Pawlenty Council on Foreign Relations

8/6/2019 Pawlenty Council on Foreign Relations

1/6

"No Retreat From Freedom's Rise"

Gov. Tim Pawlenty's Remarks at Council on Foreign Relations

As Prepared for Delivery

*** EMBARGOED UNTIL DELIVERY AT 9:30 AM EDT ***

I want to speak plainly this morning about the opportunities and the dangers we face today in the Middle

East. The revolutions now roiling that region offer the promise of a more democratic, more open, and a

more prosperous Arab world. From Morocco to the Arabian Gulf, the escape from the dead hand of

oppression is now a real possibility.

Now is not the time to retreat from freedoms rise.

Yet at the same time, we know these revolutions can bring to power forces that are neither democratic nor

forward-looking. Just as the people of Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Syria and elsewhere see a chance for a better life

of genuine freedom, the leaders of radical Islam see a chance to ride political turmoil into power.

The United States has a vital stake in the future of this region. We have been presented with a challenge as

great as any we have faced in recent decades. And we must get it right. The question is, are we up to the

challenge?

My answer is, of course we are. If we are clear about our interests and guided by our principles, we can help

steer events in the right direction. Our nation has done this in the past -- at the end of World War II, in the

last decade of the Cold War, and in the more recent war on terror and we can do it again.

But President Obama has failed to formulate and carry out an effective and coherent strategy in response to

these events. He has been timid, slow, and too often without a clear understanding of our interests or a clear

commitment to our principles.

And parts of the Republican Party now seem to be trying to out-bid the Democrats in appealing to isolationist

sentiments. This is no time for uncertain leadership in either party. The stakes are simply too high, and the

opportunity is simply too great.

No one in this Administration predicted the events of the Arab spring - but the freedom deficit in the Arab

world was no secret. For 60 years, Western nations excused and accommodated the lack of freedom in the

Middle East. That could not last. The days of comfortable private deals with dictators were coming to an end

in the age of Twitter, You Tube, and Facebook. And history teaches there is no such thing as stable

oppression.

President Obama has ignored that lesson of history. Instead of promoting democracy whose fruit we see

now ripening across the region he adopted a murky policy he called engagement.

Engagement meant that in 2009, when the Iranian ayatollahs stole an election, and the people of that

country rose up in protest, President Obama held his tongue. His silence validated the mullahs, despite the

blood on their hands and the nuclear centrifuges in their tunnels.

While protesters were killed and tortured, Secretary Clinton said the Administration was waiting to see the

outcome of the internal Iranian processes. She and the president waited long enough to see the Green

Movement crushed.


2/6

Engagement meant that in his first year in office, President Obama cut democracy funding for Egyptian civil

society by 74 percent. As one American democracy organization noted, this was perceived by Egyptian

democracy activists as signaling a lack of support. They perceived correctly. It was a lack of support.

Engagement meant that when crisis erupted in Cairo this year, as tens of thousands of protesters gathered

in Tahrir Square, Secretary Clinton declared, the Egyptian Government is stable. Two weeks later, Mubarak

was gone. When Secretary Clinton visited Cairo after Mubaraks fall, democratic activist groups refused to

meet with her. And who can blame them?

The forces we now need to succeed in Egypt -- the pro-democracy, secular political parties -- these are the

very people President Obama cut off, and Secretary Clinton dismissed.

The Obama engagement policy in Syria led the Administration to call Bashar al Assad a reformer. Even as

Assads regime was shooting hundreds of protesters dead in the street, President Obama announced his plan

to give Assad an alternative vision of himself. Does anyone outside a therapists office have any idea what

that means? This is what passes for moral clarity in the Obama Administration.

By contrast, I called for Assads departure on March 29; I call for it again today. We should recall our

ambassador from Damascus; and I call for that again today. The leader of the United States should never

leave those willing to sacrifice their lives in the cause of freedom wondering where America stands. As

President, I will not.

We need a president who fully understands that America never leads from behind.

We cannot underestimate how pivotal this moment is in Middle Eastern history. We need decisive, clear-

eyed leadership that is responsive to this historical moment of change in ways that are consistent with our

deepest principles and safeguards our vital interests.

Opportunity still exists amid the turmoil of the Arab Spring -- and we should seize it.

As I see it, the governments of the Middle East fall into four broad categories, and each requires a different

strategic approach.

The first category consists of three countries now at various stages of transition toward democracy the

formerly fake republics in Egypt, Tunisia, and Libya. Iraq is also in this category, but is further along on its

journey toward democracy.

For these countries, our goal should be to help promote freedom and democracy.

Elections that produce anti-democratic regimes undermine both freedom and stability. We must do more

than monitor polling places. We must redirect foreign aid away from efforts to merely build good will, and

toward efforts to build good allies -- genuine democracies governed by free people according to the rule of

law. And we must insist that our international partners get off the sidelines and do the same.

We should have no illusions about the difficulty of the transitions faced by Libya, Tunisia, and especially

Egypt. Whereas Libya is rich in oil, and Tunisia is small, Egypt is large, populous, and poor. Among the

regions emerging democracies, it remains the biggest opportunity and the biggest danger for American

interests.


3/6

Having ejected the Mubarak regime, too many Egyptians are now rejecting the beginnings of the economic

opening engineered in the last decade. We act out of friendship when we tell Egyptians, and every new

democracy, that economic growth and prosperity are the result of free markets and free tradenot subsidies

and foreign aid. If we want these countries to succeed, we must afford them the respect of telling them the

truth.

In Libya, the best help America can provide to these new friends is to stop leading from behind and commit

Americas strength to removing Ghadafi, recognizing the TNC as the government of Libya, and unfreezing

assets so the TNC can afford security and essential services as it marches toward Tripoli.

Beyond Libya, America should always promote the universal principles that undergird freedom. We should

press new friends to end discrimination against women, to establish independent courts, and freedom of

speech and the press. We must insist on religious freedoms for all, including the regions minorities

whether Christian, Shia, Sunni, or Bahai.

The second category of states is the Arab monarchies. Some like Jordan and Morocco are engaging now

in what looks like genuine reform. This should earn our praise and our assistance. These kings have

understood they must forge a partnership with their own people, leading step by step toward more

democratic societies. These monarchies can smooth the path to constitutional reform and freedom and

thereby deepen their own legitimacy. If they choose this route, they, too, deserve our help.

But others are resisting reform. While President Obama spoke well about Bahrain in his recent speech, he

neglected to utter two important words: Saudi Arabia.

US-Saudi relations are at an all-time lowand not primarily because of the Arab Spring. They were going

downhill fast, long before the uprisings began. The Saudis saw an American Administration yearning to

engage Iranjust at the time they saw Iran, correctly, as a mortal enemy.

We need to tell the Saudis what we think, which will only be effective if we have a position of trust with

them. We will develop that trust by demonstrating that we share their great concern about Iran and that we

are committed to doing all that is necessary to defend the region from Iranian aggression.

At the same time, we need to be frank about what the Saudis must do to insure stability in their own country.

Above all, they need to reform and open their society. Their treatment of Christians and other minorities,

and their treatment of women, is indefensible and must change.

We know that reform will come to Saudi Arabiasooner and more smoothly if the royal family accepts and

designs it. It will come later and with turbulence and even violence if they resist. The vast wealth of their

country should be used to support reforms that fit Saudi history and culturebut not to buy off the people

as a substitute for lasting reform.

The third category consists of states that are directly hostile to America. They include Iran and Syria. The

Arab Spring has already vastly undermined the appeal of Al Qaeda and the killing of Osama Bin Laden has

significantly weakened it.

The success of peaceful protests in several Arab countries has shown the world that terror is not only evil, but

will eventually be overcome by good. Peaceful protests may soon bring down the Assad regime in Syria. The

2009 protests in Iran inspired Arabs to seek their freedom. Similarly, the Arab protests of this year, and the

fall of regime after broken regime, can inspire Iranians to seek their freedom once again.


4/6

We have a clear interest in seeing an end to Assads murderous regime. By sticking to Bashar al Assad so

long, the Obama Administration has not only frustrated Syrians who are fighting for freedomit has

demonstrated strategic blindness. The governments of Iran and Syria are enemies of the United States. They

are not reformers and never will be. They support each other. To weaken or replace one, is to weaken or

replace the other.

The fall of the Assad mafia in Damascus would weaken Hamas, which is headquartered there. It would

weaken Hezbollah, which gets its arms from Iran, through Syria. And it would weaken the Iranian regime

itself.

To take advantage of this moment, we should press every diplomatic and economic channel to bring the

Assad reign of terror to an end. We need more forceful sanctions to persuade Syrias Sunni business elite

that Assad is too expensive to keep backing. We need to work with Turkey and the Arab nations and the

Europeans, to further isolate the regime. And we need to encourage opponents of the regime by making our

own position very clear, right now: Bashar al-Assad must go.

When he does, the mullahs of Iran will find themselves isolated and vulnerable. Syria is Irans only Arab ally.

If we peel that away, I believe it will hasten the fall of the mullahs. And that is the ultimate goal we must

pursue. Its the singular opportunity offered to the world by the brave men and women of the Arab Spring.

The march of freedom in the Middle East cuts across the regions diversity of religious, ethnic, and political

groups. But it is born of a particular unity. It is a united front against stolen elections and stolen liberty,

secret police, corruption, and the state-sanctioned violence that is the essence of the Iranian regimes

tyranny.

So this is a moment to ratchet up pressure and speak with clarity. More sanctions. More and better

broadcasting into Iran. More assistance to Iranians to access the Internet and satellite TV and the knowledge

and freedom that comes with it. More efforts to expose the vicious repression inside that country and

expose Teherans regime for the pariah it is.

And, very critically, we must have more clarity when it comes to Irans nuclear program. In 2008, candidate

Barack Obama told AIPAC that he would always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our

security and our ally Israel. This year, he told AIPAC we remain committed to preventing Iran from

acquiring nuclear weapons. So I have to ask: are all the options still on the table or not? If hes not clear

with us, its no wonder that even our closest allies are confused.

The Administration should enforce all sanctions for which legal authority already exits. We should enact and

then enforce new pending legislation which strengthens sanctions particularly against the Iranian

Revolutionary Guards who control much of the Iranian economy.

And in the middle of all this, is Israel.

Israel is unique in the region because of what it stands for and what it has accomplished. And it is unique in

the threat it facesthe threat of annihilation. It has long been a bastion of democracy in a region of tyranny

and violence. And it is by far our closest ally in that part of the world.

Despite wars and terrorists attacks, Israel offers all its citizens, men and women, Jews, Christians, Muslims

and, others including 1.5 million Arabs, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, the right to vote, access to

independent courts and all other democratic rights.


5/6

Nowhere has President Obamas lack of judgment been more stunning than in his dealings with Israel.

It breaks my heart that President Obama treats Israel, our great friend, as a problem, rather than as an ally.

The President seems to genuinely believe the Israeli-Palestinian conflict lies at the heart of every problem in

the Middle East. He said it Cairo in 2009 and again this year.

President Obama could not be more wrong.

The uprisings in Tunis, Cairo, Tripoli and elsewhere are not about Israelis and Palestinians. Theyre about

oppressed people yearning for freedom and prosperity. Whether those countries become prosperous and

free is not about how many apartments Israel builds in Jerusalem.

Today the president doesnt really have a policy toward the peace process. He has an attitude. And lets be

frank about what that attitude is: he thinks Israel is the problem. And he thinks the answer is always more

pressure on Israel.

I reject that anti-Israel attitude. I reject it because Israel is a close and reliable democratic ally. And I reject it

because I know the people of Israel want peace.

Israeli Palestinian peace if further away not than the day Barack Obama came to office. But that does not

have to be a permanent situation.

We must recognize that peace will only come if everyone in the region perceives clearly that America stands

strongly with Israel.

I would take a new approach.

First, I would never undermine Israels negotiating position, nor pressure it to accept borders which

jeopardize security and its ability to defend itself.

Second, I would not pressure Israel to negotiate with Hamas or a Palestinian government that includes

Hamas, unless Hamas renounces terror, accepts Israels right to exist, and honors the previous Israeli-

Palestinian agreements. In short, Hamas needs to cease being a terrorist group in both word and deed as a

first step towards global legitimacy.

Third, I would ensure our assistance to the Palestinians immediately ends if the teaching of hatred in

Palestinian classrooms and airwaves continues. That incitement must end now.

Fourth, I would recommend cultivating and empowering moderate forces in Palestinian society.

When the Palestinians have leaders who are honest and capable, who appreciate the rule of law, who

understand that war against Israel has doomed generations of Palestinians to lives of bitterness, violence,

and poverty then peace will come.

The Middle East is changing before our eyesbut our government has not kept up. It abandoned the

promotion of democracy just as Arabs were about to seize it. It sought to cozy up to dictators just as their

own people rose against them. It downplayed our principles and distanced us from key allies.


6/6

All this was wrong, and these policies have failed. The Administration has abandoned them, and at the price

of American leadership. A region that since World War II has looked to us for security and progress now

wonders where we are and what were up to.

The next president must do better. Today, in our own Republican Party, some look back and conclude our

projection of strength and defense of freedom was a product of different times and different challenges.

While times have changed, the nature of the challenge has not.

In the 1980s, we were up against a violent, totalitarian ideology bent on subjugating the people and

principles of the West. While others sought to co-exist, President Reagan instead sought victory. So must

we, today. For America is exceptional, and we have the moral clarity to lead the world.

It is not wrong for Republicans to question the conduct of President Obamas military leadership in Libya.

There is much to question. And it is not wrong for Republicans to debate the timing of our military

drawdown in Afghanistan though my belief is that General Petreaus voice ought to carry the most weight

on that question.

What is wrong, is for the Republican Party to shrink from the challenges of American leadership in the world.

History repeatedly warns us that in the long run, weakness in foreign policy costs us and our children much

more than well save in a budget line item.

America already has one political party devoted to decline, retrenchment, and withdrawal. It does not need

a second one.

Our enemies in the War on Terror, just like our opponents in the Cold War, respect and respond to strength.

Sometimes strength means military intervention. Sometimes it means diplomatic pressure. It always means

moral clarity in word and deed.

That is the legacy of Republican foreign policy at its best, and the banner our next Republican President must

carry around the world.

Our ideals of economic and political freedom, of equality and opportunity for all citizens, remain the dream

of people in the Middle East and throughout the world. As America stands for these principles, and stands

with our friends and allies, we will help the Middle East transform this moment of turbulence into a firmer,

more lasting opportunity for freedom, peace, and progress.

Thank you.

Documents

Pawlenty Council on Foreign Relations