The stakes in that region could not be higher. If the Middle East
remains a place where freedom does not flourish, it will remain a place
of stagnation and anger and violence for export. And as we saw in the
ruins of two towers, no distance on the map will protect our lives and
way of life. If the greater Middle East joins the democratic
revolution that has reached much of the world, the lives of millions in
that region will be bettered, and a trend of conflict and fear will be
ended at its source.
The movement of history will not come about quickly. Because of
our own democratic development -- the fact that it was gradual and, at
times, turbulent -- we must be patient with others. And the Middle
East countries have some distance to travel.
Arab scholars speak of a freedom deficit that has separated whole
nations from the progress of our time. The essentials of social and
material progress -- limited government, equal justice under law,
religious and economic liberty, political participation, free press,
and respect for the rights of women -- have been scarce across the
region. Yet that has begun to change. In an arc of reform from
Morocco to Jordan to Qatar, we are seeing elections and new protections
for women and the stirring of political pluralism. Many governments
are realizing that theocracy and dictatorship do not lead to national
greatness; they end in national ruin. They are finding, as others will
find, that national progress and dignity are achieved when governments
are just and people are free.
The democratic progress we've seen in the Middle East was not
imposed from abroad, and neither will the greater progress we hope to
see. Freedom, by definition, must be chosen, and defended by those who
choose it. Our part, as free nations, is to ally ourselves with
reform, wherever it occurs.
Perhaps the most helpful change we can make is to change in our own
thinking. In the West, there's been a certain skepticism about the
capacity or even the desire of Middle Eastern peoples for
self-government. We're told that Islam is somehow inconsistent with a
democratic culture. Yet more than half of the world's Muslims are
today contributing citizens in democratic societies. It is suggested
that the poor, in their daily struggles, care little for
self-government. Yet the poor, especially, need the power of democracy
to defend themselves against corrupt elites.
Peoples of the Middle East share a high civilization, a religion of
personal responsibility, and a need for freedom as deep as our own. It
is not realism to suppose that one-fifth of humanity is unsuited to
liberty; it is pessimism and condescension, and we should have none of
it. (Applause.)
We must shake off decades of failed policy in the Middle East.
Your nation and mine, in the past, have been willing to make a bargain,
to tolerate oppression for the sake of stability. Longstanding ties
often led us to overlook the faults of local elites. Yet this bargain
did not bring stability or make us safe. It merely bought time, while
problems festered and ideologies of violence took hold.
As recent history has shown, we cannot turn a blind eye to
oppression just because the oppression is not in our own backyard. No
longer should we think tyranny is benign because it is temporarily
convenient. Tyranny is never benign to its victims, and our great
democracies should oppose tyranny wherever it is found. (Applause.)
Now we're pursuing a different course, a forward strategy of
freedom in the Middle East. We will consistently challenge the enemies
of reform and confront the allies of terror. We will expect a higher
standard from our friends in the region, and we will meet our
responsibilities in Afghanistan and in Iraq by finishing the work of
democracy we have begun.
The part about "tolerat[ing] opression for the sake of stability" sounds aimed not only at the Saudis but at Bush 41, who was such an advocate of stability that his administration didn't even want the Baltic republics to leave the Soviet Union. That instability worked out pretty well. Middle Eastern stability didn't.