      |
|
|
 |
|
« Back to Democracy Unleashed, Part Two main page    Transcript for: Democracy Unleashed, Part TwoTHINK TANK WITH BEN WATTENBERG#1316 SHARANSKY, Pt. 2 FEED DATE: June 16, 2005 Natan Sharansky Opening Billboard: Funding for Think Tank is provided by... (Pfizer) At Pfizer, we’re spending over five billion dollars looking for the cures of the future. We have 12,000 scientists and health experts who firmly believe the only thing incurable is our passion. Pfizer, life is our life’s work. Additional funding is provided by the Bernard and Irene Schwartz Foundation, the Smith Richardson Foundation, and the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation. MR. WATTENBERG: Hello, I’m Ben Wattenberg. President George W Bush says that promoting freedom and democracy is the focus of his presidency. He believes it is not only right, but it will also help reduce terrorism. Today’s guest, a former Soviet political prisoner, agrees, particularly so in the Middle East – but has some problems with what America is doing. While democracy has revolutionized many nations, is it the universal medicine for everyone? And are we doing it right in the Middle East? To Find Out, Think Tank is joined by Natan Sharansky, a former Minister in the Israeli government and co-author of The Case for Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror. The Topic Before the House: Democracy Unleashed, part two, this week on Think Tank. MR. WATTENBERG: Welcome back to Think Tank, Natan Sharansky. Tell us, in your book, which is entitled The Case for Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror, what distinction do you draw between a free society and a fear society? You use it again and again. MR. SHARANSKY: My test is so-called 'town square test'. MR. WATTENBERG: 'Town square'. MR. SHARANSKY: If you go into the center of the town and you express your views and you will not be punished for this, then you live in a free society. If you will be punished for this, you live in a fear society. And what is important to understand is that in the fear society very quickly there emerge three types of groups – three groups: true believers, those who believe in the ideology of the society; dissidents, those people who are not afraid to speak publicly and are punished for this; and so-called double-thinkers, those who don’t believe in this ideology but are afraid to say the truth and that’s why pretend. And majority of people in the fear society are double- thinkers. MR. WATTENBERG: Okay. Now I want to read something from your book, which I think you will enjoy. Quote, 'I am convinced that all people – all peoples - desire to be free. I am convinced that freedom anywhere will make the world safer everywhere. And I am convinced that democratic nations led by the United States have a critical role to play in expanding freedom around the globe.' Now - close quote - that sounds very much like President George W. Bush. So it’s your view that the concept of human freedom is universal, it applies everywhere. MR. SHARANSKY: Yes, well, I believe that every person and every people when given the choice to live in fear - to know that if you say something wrong you can be punished, to know that if your children’s school will say something wrong you can be punished or they can be punished - so every person when given a choice to continue living in fear society or to live in freedom will choose to live in freedom. And again and again we can see how people in different civilizations, in different religions, with different backgrounds and different mentalities, are choosing freedom. And the reason is that this Situation of double-think - when people have constantly to lie, in fact, to lie to say – to think one thing and to say the other thing – is very uncomfortable. And whenever they’re given opportunity to stop this life of double-think, they choose to stop this life of double- think. MR. WATTENBERG: Now, the President has been – if I was your publisher I’d be very pleased with him. He goes around carrying your book when he gets on a plane, gets on a helicopter, with the cover out so that everybody will read it and he’s saying, in affect, 'This is what I believe'. I assume you like that. MR. SHARANSKY: Well, definitely... MR. WATTENBERG: (laughing) Who wouldn’t? MR. SHARANSKY: I hope that it will be good for American people and for the world if President Bush will succeed in everything that he does as he succeeded in promoting my book. MR. WATTENBERG: Okay. You spoke to both the President and to Vice President Cheney. What did they have to say that you can tell... You mentioned it... MR. SHARANSKY: Yes, well, if you speak about this book -- when we were writing together - with my friend Ron Dermer, this book - we hoped that it will draw attention of some think tanks, of some university professors, and as a result during these discussions, it will draw attention of some assistants of politicians and then politicians. What’s happened almost opposite. On the second week of our book tour our publisher received call from White House that President Bush is reading the book and he wants to meet me. So... MR. WATTENBERG: You accepted. 'Yeah, I’ll make time for it.' MR. SHARANSKY: I had no reason to say no. MR. WATTENBERG: (laughing) Right. MR. SHARANSKY: Of course I had to cancel one or two of my speeches. And I came to White House and President Bush told me that, 'Now, I’ve always believed,' he said, 'that freedom is not American invention. That the gift of (inaudible) to all the mankind. And here in your book I see a good summary of my views. But summary with moral, historical, social, and other explanations.' He said, 'So I was very interested and I – now I want to discuss how you see how these principles can be applied to different parts of the world.' So it was very fascinating and very interesting discussion. When President Bush was speaking about his beliefs and how he sees the next four years in the White House - and it was some days after his victory - he was very proud. He said, 'Look, I got a very strong mandate and I’m going to use this mandate to make – to clear that the way to peace and stability is paved with a democracy.' And was speaking with such a conviction and with such an understanding of this connection that I told him, 'Mr. President, I see in front of me a dissident.' Because politicians always rely on polls, what is popular; they say what’s popular. Here dissidents rely – are loyal to the ideas. And they are with this idea, whatever – whether it is popular idea or not. It’s not a popular idea but you are true believer in this idea, you go ahead with this, and of course I can only welcome it but I want to warn you that dissidents are alone. Maybe for a long time they’re alone. Only at the end, the history is on their side. So I really feel it is very important that in this trip which he started and looked very long at this trip, that he will not be alone, that he will be supported with the leaders of the free world and that democracy will prove its power in many parts of the world. MR. WATTENBERG: Does promoting democracy, as in the case in Afghanistan and Iraq, is it proper to use military force? MR. SHARANSKY: Well, first of all... MR. WATTENBERG: As we have done. MR. SHARANSKY: Yes. I believe - and we are writing about it in the book – that, in fact, if the free world is from the very beginning treating – is making this linkage between security and democracy, the terrorist regimes will never be strong enough to threaten free world. Because terrorist regime – non-democratic regimes, fear societies - are very big from inside. They spend all their energy to control their own people. In order to become strong they have to be appeased by free world. So I’m saying that if fear societies are dangerous enough that free world has no choice but to fight them, it’s only because free world was supporting them for a long time. Saddam Hussein became so strong because there was a long period of appeasement of Saddam Hussein. When in the ’80s, Americans and other free countries believed that Saddam Hussein’s regime is in their own interest to cope with Iran. The same can be said about Arafat. The same can be said about Hitler. The same can be said about Stalin. But there can become a moment when this regime is so dangerous that free world has no choice but to fight. I believe that in case of - I’m going to start on Iraq. After the United States of America was challenged by the world of terror and the President Bush said that we are now fighting not with some small group of terrorists, we are fighting with a world network of terror and we have to win this world war. I think the moment it was viewed - and correctly so - as a world war against terror, sooner or later President Bush had to take care of the regime of Saddam Hussein, a regime which was giving a lot of legitimacy and support and strength to the world of terror. MR. WATTENBERG: Since our military victory in Iraq, it seems as if other nations - in Lebanon, a little bit in Saudi Arabia, maybe in Egypt, in other places - are moving toward democratic values. Is that encouraging, in your judgment? MR. SHARANSKY: Of course the decision of President Bush to fight military Afghanistan – regime in Afghanistan - and regime in Iraq was very important decision. But much more important, much more historical, was a decision that we – our aim should not be to replace this regime with some other regime which is loyal to us. Our aim should be to encourage the process of democracy, to replace this regime with a democratic society. That is much more difficult task but much more important task, and that’s exactly what America was trying to do. And next step: when American President start speaking publicly and openly, appealing to the dissidents in the fear societies. Exactly as President Reagan was appealing to us when he was speaking about evil empire, as John Paul the 2nd was speaking directly to the dissidents of the Eastern Europe, exactly the same affect the speeches of President Bush about the freedom and security - his appeals - to the dissidents in Arab world heard in Iran, in Lebanon, in Egypt, and in other societies. Of course the anti-Syrian Lebanese leader could be killed also a year ago but he would never have one million people go in on demonstration. There were voices of dissent in Egypt five years ago. Ibrahim al-Sayid is one of them. But there never could be demonstration of ten thousand people demanding from Mubarak to have free democratic elections as it is now. It’s all direct result of the fact that the leader of the free world proclaimed a new course. In fact, he said, 'From now are allies of the dissidents, not of the dictators.' MR. WATTENBERG: And the great symbol of our time, the early part of the 21st century, was that purple finger, 'I voted'. MR. SHARANSKY: Yes, well, again, to say that these elections mean that now there is democracy, of course not. Democracy is free election and free society. And there was still a lot of fear in Iraq when there were elections. But the very fact that more than sixty percent of people in Iraq went to election stations at a time when they knew that they can be killed there means that all these people want to participate in the effort to turn Iraq into free society. MR. WATTENBERG: Okay. Now let’s talk specifically about Israel and Palestine. There is something called 'the roadmap' and it’s created by something called 'the quartet', which is composed of Russia, the United Nations, the European Union and the United States. What do you think about the roadmap and the quartet, and specifically do you think President Bush got fooled by the perpetrators of this roadmap? MR. SHARANSKY: In my book I call roadmap the voice of Bush but the hands of Oslo. MR. WATTENBERG: Of Oslo. MR. SHARANSKY: Oslo. MR. WATTENBERG: Going back to the Oslo Treaty. MR. SHARANSKY: Yes. I’ll tell you what I mean by this. President Bush made the great historical speech in June, 2002. And I was very inspired with this speech because for the first time it was clearly said that Palestinians deserve, like all the other people, to have democratic leadership, and democratic reforms will bring – will be the best guarantor of real peace in the Middle East. Unfortunately, our government in Israel - and the other forces involved - were so skeptical about opportunities of democratic reforms among Palestinians they didn’t use this opportunity. And after some year – after some months of silence, State Department came with the plan, which is called roadmap, where there are all these nice words about democracy are used. But in fact the context is the one which is ignoring this linkage between democratic reforms and peace process. More than this, the very fact that those who have control in this process are United Nations and European countries, which are against this linkage, who don’t believe in the platform of President Bush. There are those who are so much against this policy of linkage between democracy and security, they will be those who are monitoring this agreement. That is unfortunately the best guarantee that there will be no real encouragement of democratic reforms. MR. WATTENBERG: Well, but let me ask you this - and I’ll play devil’s advocate a little bit, if I may. Didn’t a Palestinian authority recently have elections which were won by Mahmoud Abbas. I don’t know, did I pronounce that right? Is that... Weren’t those real elections? MR. SHARANSKY: Well, first the fact that the Palestinian authority has new leadership is very important. MR. WATTENBERG: Abbas. MR. SHARANSKY: About Mahmoud Abbas they can say many good things. They can say many bad things, because they read his PhD, which was written in Russian in Soviet Union about Zionism and Nazis. But it does doesn’t really matter; definitely it is better to deal with him than Yasser Arafat. He doesn’t have that type of connection to the terror and to the idea – obsessive idea to destroy the state of Israel as Yasser Arafat had. But at the same time, you can succeed with Abu Mazen only if we are insisting that democratic reforms are the absolute necessary condition of the progress of our support of this regime. And from this point, elections were important as the beginning of the possible process of democratic changes. But only as the beginning. It’s – they were not democratic changes by themselves. There is still a lot of fear in that society. The society’s not democratic in any way. Whether it will happen or not, it depends whether we will insist that... MR. WATTENBERG: We, the Israelis? MR. SHARANSKY: No, not we the Israelis, we the free world. America, Europe, and Israel will insist that all the money which we are giving, that all the legitimacy which we are giving to this regime, all the support should be leaned toward one thing. That he has to go ahead with democratic reforms. He has to start thinking not how to talk to us, but how to improve situation of his own people. How to start taking these people from refugee camps and giving them decent housing; how to create really free economy because Yasser Arafat destroyed all the beginnings of the free economy; how to stop this awful education of incitement, education of suicide bombing; and how of course to dismantle terrorist groups. MR. WATTENBERG: Why did you choose to resign? You were a member of the cabinet in some governments of the inner war cabinet. Why did you choose to resign from the Sharon government, the government of Ariel Sharon? MR. SHARANSKY: Well I – first of all, I believe that if when a minister disagrees strongly with the policy of the government he or she should not be there. And I know some of my colleagues think differently, think that one thing is to disagree with the policy, the other thing is to give away some of the privileges of the life of the minister. I think it’s simply dishonest - maybe even immoral - to continue being in the government which the central point of it is implementation of the plan which you disagree. That’s in principle. Now about the plan itself. I resigned from the government not because I think that we should stay in Gaza. In fact, I was... MR. WATTENBERG: In Oslo plan. Not... MR. SHARANSKY: I resigned from the government because of my disagreement with the so-called disengagement plan of our leaving Gaza. But I’m not against leaving Gaza. In fact, I was speaking on behalf of Palestinian state long before Ariel Sharon started speaking about it. But I believe it is extremely important – the most important question is what kind of a state it will be: whether it will be democratic state or terrorist state. And here one-sided concessions on our side. Leaving - as a result linking this very big concession to the question of democratic reforms - is a big mistake. I’m afraid it will be seen as a prize to terror, and today Hamas is already saying that 'we killed one thousand Israelis and we are getting prize. Israelis are dismantling their settlements and they’re leaving Gaza. We will kill another two thousand and they will leave Jerusalem.' That is a danger, and I for many years was saying that we should leave Gaza only when it is linked to the most important reforms: dismantling refugee camps, building free economy in Gaza, stopping incitements in schools in Gaza, and dismantling terrorist groups in Gaza. MR. WATTENBERG: But now, General Sharon – Prime Minister Sharon - he has never been known as a dove; he’s been known as a super hawk. Why does he now want to leave Gaza? Has he changed his stripes? MR. SHARANSKY: Oh, he definitely changed his position. It wasn’t his position several years ago. But my problem is not with the changing of the position. Sometimes situation is changing and people have to change position. My problem is a principle one. Do we really believe that there can be democratic society for Palestinians? Do we believe that they can and want live in freedom and are we ready to help them? Or do we think that it’s absolutely helpless, nothing will change, so let’s try to make – run away from Gaza, leave Palestinians with their own problems, and these problems will be not ours anymore. And I understand Ariel Sharon. He’s absolutely desperate. And it is very difficult to be the leader of the country, which is making such big efforts to reach peace, which is fighting against the terror and at the same time making one concession after the other to Palestinians, and all the world continues pressing on us, and Palestinians continue supporting terror. That is a desperate, difficult situation. And when you also don’t believe there can be democratic changes on the other side, then you are looking for some desperate step to stop it. MR. WATTENBERG: Now you write in your book that America is doing something wrong in this negotiation. What do you think we are doing wrong? MR. SHARANSKY: Well, first of all, I think America has now established very important principle, extremely important principle, that stability and peace goes together – comes together... MR. WATTENBERG: Relates to the earlier Soviet position. MR. SHARANSKY: Yes. This principle was established in relation to Soviet Union but then it was absolutely abandoned after the defeat of Soviet Union Cold War. Then America unfortunately ignored this principle in its relations with many dictators in the world, including Saudi Arabia and many other countries. And then when it came – when it seemed now there’s opportunity to build peace in the Middle East, I think these opportunities were wasted because the main efforts were how to strengthen the dictator in the Middle East, how to find reliable dictator who will guarantee us security. MR. WATTENBERG: Do you think that Islam and democracy are compatible? You can have an Islamic democratic country? MR. SHARANSKY: Yes. I believe that every culture, every religion, every tradition is compatible with democracy because when given an opportunity to choose between living in fear and living without fear, people will choose to live in accordance with their tradition, in accordance with their religion, in accordance with their mentality, but without fear. MR. WATTENBERG: Okay. Natan Sharansky, author of The Case for Democracy, thank you very much for joining us on Think Tank. And thank you. Please remember to send us your comments via email. We think it makes our program better. For Think Tank, I’m Ben Wattenberg. ANNOUNCER: We at Think Tank depend on your views to make our show better. Please send your questions and comments to New River Media, 4455 Connecticut Ave NW, Suite C-100, Washington, DC 20008 or email us at thinktank@pbs.org. To learn more about Think Tank, visit PBS online at pbs.org and please let us know where you watch Think Tank. Funding for Think Tank is provided by... (Pfizer) At Pfizer, we’re spending over five billion dollars looking for the cures of the future. We have 12,000 scientists and health experts who firmly believe the only thing incurable is our passion. Pfizer, life is our life’s work. Additional funding is provided by the Bernard and Irene Schwartz Foundation, the Smith Richardson Foundation, and the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation. 14 Back to top  Think Tank is made possible by generous support from the Smith Richardson Foundation, the Bernard and Irene Schwartz Foundation, the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, the John M. Olin Foundation, the Donner Canadian Foundation, the Dodge Jones Foundation, and Pfizer, Inc. ©Copyright Think Tank. All rights reserved. 
  Web development by Bean Creative. |