Bush Pushes Tunisia for Press Freedom

By Bush administration standards, the president’s words stung.

Sitting beside Tunisia’s strongman leader in the Oval Office on Wednesday, President Bush said he looked forward to discussing “the need to have a press corps that is vibrant and free, as well as an open political process.”

Although those words might sound mild, human rights advocates said they marked a watershed. It appeared to be the first time Bush has issued a face-to-face challenge on human rights to an Arab leader who has been an ally in the administration’s declared war on terrorism.

“Generally the administration has not responded publicly to our concerns. So this is something. This is quite instrumental,” said Frank Smyth, a spokesman for the Committee to Protect Journalists, a New York-based group that promotes press freedom. “When push comes to shove, press freedom has been pushed aside to make way for other priorities in the name of the war on terrorism.”

Members of the administration, Smyth added, are “at least acknowledging that their stated goals of fighting terrorism and promoting democracy are at odds in countries like Tunisia.”

It has been nearly a year since Bush proclaimed that promoting democracy would take center stage in his Middle East policies. In the intervening months, critics allege, the administration has had trouble making its anti-terrorism policies match its pro-democracy rhetoric.

Jon B. Alterman, director of the Middle East program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said the problem was that the two goals were in conflict, at least in the short term. Although it is in the long-term interests of the U.S. to have democracy flourish in the greater Middle East, he said, the administration at the moment has a strong need for cooperation in apprehending terrorists.

“The problem the United States always has is what you need in the short term versus what you need in the long term,” Alterman said.

The result, said Tamara Wittes, an expert on democratization at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the Brookings Institution, is that the U.S. has a serious credibility gap in the region.

“They’ve heard the democracy rhetoric from one administration after another for many years, but it has always been well down the priority list,” she said. “Now this administration is saying it is close to the top of our priority list. A lot of Arab leaders don’t know how seriously to take this.”

The visit by Tunisian President Zine el Abidine ben Ali illustrates the difficult balance the administration must strike between the two goals, she said.

Tunisia is an ethnically Arab country in North Africa. Although its population of 10 million makes it too small to be a heavyweight player in the Middle East, it has played a leading role there from time to time -- for instance, it long housed the headquarters of the Palestine Liberation Organization.

Ben Ali took power in a coup in 1987 and imposed strict limits on any political opposition or independent press. Freedom House, a human rights advocacy group, rates Tunisia near the bottom of its index for political rights -- a rating of 6 out of 7, where 7 denotes total repression.

At the same time, he has been more pro-Western than some other Arab leaders and has pursued economic development that has made his country considerably more prosperous and literate than its neighbors.

In that light, the administration handled Ben Ali’s visit with a certain degree of delicacy. The Tunisian president enjoyed a private visit in the Oval Office, but not a formal state dinner. The White House did not hold a joint news conference, allowing just two questions from American wire services at the end of an Oval Office photo session.

As the cameras clicked, Ben Ali pointedly but politely reminded his counterpart that the U.S.-Tunisian relationship had a “strategic dimension.”

Wittes said Ben Ali had long argued that political controls were necessary to stem the tide of militant Islam. And like many authoritarian leaders in the Middle East, she said, Ben Ali argues that putting public pressure on his government will embolden destabilizing forces.

As a result, Bush’s remarks “will make [Arab] leaders sit up and take notice. They don’t want the public pressure. They constantly make the argument that public pressure is counterproductive,” she said.

Few doubt Bush’s sincerity in seeking Mideast democracy, but many question whether his commitment is more than rhetorical. So far the administration has put only a few hundred million dollars into two main democracy programs: the Middle East Partnership Initiative and the National Endowment for Democracy. The budget proposals pale in comparison with military aid supplied to the region.

As a result, it is unclear whether the Bush administration will be able to do what has bedeviled so many previous administrations: resolve the tension between pursuing security and pursuing democracy.

“This is going to be a problem with every single country out there -- how hard do you push?” said Edward S. Walker Jr., president of the Middle East Institute. “Push too hard and you can destabilize the country and you have a worse situation. There’s a delicate line to be drawn.”