[Mb-civic] FW: Sharansky in MEQ: "Peace Will Only Come after Freedom and Democracy"

[Golsorkhi]

------ Forwarded Message
From: Samii Shahla <shahla at thesamiis.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2005 18:19:06 -0500
Subject: Sharansky in MEQ: "Peace Will Only Come after Freedom and
Democracy"

From: "MEF News" <mefnews at meforum.org>
Date: January 5, 2005 4:01:20 PM EST
To: shahla at thesamiis.com
Subject: Sharansky in MEQ: "Peace Will Only Come after Freedom and
Democracy"
Reply-To: "MEF News" <mefnews at meforum.org>

Natan Sharansky: "Peace Will Only Come after Freedom and Democracy"

Middle East Quarterly
Winter 2005
http://www.meforum.org/article/666

Natan Sharansky is among the world's most consistent advocates of
democratization as a basis for foreign policy. Born in Ukraine in 1948,
he received a degree in mathematics from Moscow's Physical Technical
Institute. A brilliant mathematician and chess master, he entered the
limelight as a spokesman for the movement to emancipate Soviet Jewry.
Arrested by the Soviet authorities in 1977 for his refusenik
activities, he was sentenced to thirteen years imprisonment. President
Ronald Reagan interceded and, in 1986, won Sharansky's release as part
of an East-West prisoner exchange. In his 1988 autobiography Fear No
Evil,[1] he discussed both his emotional resistance to surrender in the
face of KGB interrogation and also his quest to explore his Jewish
roots.

Freed from Soviet imprisonment, Sharansky received a hero's welcome in
Israel. Dedicating himself as an activist for free Soviet emigration,
he became increasingly active among Israel's Russian immigrant
population. In 1995, he founded Yisrael B'Aliyah in order to represent
this important demographic. He subsequently served in a number of
positions, including minister of industry and trade, minister of
housing and construction and, most recently, as deputy prime minister.
He is currently minister of Jerusalem and Diaspora affairs in the
cabinet of Ariel Sharon. His new book, The Case for Democracy: The
Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror,[2] was published in
November 2004. On November 11, President George W. Bush invited
Sharansky to the Oval Office for an hour-long discussion of the
book.[3] Sam Spector, research analyst at the Long-Term Strategy
Project, interviewed him in Jerusalem by e-mail on November 24, 2004.

Democracy and Freedom

Middle East Quarterly: At the Republican National Convention, on
September 2, 2004, President Bush said "freedom is on the march" in the
Middle East.[4] Do you agree?

Natan Sharansky: Freedom definitely has a much better chance to succeed
today than some years or even some months ago. For freedom to succeed,
not only must people throughout the Middle East desire freedom, but
there needs to be solidarity from the outer world and, also, a
readiness to link foreign policy to human rights and support for
dissent.

MEQ: What can the United States do to support dissidents in the Middle
East and elsewhere?

Sharansky: Washington should replicate the success of its policy toward
the Soviet Union. The first nail in the coffin of the Soviet
dictatorship was the Jackson-Vanek amendment [of 1973], which linked
trade to emigration rights. The Helsinki agreement [of 1975] further
enshrined human rights in international relations. In the 1980s,
President Reagan stood firm on human rights, emboldening myself and
other dissidents in our fight against dictatorship. Washington should
adopt similar policies to aid dissidents in Arab countries.

MEQ: Pundits and European governments criticized President Bush for the
crudeness of his "Axis of Evil" reference.[5] How important is
rhetoric?

Sharansky: The world is full of doublethink. What it most lacks is
moral clarity. It is extremely important to call a spade a spade. It is
necessary to understand the nature of the war that we are in the midst
of. The battle is not between Israel and the Palestinians or between
the United States and Iraq. Rather, the current fight pits the world of
freedom against the world of terror. I have told President Bush that
the two greatest speeches of my lifetime were Ronald Reagan's speech
casting the Soviet Union as an evil empire and the president's own
speech on June 24, 2002, when he said that Palestinians deserve to live
in freedom and that only with freedom would the Middle East enjoy
security.[6]

MEQ: Do you believe that your conversations and writings have
influenced Bush?

Sharansky: The reason for my meeting with the president was because he
was reading my book, and he wanted to discuss it. There is no doubt
that the president's statements at his press conference [with British
prime minister Tony Blair][7] were similar to my ideas. I was very
happy to hear the president say that freedom is not something that was
given to America but rather it is a gift from God to all mankind. I
feel very strongly that peace will only come after freedom and
democracy. These are the ideas for which I have been fighting all my
life, and these are the ideas to which I believe the president is going
to devote the next four years.

MEQ: How would you characterize Bush's approach to the challenges
facing the free world?

Sharansky: I told the President, "You don't look like a politician. You
look like a real dissident, because politicians always look at what
polls say, but you believe in democracy and freedom Š Even when your
colleagues in Europe tell you that democracy is impossible, you go
ahead with it. You are a real dissident."

MEQ: Do you see parallels between events today and your own experience
as a political dissident in the 1970s and 1980s?

Sharansky: I have a story in my book about how we dissidents celebrated
the day when President Reagan called the Soviet Union "the Evil
Empire." We saw the Soviet Union as a rotten, weak society, liable to
fall apart quickly, if only the West stopped supporting it. The first
step in the Soviet Union's demise would be the West's enunciation of
the true nature of the [Soviet] state. When Ronald Reagan, the leader
of the free world, called a spade a spade and defined the roots of the
struggle, the Soviet Union was doomed. And that's what happened. The
same thing applies today. We are speaking about a struggle between the
world in which human life is the highest priority and those societies
that treat human life with disdain and hold their citizens hostage in
an attempt to blackmail civilization.

MEQ: Why has dictatorship flourished for so long in the Middle East?

Sharansky: For too long the free world has been willing to appease
dictatorships. The United States is no longer willing to accept a
policy of appeasement [toward Middle Eastern dictators]. [Washington's]
willingness to coddle dictators has been the main obstacle to dissent
in the Arab world.

MEQ: Can't strongmen bring stability?

Sharansky: The more resolute the free world is in not appeasing
dictators, the less often it will have to use military power. If you
look at the history of struggle between democracies and dictatorships,
you will see that outright war is almost always preceded by a period of
appeasement. This was the case with both Hitler and Stalin. In the
Middle East, Palestinian violence and terror followed a period of
appeasement. In Iraq, too, a decade of appeasement emboldened Saddam
Hussein and contributed to war. We would not have had this problem in
Iraq if the free world had not once thought that Saddam Hussein was
good for stability. Had the United States and the West linked their
foreign policies to basic human rights, not one shot would need to have
been fired in Iraq.

MEQ: Where might Washington better link its policies to human rights?

Sharansky: Many places. Take Egypt, for example. The United States
sometimes expresses sympathy for Egyptian dissidents, but Washington's
word would mean more if it drew linkages between dissident rights and
the $2 billion in foreign aid it gives Egypt each year. Likewise, in
the case of the Palestinian Authority, American support for Palestinian
dissidents hasn't gone much past rhetoric.

MEQ: Do you see progress for democracy in the Middle East?

Sharansky: There is progress today in the Middle East because the most
dangerous regime, that of Saddam Hussein, has been removed. Saddam
Hussein's Iraq gave legitimacy to terrorist groups across the Middle
East. Saddam's was a regime that used human life to break the will of
the free world. That the West allowed Saddam's regime to continue to
hold his people hostage for so many years, encouraged dictators and
terrorists worldwide, and discouraged potential dissidents within Iraqi
society. But today the situation has changed. The death of [Yasir]
Arafat also creates new possibilities.

The Palestinians after Arafat

MEQ: How strong is the will for political change among the Palestinians?

Sharansky: Whenever people are given an opportunity not to live in
constant fear, not to live a life of doublethink, they choose freedom.
If given the opportunity, the Palestinians can progress toward
democracy. They have a strong middle class. They have special business
opportunities in the free world. Palestinians are adroit observers of
Israel and understand the functioning of democracy. The Palestinian
diaspora is well educated. All of these factors provide hope for a
speedier transition. There is no doubt that the change of leadership
resulting from Arafat's passing creates opportunities. Whether
Palestinians seize these opportunities is another question.

MEQ: In The Case for Democracy you write that "Palestinians, like every
people, are capable of building a free society."[8] Does Israel have
any role or responsibility to help create the conditions for a free
Palestinian society?

Sharansky: Israel has a special interest in Palestinian democracy
because only with democratic development among Palestinians and in the
Arab world will Israel enjoy peace and stability. We can complain as
much as we want about the lack of freedom and the lack of democracy
among the Palestinians and other neighbors, but we should never forget
our role. Israel and other nations in the free world tried to turn a
Palestinian dictatorship into a partner. Many Israeli and American
policymakers thought that a Palestinian dictatorship would bring
stability. We were not ready to support any form of dissent in the Arab
world and among the Palestinians because we believed it would weaken
the Palestinian Authority and any chance for peace. Israel, the United
States, and other free nations need to realize that they can play a
very positive role, but that their choices can also be harmful for
democracy.

MEQ: You also wrote that free elections can only take place in an
atmosphere devoid of fear and only after the basic institutions that
protect a free society‹such as a free press, the rule of law,
independent courts, and political parties‹are firmly in place. Can the
Palestinian Authority elections meet these criteria?

Sharansky: We should have no illusions that the elections that will
take place in January [2005] will have anything to do with democracy.
Elections that are not free, that are not held in a free society have
nothing to do with democracy.

MEQ: Are Palestinian elections at all worthwhile?

Sharansky: Elections are worthwhile, but casting votes in and of itself
is not enough. Democracy can only start when the new leadership
selected in these elections embraces reform. A lot depends on our
policy. If we embrace a leadership that embraces reform, or if we
refuse to give any legitimacy or support to a leadership that refuses
to bring democracy and reform, then there is a serious chance for
success. In the upcoming Palestinian election, different faction heads
will decide the candidates in advance. Voters will not really have the
freedom to express their opinions. The leadership selection has nothing
to do with democracy, but it is important that this selection take
place as soon as possible.

MEQ: What should happen then?

Sharansky: We should not pay too much attention to who will be the next
Palestinian leader, but we should pay attention to what we demand of
this leader. The first steps towards democracy will be after elections
and not before.

MEQ: Is your opposition to the Gaza disengagement plan a matter of
principle, or are you concerned over its practical implementation?

Sharansky: Questions of principle and practical matters are always
connected for me. I was against the disengagement plan not because I
believed we should stay in Gaza but because one-sided concessions could
transform Gaza into a beachhead for a terrorist state. If a Palestinian
democracy developed, then a Palestinian state would not be dangerous.
As I said many years ago, it is very important that the depth of our
concessions match the depth of democracy on the other side. If
disengagement were linked to democratic reforms, I would be all for
this plan. But I object to any plan that leaves territory for terror.

[1] New York: Random House, 1988.
[2] New York: PublicAffairs, 2004.
[3] The Washington Post, Nov. 23, 2004.
[4] White House news release, Sept. 2, 2004.
[5] State of the Union address, Jan. 29, 2002.
[6] "President Bush Calls for New Palestinian Leadership," White House
news release, June 24, 2002.
[7] White House news release, Nov. 12, 2004.
[8] Sharansky, The Case for Democracy, p. xxv.

You may freely forward this information, but on condition that you send
the text as an integral whole along with complete information about its
author, date, and source.


------ End of Forwarded Message