Coffee House interview: Paul Wolfowitz
Daniel Korski 6:04pm
Nobody is as associated with George W Bush's drive to promote freedom and democracy in
the Middle East as former US Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz. His role in the Iraq War, and belief that the US should promote democracy in a part of the world better known for authoritarian
rulers, remains controversial to this day.
But now that the Middle East is being rocked by pro-democracy protests – as people demand freedom, employment, and an end to tyranny – is this advocate of democracy finally being proven
right? And what does he think about the dangers of democratic transitions? Dr Wolfowitz kindly agreed to answer a few questions about democracy and the Middle East:
Daniel Korski: The Middle East seems to have been taken over by a democratic spirit not seen before, with Tunisia’s Ben Ali forced from power and now Hosni Mubarak looking
increasingly vulnerable. But it has obviously put the West in a bit of a bind, as it fears what the new kinds of regimes will bring. Should the West be worried? In many countries, after all, the
voice of opposition is the Muslim Brotherhood – and they may take advantage of the events, even if they did not inaugurate and control them initially. Is the price of the Muslim Brotherhood
in power worth accepting to set people free?
Paul Wolfowitz: Let’s be clear. We didn’t set the Tunisian people free. They did it for themselves. We should consider ourselves lucky that the Islamists can’t claim any
of the credit, but neither can the Western democracies. And the Islamists are certainly hurrying to get into the game. The question now is whether the West can recover from its past
inaction in order to be able to have a positive influence on the outcome.
A somewhat similar situation is developing in Egypt, although the Muslim Brotherhood is much stronger there, so the risk of a bad outcome is greater. But there, too, the strength of popular feeling seems to have taken them by surprise and the predominant sentiment in the streets is not strongly Islamist.
DK: President Obama (but also the British government) has been hesitant in his reaction to the events in the Middle East. One Foreign Office minister even said the key for the UK
was stability. In your view, should Western governments stand on the sidelines or offer more encouragement to the protesters and their demand for freedom?
PW: With so much at stake, it is a mistake to be sitting on the sidelines. Western governments can be a positive force on behalf of genuine freedom and against attempts to impose a
new kind of tyranny of the Islamist variety. But we can’t do that if we are seen as propping up a hated tyrant, or worse, encouraging the kind of bloody crackdown that could at best produce
an artificial “stability” for a relatively short period of time. The possibility of a bad outcome is very real, particularly because we did nothing to encourage more evolutionary
change earlier, but I believe we have a better chance of a good outcome if we support positive change than if we support the status quo.
DK: A few years ago you talked about "the power of the democratic idea". Since your time in office, however, US support for democracy-promotion has been on the wane, both rhetorically and financially, while many worry that the West cannot afford to talk so loudly about its values, as we’ve become reliant on non-democratic regimes such as China. What place do you think democracy-promotion should take – in our foreign policy and aid programmes – and how do we deal with the power that non-democratic but powerful investors like China have e.g in Sub-Saharan Africa?
PW: I’ve been involved with democratic transitions for several decades, going back to the remarkable changes that took place in East Asia in the 1980’s – in the Philippines, South Korea and Taiwan – followed by the incredible changes in Central and Eastern Europe and even, for a time, in Ukraine and Russia itself. That period also saw the demise of most of the right-wing military dictatorships in Latin America. Then came another wave in places as different as South Africa and Indonesia and Serbia. Few of these countries would qualify as Westminster-style democracies, but most are far better off as a result of these democratic transitions, and so are we. Even though we often have to do business with undemocratic regimes – and even though some of those regimes do deliver economic progress for their people – it is a mistake to retreat from supporting democratic reform.
DK: Many of the protesters in Tunis and Cairo – and more of their international supporters – are clear that today’s events are unrelated to the Iraq War and in fact represent a different paradigm, namely one of endogenous democratic change. But what in your view is the link between the invasion of Iraq and the events in the Middle East today?
PW: We did not go to war in Iraq or Afghanistan to promote democracy, but rather to remove regimes that were dangerous to us and to the world. Having done that, we have attempted to enable the Iraqi and Afghan people to enjoy the benefits of free and representative government. Those efforts have enjoyed mixed success, but we would have done worse – and been much more deserving of criticism – had we attempted to reimpose some new dictator. So far, Tunisia and Egypt seem to be following the paradigm of the long list of countries I mentioned earlier, from the Philippines and Chile to Indonesia and Georgia. They are proud, and rightly so, that they have had no help from the outside. Tragically, Tunisia probably enjoyed better conditions for a peaceful democratic transition than any other Arab country, but Bin Ali suppressed that possibility ruthlessly. Hopefully now Tunisia will continue to demonstrate in a positive way that Arabs too can progress through democratic reform.
DK: The on-folding events in the Middle East would seem to suggest that the premise of your policies – that people in the region yearn for freedom – was right, but the means, military power, were costly, deadly and, some would say, wrong. Did you pick the right means and allies (including in Washington) to carry out the policy of promoting democracy in the region?
PW: It is wrong to say that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were fought to promote democracy. Whether right or wrong, they were fought to protect ourselves and others from
dangerous regimes, but once those regimes were removed we could not reimpose dictators. At the same time, we did believe that peaceful democratic change, of the kind I’ve mentioned
earlier, could help to change the conditions in the Middle East that were breeding terrorists and support for terrorism That is why President Bush spoke strongly, as for example in London in
November 2003, that “Your nation and mine, in the past, have been willing to make a bargain, to tolerate oppression for the sake of stability. Yet this bargain did not bring stability or make
us safe. It merely bought time, while problems festered and ideologies of violence took hold.” Unfortunately, in his second term President Bush seemed to retreat from pursuing his
“freedom agenda” and President Obama has retreated further. But that earlier analysis of the false stability brought by tyranny seems even more accurate today.
DK: You have previously rejected the label “neoconservative” and, in a Washington Post interview some years ago, you said you did not want people to think that you
“believe that the military is the solution to most of the world's problems." Yet during your time in office, the role of the US military in promoting democracy was clearly prominent.
Looking at the experiences of the US military in Iraq and Afghanistan, do you think the US needs re-think the role the military plays in large-scale democracy-promoting, nation-building projects?
PW: Support for peaceful reform by the people themselves is the right way to promote democracy, not the use of force. To repeat again, we did not go to war in Afghanistan and Iraq to promote democracy. But when force is used to remove a dangerous or genocidal regime – as happened not only in Afghanistan and Iraq but also in Bosnia, Kosovo, Sierra Leone and Liberia – we have little choice but to help people to establish some form of representative government. In the very interview that you cite I explained that I believed in an “evolutionary rather than revolutionary” approach to promoting democratic reform and specifically that “Egypt does not have to hold free elections tomorrow, but it could make a start by not throwing prominent human rights activists in jail.” If they had started that kind of reform seven years ago, we might have a happier situation today. We may not like some of the change that is coming, but I still believe, as I said then, that for the Arab world not to change at all is “a formula for eventual catastrophe.”
Previous
Ottovbvs
January 30th, 2011 6:24pm Report this commentThe dangerously myopic ideas of people like Wolfowitz and like minded neoconservatives are responsible for what is arguably one of the three greatest foreign policy debacles in US history (the other two were isolationism and Vietnam). The immediate cost has been immense and the collateral damage is likely to be with us for generations. Not the least of the collateral damage being the likely permanent eclipse of US power in the region where they are gradually being replaced by local hegemons like Iran and Turkey. The events in Egypt are not unconnected with first Wolfowitz's efforts to democratize the middle east and the then the rapid volte face once it became apparent that free elections were likely to produce deeply anti American regimes.
David Lindsay
January 30th, 2011 6:59pm Report this commentHe's dead, isn't he?
charles hercock
January 30th, 2011 7:12pm Report this commentFor those who doubted it is worth a read of Decision Points by George W Bush. He and Wolfowitz were clearly a little more far sighted than the cringing Obama liberals have given them credit. I shudder when I see Clinton(H) whining on CNN.
victor jara 67
January 30th, 2011 7:47pm Report this commentKorski,
Why didn't you ask him about his links to the far right Likudniks in Israel?
In Mershhaimer and Walt's excellent book the Israel lobby Wolfowitz was identified as having dual loyalties and an obsession with Israel. Like Perle and Feith they consciensly merged US and Israeli foreign policy interests
ndm
January 30th, 2011 8:09pm Report this comment-- Nobody is as associated with George W Bush's drive to promote freedom and democracy in the Middle East as former US Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz. His role in the Iraq War, and belief that the US should promote democracy in a part of the world better known for authoritarian rulers, remains controversial to this day.
Busllshit. Wolfowitz was one of the principal architects of a disastrous war against Iraq which led to the deaths of tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of Iraqis. His crimes are barely different from those of the regime that ended in the war. And as such he should be sharing a cell with members of that regime - not swanning round the World having people laud him as a great defeder of freedom.
David Lindsay
January 30th, 2011 10:12pm Report this commentPeter Oborne blogs, and almost all of the many comments are favourable.
Neil Clark is in demand as never before.
And even those neocons who are not imprisoned behind the Murdoch paywall are howled down below the line, as in this case.
As it should be. Of course.
Now, let's see them spin the "popular uprising" that overthrows a Bush favourite and installs the Muslim Brotherhood, ready, willing and able to send the Sphinx and the Pyramids the way of the Buddhas of Bamiyan.
Erica Blair
January 31st, 2011 12:23pm Report this commentHow is it the Korski failed to ask Wolfowitz about this?
http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/2010/10/24/how-paul-wolfowitz-authorized-human-experimentation-at-guantanamo/
Last week, Truthout published an important article by Jason Leopold, Truthout’s Deputy Managing Editor, and psychologist and blogger Jeffrey Kaye, revealing, for the first time, a secret memorandum dated March 25, 2002, approved by deputy defense secretary Paul Wolfowitz, which authorized human experimentation on detainees in the “War on Terror.”
and
“We’re dealing with a special breed of person here,” Wolfowitz said about the war on terror detainees only four days before signing the new directive.
One former Pentagon official, who worked closely with the DoD’s ex-general counsel William Haynes, said the Wolfowitz directive provided legal cover for a top-secret Special Access Program at the Guantánamo Bay prison, which experimented on ways to glean information from unwilling subjects and to achieve “deception detection.”
“A dozen [high-value detainees] were subjected to interrogation methods in order to evaluate their reaction to those methods and the subsequent levels of stress that would result,” said the official.
Anon
January 31st, 2011 1:58pm Report this comment'Why didn't you ask him about his links to the far right Likudniks in Israel?
In Mershhaimer and Walt's excellent book the Israel lobby Wolfowitz was identified as having dual loyalties and an obsession with Israel. Like Perle and Feith they consciensly merged US and Israeli foreign policy interests'
There's always one.
LL
February 1st, 2011 7:37pm Report this commentHilarious the comments. Show well how the right and left socialists think.
It is the fact that Iraq made elections , that Egyptians, Jordans, Syrians protest. It also shows that Israel is not the alibi anymore to be used by Arab Politicians. People in streets are not afraid of Israel, after decades they just don't fall for it anymore.
thibaud
February 1st, 2011 8:23pm Report this commentIn contrast to the hysterics and conspiracy-mongering of the above comments, this is a fair interview. It's worth remembering that it was Wolfowitz who, as Undersecretary for East Asian Affairs in the early-mid 1980s, pushed hard for Sec'y of State George Shultz and Pres. Reagan to move away from the Marcos regime and favor Cory Aquino and the other democratic forces. The first and strongest champion of democracy in former authoritarian US allies across Asia in the 1980s was Paul Wolfowitz. It was also Wolfowitz who chided a rally of pro-Israel Americans in Washington in 2002 that they should be sympathetic to Palestinian suffering, earning him not a few catcalls and jeers.
In contrast to the intellectual dishonesty and cowardice of so many of his anonymous online critics, Paul Wolfowitz's intellectual honesty and courage are not in dispute. As to his calls on Iraq and the Middle East, history will, as Castro once put it, absolve him-- evidently, a lot sooner than anyone could have guessed.
ECELLES GARRISON
March 8th, 2011 8:07pm Report this comment... AM SO PLEASED THAT DR WOLFOWITZ HAS BEEN GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO SHARE HIS POLITICAL VIEWS ( SPECTATOR COFFEE HOUSE ) ON THE GLOBAL WORKS THAT HE ACCOMPLISHED DURING HIS LONG TIME CAREER - AND DONE SO UNDER THE LEADERSHIP OF A NUMBER OF AMERICAN PRESIDENTS - DR WOLFOWITZ PERSONA IS IMPECCABLE - AND THERE ARE THOSE OF US - WHO FOLLOWED HIM ALONG THE WAY - LONG BEFORE HE ARRIVES AT THE WORLD BANK - AND THERE ARE THOSE OF US WHO TOUCHED BASE WITH HIM DURING AND AFTER THE WORLD BANK - PLEASE BE ASSURED THAT REAL FRIENDSHIPS & MUTUAL FRIENDSHIP ARE IMMOVABLE - REGARDLESS OF A SLIGHT DOWN FALL - FOR GOODNESS SAKE - FOR ONLY HE WHO HAS MADE US IS PERFECT - UP RIGHT & RIGHTEOUS - AND LET HE WHO HAS NO SIN AMONG US CAST THE FIRST STONE - BUT THERE ARE THOSE AMONG US WHO IS SO VERY PLEASE - THAT HE IS BEING ALLOWED TO AIR HIS OPINIONS - AFTER ALL - HE WAS THERE AND HELP TO PUT TOGETHER A NUMBER OF PLATFORMS - SO HE WAS THERE & HE KNOWS ...
ECELLES GARRISON
March 17th, 2011 5:12pm Report this comment... AND LET US BE REMINDED - THAT THE 32ND PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES ( PRESIDENT FRANKLIN DELANO ROOSEVELT ) DURING HIS ADMINISTRATION - HE IS NOTED FOR HAVING FORMULATED FOUR ESSENTIAL HUMAN FREEDOMS ( FREEDOM OF SPEECH & EXPRESSION / FREEDOM FROM FEAR ) THIS ONE IS GREAT - ITS MY FAVORITE FREEDOM ( FREEDOM FROM WANT ) THIS ONE HAS TO DO WITH ONE CHICKEN IN EVERY POT - IF REMEMBER SERVES ME CORRECTLY - AND THEN THERE IS ONE OTHER FREEDOM ( FREEDOM TO WORSHIP ) THIS FREEDOM IS ESPECIALLY NICE TO HAVE - AMONG A NATION FILLED WITH IMMIGRATES FROM AROUND THE WORLD - IN FACT - AMERICA WAS FOUNDED BASED ON RELIGIOUS FREEDOM - PEOPLE WHO WERE FLEEING THEIR COUNTRIES - RESPECTIVELY - BECAUSE OF RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION - THEY SOUGHT REFUGE IN A FOREIGN LAND - SO AS TO WORSHIP AS THEY PLEASED ( OR NOT TO WORSHIP - IF THEY CHOSE NOT TO - AS IT WERE ) QUOTED PRESIDENT ROOSEVELT ( WE LOOK FORWARD TO A WORLD - FOUNDED UPON FOUR ESSENTIAL HUMAN FREEDOMS ) AND THIS PRESIDENT DID NOT LIMIT THESE AMENITIES TO JUST AMERICA - BUT THEY WERE FORMULATED - SO AS TO BE THERE FOR MANKIND AT LARGE TO BE UTILIZED - SO SAID HE ( EVERYWHERE IN THE WORLD & ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD ) NOW - LET US GET BACK TO DR PAUL WOLFOWITZ - HE HAS HIS RIGHTS YOU KNOW - DEEMED AS HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS ( FREEDOM OF SPEECH & EXPRESSION ) WHETHER YOU THE INDIVIDUAL - AGREES WITH HIM OR NOT - THERE ARE THOSE OF US OUT THERE - WHO WANTS TO HEARS HIS OPINIONS - LET US NOT SHUT HIM DOWN - DR WOLFOWITZ IS CONSIDERED TO BE ONE WHO IS A PROFESSIONAL - WE WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK AND REVIEW HIS PERSONA - WHO HAS COME A LONG WAY IN LIFE ( BASED ON HIS FAMILY BACK GROUND ) ONCE THE WOLFOWITZ FAMILY ARRIVED ON THESE SHORES - THEY DID NOT ALLOW GRASS TO GROW UNDER THEIR FEET DEAR READERS - THEY PREPARED THEMSELVES TO BE IN A POSITION TO KNOW WHAT THEY ARE SAYING - AND TO KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING - THEREFORE & FOR NOW - LET US ALLOW HIM THIS ONE FREEDOM PLEASE - AND THATS HIS FREEDOM TO EXPRESS & TO EXPOUND - THANK YOU ...
ECELLES GARRISON
June 23rd, 2011 8:36pm Report this comment... THIS COMMENT PERTAINS TO THE BEST MUTUAL FRIEND IN ALL OF THE WORLD ( THE HON. DR PAUL DUNDES WOLFOWITZ ) AND EVERY CHANCE THAT I GET - IT WILL BE MY RESPONSIBILITY TO SPEAK ON HIS BEHALF ... NATURALLY I WANT TO LEARN AS MUCH AS I CAN - ABOUT HIS POLITICAL CAREER ( THE AL-QAIDA ORDEAL ) FOR EXAMPLE - BROUGHT ME CLOSER TO A BETTER UNDERSTANDING ABOUT DR WOLFOWITZ - BEFORE HIS ENCOUNTER WITH THE WORLD BANK ( ITS LIKE I MENTIONED PRIOR ) HIS CAREER SPANS FOR DECADES - LONG BEFORE BEING ASSIGNED HIS POSITION IN THE WORLD OF BANKING ( NEO - CONSERVATISM ) CARRIES HIM BACK TO THE POLITICAL DAYS OF ONE OTHER HIDDEN SAINT ( THE LATE CONGRESSMAN HENRY MARTIN JACKSON ) WHO HAILS FROM THE GREAT STATE OF WASHINGTON ( 1912 - 1983 ) MY STEADFAST STUDIES CAUGHT UP WITH DR WOLFOWITZ - AND FOUND OUR FORMER BANKER - TO HAVE BEEN ONE OF SEVERAL COLLEAGUES ( THE HENRY JACKSON SOCIETY ) WHO FACILITATED THE FORMATION OF THIS ORGANIZATION - WHICH IS BASED IN LONDON - AND HAS TIES WITH A RENOWN INSTITUTION OF HIGHER LEARNING ( THE UNIVERSITY OF CAMBRIDGE / LONDON ENGLAND ) THIS ORGANIZATION ORIGINATED STATESIDE OF COURSE - WHERE GREAT MINDS DEEMED AS THINK TANKERS PUT IT TOGETHER - AND SO YOU SEE - DR WOLFOWITZ HAS TONS OF SELF WORTH ( LET SOMEONE MAKE ONE SIMPLE STUMBLE ) AND AS FAR AS THE WORLD IS CONCERN THAT INDIVIDUAL IS WASHED UP - WELL - NOT SO IN THIS CASE ... MY DEEP SEATED STUDIES ALSO REVEALED THAT OUR FORMER WORLD BANK PRESIDENT ( THE HON. PAUL DUNDES WOLFOWITZ ) PENNED A PROJECT THAT HE PLANS TO STAND BY - AND TO STAND UP FOR ( PNAC ) TURNS OUT IT WAS SIGNED BY HIM ( TUES 03 JUNE 1997 ) AND HIS PROJECT IS REFERRED TO AS ( THE PROJECT FOR THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY ) SOMETIMES WE AS MERE MORAL PERSONS - TENDS TO CAST THE BABY OUT WITH THE BATH WATER - LET US LIGHTEN UP ON THIS GENTLEMAN ... WHILE WE ARE SO BUSY PULLING THE RUG OUT FROM UNDER HIM - LITTLE DO WE KNOW THAT HE HAS DIRECTLY TOUCH BASED WITH A MOST AMAZING PHENOM ( THE THIRTY SIX JUST MEN ) IT SEEMS AS THOUGH SUCH INDIVIDUALS EXIST ON A WORLD WIDE BASIS - AND THIS EXISTENCE IS A GENERATIONAL THING - AND THEY ARE DEEMED AS HIDDEN SAINTS - AND AT THE FUNERAL OF CONGRESSMAN JACKSON - HIS EULOGIST TERMED THE LATE CONGRESSMAN AS BEING ONE OF THE THIRTY SIX ( IMAGINE THAT ) THINKS PEOPLE AT HIS FUNERAL - AS HEADS ARE TURNING ONE TO ANOTHER ( THIS WAS NEW TO YOURS TRULY ) BUT ONCE I GOT THE HANG OF IT - TOOK OUT A SCRATCH PIECE OF PAPER & MY NUB PENCIL - AND I STARTED TO WRITE SOME OF THEM DOWN ( THEY JUST JUMPED RIGHT OUT AT ME ) THE BEST WAY TO RECOGNIZE THEM - IS TO CENTER YOUR ATTENTION ON THE ONES WHO HAVE PASSED ON ( IN OTHER WORDS ) DO NOT ATTEMPT TO JUMP AHEAD OF THE INFINITE ( FOR IN LIFE ) THEY ARE HIDDEN FROM THE WORLD AROUND THEMSELVES - WE WALK BY THEM EVERY DAY - THEIR GOALS IN LIFE IS INCOMPLETE ( THE LITTLE OLE LADY DOWN THE STREET / THAT MEEK INDIVIDUAL WHO ALLOWS OTHERS TO HAVE THE LAST WORD / THE GRABBERS WHO TAKES EVERYTHING ) BUT ONE SEEMS TO HAVE MISSED THEIRS BUT NEVER COMPLAINS ( JUST SMILES ANYWAY - A GENUINE SMILE ) THAT PERSON WHO DOES MORE THAN HIS SHARE - AND THEN SOME - ACCORDING TO THE CONCEPT OF THE THIRTY SIX JUST MEN - IT IS THESE TYPES OF PEOPLE WHO CARRIES ON GODS PLAN - AND THEY ARE THE ONES WHO HAVE PREPARED THE WAY FOR THAT NEXT GENERATION ( PERSONS WHO INVENT / PERSONS WHO DISCOVERS / PERSONS WHO SPEAK OUT / ETC ) AND ONCE THEIR LIFE HAS BEEN SPENT ( WE DO NOT MISS OUR WATER - UNTIL THE WELL GOES DRY ) WE ARE LEFT BACK HERE WONDERING ...
Back to top