are not only Bush's neocons but an important group of Democrats."

A group of policymakers and politicians from America and Europe are set to release a paper this week arguing for what Diehl calls a "more muscular" version of Bush's policy "without the compromises forced by transatlantic tensions and the blow back from Iraq." Positively, it calls on democracies to back home-grown democracy movements in the Middle East. Diehl quotes from the paper: "'The West cannot export democracy as such. At the same time, the West can and in our view, must play a critical supporting role from the outside -- as it has in democratic breakthroughs and transitions in other parts of the world,'" says the paper, which was developed in months of transatlantic discussions sponsored by the German Marshall Fund. "'This is a generational project for which we must summon historic staying power.'"

These pro-democracy forces should openly acknowledge their debt to Bush's actions in the region, without which their own ideas might amount to little more than an addition to the well-intentioned literature of foreign policy wonks. A concrete example of the effects of Washington's new tone is Jordan's King Abdullah's remarks, also reported by Diehl, that Bush's actions "frightened people" but that "[I]t also allowed some of us to say that if we don't come up with our own initiative, something will be forced on us. And once you say you are going to reform, you trigger a process that you can't turn back."

This is precisely the point that Bush and some of his aids have made, though not often enough. Demonstrating America's willingness to overthrow brutal regimes catches the attention not only of Saddam's peers, but of authoritarian rulers whose regimes can be modified to the great benefit of their people and regional stability. And a freer, more stable world makes America safer, which after all is the principal responsibility of any president.