[Vision2020] Why Didn't Bush Speak Out?

[nickgier at adelphia.net]

The New Republic Online
SHAME ON ABDULLAH--AND BUSH.
Silent Treatment
by James Forsyth
Only at TNR Online
Post date: 02.10.06

President George W. Bush inaugurated his second term with a stirring promise. "All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: The United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you." In his State of the Union last week, Bush pledged that "we will act boldly in freedom's cause." So why has the president been publicly silent about the plight of one of the Muslim world's bravest journalists, Jihad Momani?

Momani is the hero of the cartoon controversy. He was the editor of the Jordanian tabloid al-Shihan that published three of the Mohammed caricatures on the grounds that people should know what they were protesting about. The cartoons were accompanied by an editorial that pleaded, "Muslims of the world be reasonable," and asked, "What brings more prejudice against Islam, these caricatures or pictures of a hostage-taker slashing the throat of his victim in front of the cameras or a suicide bomber who blows himself up during a wedding ceremony in Amman?"

For his troubles, Momani was fired, arrested twice, denied bail, and charged with blasphemy by the government of King Abdullah II of Jordan. As of Wednesday he was under arrest in a hospital, where he was suffering from "stress and exhaustion." Abdullah has played an important role in the case. Last week he explained that insulting Mohammed is "a crime that cannot be justified under the pretext of freedom of expression." Agence France Presse subsequently reported that "His words were seen by security forces as a signal to take action against the newspapers."

An Oval Office photo opportunity with Abdullah on Wednesday morning offered a perfect opportunity for Bush to say something in praise of the Jordanian journalist. But despite devoting more than half his comments to the cartoon controversy, Bush offered not even a veiled hint that the United States was concerned about the plight of Momani and another Jordanian editor who is also being detained. It was a glaring omission considering that Momani is precisely the kind of moderate the United States should be supporting in the region. Bush doesn't even have the excuse that the United States lacks influence with Jordan: According to the International Monetary Fund, U.S. aid accounts for more than a fifth of Jordan's annual budget. And the president's silence was particularly galling given that his chief wordsmith Michael Gerson recently told The New Yorker that when weighing whether to encourage the president to speak out against tyranny, "it always occurs to me, How would people who are living in that evil experience it?" Referring to those oppressed by autocratic regimes, Gerson asked, "Are you going to take their side or not?"

Members of the White House press corps also seemed uninterested in the fate of their fellow journalists. At the press gaggle after Bush and Abdullah appeared together, Scott McClellan got questions on the cartoons but nothing on Momani. (Over at Foggy Bottom, things were no better.) Meanwhile, on The New York Times editorial page, which devoted so much newsprint to defending Judith Miller and Matt Cooper, there was no mention of Momani. Nor in The Washington Post's editorial section. Nor the Los Angeles Times's. And so on. Here was an editor who had risked his life to tell Muslims, as he explained to Newsweek's online edition, that "these cartoons are not the end of the world, that insults have happened before and will happen again." How could American editorial writers ignore his plight? Even in the blogosphere, which champions its ability to correct the mainstream media's errors of omission, the case has attracted only minimal attention.

To be fair, the Bush administration has done some work behind the scenes. A National Security Council spokesman told me that "this case was discussed during the visit of the King and his delegation at very high levels." However, Bush and Abdullah did not discuss the issue.

It was imperative that Bush say something publicly about Momani while appearing with Abdullah. It is not just the fate of two Jordanian editors that is at stake. Despots--even supposedly enlightened ones--must know that America will call them out when they imprison journalists; and foreign journalists courageous enough to offend autocratic governments must know that the United States will stand up for them. The only way to send these signals clearly is for President Bush to both publicly laud Momani and publicly rebuke Jordan. Had he done so with King Abdullah by his side, President Bush would have sent a powerful message.

The Bush administration boasts of its straight talk and willingness to offend foreign governments if that is the price of doing the right thing. But its near-total silence on this case calls into question the president's commitment to his own freedom agenda. It is time for someone to remind Bush of what he said on the steps of the Capitol last January:

    America's influence is not unlimited, but fortunately for the oppressed, America's influence is considerable, and we will use it confidently in freedom's cause. ... We will persistently clarify the choice before every ruler and every nation: The moral choice between oppression, which is always wrong, and freedom, which is eternally right. America will not pretend that jailed dissidents prefer their chains, or that women welcome humiliation and servitude, or that any human being aspires to live at the mercy of bullies. We will encourage reform in other governments by making clear that success in our relations will require the decent treatment of their own people. America's belief in human dignity will guide our policies. Yet rights must be more than the grudging concessions of dictators; they are secured by free dissent....

It's a pretty simple choice, really. A Jordanian journalist who stood up for freedom finds himself in jail. As Michael Gerson might say: Are we going to take his side or not?
James Forsyth is assistant editor at Foreign Policy.