ConservativeHome's Platform

Rep. Robert Dold: The importance of free trade

Robert J. Dold is the US Representative serving the 10th Congressional District of Illinois.

Nations commonly enter into free trade agreements to increase economic prosperity, lower the cost of goods, better allocate resources, access new markets, and encourage innovation. Since World War II, America has consistently sought and received these benefits by liberalizing its trade policy and by becoming a party to a number of bi-lateral and multi-lateral trade agreements across the globe. Currently, our participation in these trade agreements significantly increases trade and investment that benefits America and other member nations. Right now, the U.S. has free trade agreements pending with Korea, Colombia, and Panama.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce estimates that every $1 billion increase in exports directly results in 6,250 manufacturing jobs created here in America. Expanding free markets brings benefits to consumers in the form of lower prices, greater variety, and better quality. It also encourages companies to innovate and specialize.  Extending these three trade agreements will bring new economic opportunities to the United States.  

According to the President’s analysis, if the U.S. were to sign these three agreements it would create 250,000 U.S. jobs without any government spending.  Compared to most countries in the world, the United States has relatively low tariffs on imported goods, so free trade agreements remove the higher barriers of our trade partners.  Lowering these artificial barriers to goods and services will help all businesses, big or small, and create new jobs.  Every day that the U.S. delays signing these agreements is yet another day of higher tariffs imposed on our country. These tariffs amount to nothing more than a tax on US consumers.  Removing such artificial barriers and tariffs has so far increased the purchasing power of American families by $10,000.  With rising gas and food prices, this would be a welcome relief for the family budget. 

Just last week, a free trade agreement between the European Union and Korea went into effect.  This is putting American companies at an extreme disadvantage.  At this very moment, Europe is establishing new business ties in Korea, meanwhile we sit idly by and continue to pay steep tariffs. The European Union is now benefiting from lower trade barriers, increased export opportunities, and job creation.  The U.S. needs to stop the delay and sign these pending trade agreements.  America only falls behind when other nations pass free trade agreements.

There is no question that passing these pending free trade agreements helps every American family and creates new opportunities for growth for American businesses. Given this winning combination, it is unacceptable for Washington to play political games with these free trade agreements and delay their passage.

Rep. Don Manzullo: The Lady of Burma speaks to the U.S. Congress

Congressman Don Manzullo (R-IL) is Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific. Rep. Manzullo co-authored a bill that was signed into law in 2008 awarding Aung San Suu Kyi the Congressional Gold Medal for her brave fight for democracy in Burma. Manzullo has also kept pressure on the military junta in Burma by working annually to renew economic sanctions against them. Manzullo is also a member of the Congressional-Executive Commission on China that monitors human rights and rule of law violations in China.

We have a remarkable opportunity Wednesday to hear directly from the extraordinary woman at the center of the decades-long struggle to bring freedom to Burma, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi.  Ms. Suu Kyi – a Nobel Peace Prize winner and democracy advocate – has sent us a recorded video message that we will play at a Congressional hearing I will chair on Wednesday afternoon. The hearing of the Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific is titled “Piercing Burma’s Veil of Secrecy: The Truth Behind the Sham Election and the Difficult Road Ahead,” and it will share Suu Kyi’s account of the ruling military junta’s Nov. 2, 2010 sham election and changes that have occurred in Burma since then. The Capitol Hill hearing will take place in Room 2172 of the Rayburn House Office Building and will be webcast live at http://www.hcfa.house.gov.  

I have a tremendous amount of respect for Ms. Suu Kyi – both as a freedom fighter and a courageous leader.  If you are looking for modern day heroes you certainly have to include Ms. Suu Kyi in a group with the likes of Martin Luther King Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi.  She is a true inspiration to millions of people around the world.

Recounting Ms. Suu Kyi’s life requires understanding the historical context in which she emerged as the Lady of Burma.  Ever elegant, eloquent, and gracious, Ms. Suu Kyi is not just a gift to Burma, but also a gift to the entire world.  She remains a symbol of hope against a brutal military junta in Burma too cowardly to let democracy reign supreme.  Ms. Suu Kyi and her National League for Democracy Party were the landslide winners in the 1990 presidential elections.  Yet Burma’s military regime continues to deny those election results to the detriment of its own people and its own legitimacy.  For 23 years, Ms. Suu Kyi has championed the cause of democracy in Burma, and she spent the past 15 years as a prisoner for daring to believe in a better tomorrow.

The Saffron Revolution of September, 2007 exposed the Burmese regime for what it is – a brutal authoritarian regime willing to stop at nothing to crack down on thousands of peaceful, nonviolent protesters simply because they demanded their basic human rights.  I vigorously spoke out against the actions of the Burmese government then, and will continue to do so in the future.

The recruitment of child soldiers, detention and torture of political dissidents, restrictions on freedoms of press, speech, assembly and association, and limited religious freedoms continue to prevail in Burma under the highly authoritarian military regime of General Thein Sein.  Minority religious groups like Christians in Burma continue to struggle to obtain permits to repair places of worship or build new ones.  Amidst all of this, Aung San Suu Kyi and her countless followers continue to pressure the government to reform.  But these voices need support from us and others around the world who share in Ms. Suu Kyi’s vision for a democratic and free Burma.

Many Burmese people fittingly refer to Ms. Suu Kyi as “mother,” indicative of the important and enduring role that she plays in her country.  She is the mother of the movement for democracy and human rights in Burma who has earned, by every standard measurable, not only the Nobel Peace Prize and the Congressional Gold Medal, but also our enduring respect.  Ms. Suu Kyi’s spirit has not been broken by 15 years of house arrest, but given strength through her faith and hope in a brighter future for millions of Burmese citizens.  Our Lady of Burma continues to inspire us all.

Miles Taylor: No time for retreat - the dangers of an isolationist GOP

Miles Taylor works in the U.S House of Representatives and previously served in the Department of Homeland Security. He is co-founder and senior editor at Partisans.org.

Republican presidential hopefuls spent little time on foreign policy in last week’s CNN debate, instead focusing on the economy and healthcare—and Herman Cain’s persistent xenophobia toward Muslims.

But when the subject did come up, Mitt Romney made an unexpected statement while discussing Afghanistan.  “We’ve learned that our troops shouldn’t go off and try and fight a war of independence for another nation.  Only Afghanis can win Afghanistan’s independence from the Taliban.”  The comment came on the heels of his appeal to “bring our troops home as soon as possible.”

Romney’s remarks were surprising for a number of reasons—not least of which was his odd decision to frame the conflict solely as a “war of independence.”  Until now, the former governor has been a staunch supporter of U.S.-led effort.

Romney is not alone among conservatives in his criticism of interventionism, though.  Presidential hopeful Jon Huntsman recently hopped on the bandwagon, too, declaring that we were “wasting our money” in Afghanistan and Libya.  House Republicans seem to agree and are reportedly considering a proposal to defund the U.S. military’s involvement to oust Qaddafi.

These comments and actions are indicative of a broader trend gaining traction among GOP leaders:  isolationism.

This comes as a bit of a surprise.  Many of the Republicans using isolationist terminology are the same ones who strongly backed U.S. efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan and who voted to more than double foreign aid during Bush’s tenure.  Have war-weary conservatives changed their views on America’s role in the world? 

It is unlikely.  A better explanation for the shift, though not a more encouraging one, is political posturing.  The top presidential contenders, for example, are competing for the support of the Tea Party movement and several have adjusted their positions to court the movement’s isolationist strains.

It was only last year, for instance, that Mitt Romney released his book, “No Apology:  The Case for American Greatness,” which argued for anything but an isolationist foreign policy.  But Romney has become a “weathervane,” as one analyst put it, and appears to be trying to “appease Ron Paul’s [isolationist] constituents without actually being Ron Paul.”

For other Republicans, though, the shift to an isolationist message appears to be little more than reflexive opposition to anything “Obama.”  As a result, GOP members of Congress who would have almost certainly backed a Bush-era toppling of Qaddafi are calling Obama’s Libyan intervention “unconstitutional” and accusing the president of wasting taxpayer dollars on an unnecessary escapade.

During the Bush Administration, though, Democrats were guilty of the same habit.  They ridiculed Bush’s advocacy for democracy promotion and argued that Americans could not afford to be the world’s policemen.  Those Democrats had ignored—or conveniently forgotten—their support during the Clinton years for democracy promotion and police actions in places like Yugoslavia and Somalia.

In fact, the partisan-inflicted amnesia was so great that today there is still a good deal of ideological confusion in liberal foreign policy circles, perpetuated by the Democratic Party’s lingering disdain for President Bush.  Many seem to have forgotten that it was leaders of their own party, like Woodrow Wilson, who promoted an activist, values-based foreign policy in the first place.

But whether today’s isolationist shift in the GOP dialogue is genuine or simply political posturing is irrelevant.  The reality is that it legitimizes a foolish and dangerous foreign policy.

Today, America underwrites global security for the world’s 6.7 billion people.  This is a costly and often thankless burden for the country, but far preferable to the alternative.  A U.S. withdrawal from the international scene would be an unmitigated disaster.

For every inch America retreats on the world stage, nations like China and Russia move an inch forward.  Does the United States want to be responsible for creating a vacuum in global security—one that will be filled by countries with starkly contrasting values?

It’s not difficult to imagine what Russia would do in bordering states without American influence, or what China might do in the Pacific without the same.

Even when the United States has given into more moderate impulses to “step back” in the past, the result has been damaging.  For example, the United States still hasn’t fully recovered from the “peace dividend” retreat of the 1990s, which left the foreign service in disrepair and decimated America’s covert workforce overseas.

It would be a mark of shame upon the Republican Party—and a danger for the rest of the world—for the next GOP president to take office vowing to roll back America’s involvement overseas. 

* * * 

Isolationists like Ron Paul proudly cite George Washington, who made a final appeal before leaving office for American leaders to avoid foreign entanglements.  His advice was probably wise for the time.  America was young, weak, and unprepared to agitate despotic states around the world, who might try to crush the fledgling democracy.

But applying Washington’s advice today would be borderline delusional.  America’s “foreign entanglements” have freed billions from the chains of poverty and despotism, changing the course of history and the face of the world as Washington knew it.  Diminishing America’s global presence now would lead to a world that is both less prosperous and less friendly to freedom-loving people.

Isolationist Republicans are wrong to seek a diminished U.S. role in the world. 

The world needs America’s innovation, which is the lifeblood of the global economy; its ideals, which are the foundation of the most prosperous societies; and its might, which has served for a century as insurance against the aims of rogue regimes.

In short, the world needs America to care about “foreign entanglements”—or someone worse will. 

Rep. Steve Pearce: Time for a realistic Middle East policy

Congressman Steve Pearce represents New Mexico's 2nd District in the U.S. House of Representatives.

On Tuesday, I participated in a joint meeting of the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate to receive Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.  This should have been a positive meeting with America’s strongest ally in the Middle East.  Instead, the tension in the room was palpable, because everyone there was conscious of President Obama’s speech on Israel last week.

I was shocked to hear the President make the unprecedented suggestion that Israel should revert to its 1967 borders.  Israel is not only our best friend in this volatile region, but the freest nation.  In fact, Freedom House, an independent organization which rates countries based on their protection of political and civil rights, rated Israel as the only “free” country in the Middle East last year.

That the President outlined such a troubling policy with regard to our friends in Israel defies imagination.  It goes against our belief in freedom to ask this tiny beacon of human liberty, alone in an area known for violence and chaos, to retreat.  It goes against our responsibility to the world to ask our strongest ally in the region, a nation that has fought for its right to exist from its very creation, to withdraw to indefensible borders.  As Mr. Netanyahu said in his speech, “Imagine that right now we all had less than 60 seconds to find shelter from an incoming rocket.  Would you live that way?  Would anyone live that way?  Well, we aren’t going to live that way either.”

Under the 1967 borders, the Israelis would be shut out of East Jerusalem, which contains some of the holiest sites for Christians, Jews and Muslims—including the Temple Mount, Western Wall, and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.  This is unacceptable.  The Prime Minister pointed out that only in Israel have Jews, Christians and Muslims been free to worship as they please. Jerusalem must never again be divided!

The 1967 borders are significant because that year saw hundreds of thousands of Egyptian, Syrian, Jordanian, and Iraqi troops massed along those borders, intent on invading and destroying Israel.  It is disturbing that the President would even speak of forcing our ally back into such a position.

The President refers to a non-militarized Palestinian state, but only mildly condemns the Palestinians for accepting Hamas, a recognized terrorist group that openly supports the destruction of Israel, as a governing partner.  The 1967 borders would place Hamas within an 11-mile march of Tel Aviv, one of Israel’s major economic and cultural hubs.

The President expects Israel to reduce its security while Iran is building a nuclear weapon and has made clear that Israel is its preferred target.  Iran ships missiles and weapons to Hezbollah in Lebanon, supporting a heavily armed hostile force on Israel’s northern border.  Iran supports Hamas in the Gaza strip, from which rockets and missiles are launched into Israel daily.

Israeli children wait in bomb shelters for the school bus.  Rocket and missile attacks are a constant and reliable terror.  Recently, as Mr. Netanyahu told the President, one such rocket hit a school bus and killed a 16-year old boy.  We would not tolerate such a thing in our country, and it is unthinkable for us to ask our ally to do so.  Now is not the time for political fantasy, it is the time for policies that will bring about peace and stability.

The President spoke of the advancement of democracy in Egypt, but failed to recognize concerns that the Muslim Brotherhood could seize power.  This group poses a serious threat to global security and especially to the safety of our ally Israel.  The President continues to talk about our intervention in Libya, but the fact is that President Obama risked American lives there needlessly and without congressional authorization.  Gaddhafi remains alive, and the situation has become a stalemate.  The President’s own Secretary of Defense admits that we had no pressing political or security interests in Libya.

The President stated that his outline on Israel’s border is a starting point for negotiations.  But I would prefer that negotiations start not with massive and dangerous concessions, but with each side recognizing the other’s right to exist in peace.  Israel has done this.  But Hamas, Hezbollah, and others have not.  As Mr. Netanyahu pointed out, when Arab states expelled their Jewish populations in 1948-49, Israel gladly took them in.  Meanwhile, over six decades later, many Arab countries still leave their Palestinian populations in refugee camps.  It is completely unacceptable that the President expects massive sacrifices from the only nation who has acted responsibly in the matter.

During his meeting with President Obama last week at the White House, Prime Minister Netanyahu said that “a peace based on illusions will crash eventually on the rocks of Middle Eastern reality.”  He’s right.  It is time for the White House to shape a policy based in reality.  Americans and our allies deserve a policy that will protect us from the very real dangers and threats in the Middle East. 

Herb London on Libya: We are at sea as one nation in an international armada that has lost its way

Herbert London is president of the Hudson Institute and author of the book Decline and Revival in Higher Education (Transaction Publishers).

Yemen’s security forces killed more than three dozen protestors in the last few days. Qaddafi has announced that Allied efforts to destroy his anti-missile defenses are a form of terrorism and as a consequence, he is prepared to decimate the rebels in Libya.  It seems to me that it is time to ask a question that haunts the history of our time:  Are there no limits to dictatorial power?

Since the Holocaust, the international community has given lip-service to the idea that mass murder by dictatorial leaders should never be tolerated. Yet remarkably there are instances in Africa and Asia where this is common practice. In the Arab world where Sharia prevails, the killing of apostates is a routine practice.

Based on recent events, it would appear that conditions across the globe are sliding back to a barbaric period in which murder of one’s own people for the retention of power is permitted or at least ignored. The argument is we cannot possibly intervene whenever atrocities occur. Or perhaps more logically, sovereignty trumps atrocity.

It is instructive that U.S. State Department officials employed the latter position for a time by suggesting we should not insinuate ourselves into a Libyan civil war.  In other words, however sanguinary the attacks may have been and continue to be, there is not a justifiable role for the US. Needless to say, that position has been modified by our stance on the “no fly zone.”

As I see it the basic Obama foreign policy thrust is based on an incremental U.S. withdrawal from regional influence.  The withdrawal, I should hastily note, is both emotional – an unwillingness to defend our interests and our allies – and physical – a drawdown of troops based on the belief we cannot afford these foreign ventures.

That strategic version, or lack thereof, has created a situation in which our enemies believe we are ineffectual and our allies believe we are untrustworthy.  Instead of hastening to carve out a defensive stance for the U.S. one that recognizes our foreign interests, the administration has decided to channel our foreign policy through the United Nations.  In doing so, the leverage that emerged in the past from the assertion of national power is lost.  We are at sea as one nation in an international armada that has lost its way.

The new concept of America opting out of unilateral action has implications for nations with imperial goals.  Iran has become the “strong horse” in the Middle East neighborhood by default. Our emerging position encouraged its evolution. Ortega y Gasset once noted, “To create a concept is to leave reality behind.” Our concept of multilateralism is a chimera surrounded by a fantasy.

Winston Churchill warned that when democracies triumphed in World War II they “were able to resume the follies which has so nearly cost them their life.” It seems we are at it yet again.

We watch with horror as power hungry barbarians kill their own people.  But we generally tolerate these actions. We are overcome by the magnitude of evil and the inversion of certitudes, but are helpless in their wake. We seek fresh creeds, but do not know how to deal with the revulsion in our collective gut.  And all the while our leaders tell us this will pass and, after all, there is nothing we can do.

Is the world turning to savagery? Is the 1930’s a scenario for the new century? Are we to allow shamefacedly the death and horror we have the capability to prevent? The derision of death lurks in our imagination, but the will to reverse it has not emerged. America cannot police the world, but the U.S. is still the only anchor that can assure international stability. It seems to me that role must be recognized and given the attention history has placed on it.

A Jacksonian dawn in the Middle East means the U.S. needs to start practicing a "democratic geopolitics"

Alexandros Petersen is Director of Research at the Henry Jackson Society: Project for Democratic Geopolitics.

"If you believe in the cause of freedom, then proclaim it, live it and protect it, for humanity's future depends on it."
 
In the midst of democratic tumult across the Middle East, Henry “Scoop” Jackson’s oft-repeated words ring as true as they ever did in the struggle against totalitarianism during the Cold War. He is perhaps best known for the admiration “neocons" had for him, but as a ranking member of the Armed Serves Committee, Senator Jackson was widely considered a realistic and sagacious steward of American power and influence. His legendary decisiveness and insight are sorely missing in an administration that seems to have been caught flat-footed in responding not just to the reformist groundswell across the Middle East, but also to its inevitable violent realities, currently on display in Libya.
 
Many have already noted that “the neoconservatives were right” about not precluding revolution and representative government for the Middle East.  The real question is about what policies the United States should adopt moving forward.  President Obama should take a page out of an old Democrat senator’s playbook and announce a Jacksonian approach to developments in the Middle East.  This would be predicated on the concept of “democratic geopolitics,” not blindly idealistic or cold-hearted, but hard-headed and principled.
 
Scoop Jackson was right in his unflinching belief that democratic governance should be encouraged globally, that it ought to have no borders of geography, culture, language or religion, and that extant democracies should support one another in approaching authoritarian and totalitarian states.  He was right to highlight the grave human rights abuses of non-representative governments, while neither wide-eyed nor shrill in expressing his convictions.  Scoop’s insistence that governance be a criterion in international affairs was a result of a deep understanding of a world system profoundly threatening to the security of the United States and its allies.
 
A “democratic geopolitics” approach would mean no if's and/or but's about the imperative to contribute to the ouster of the remnants of Gaddafi’s odious regime, with significant resources devoted to building democratic institutions from scratch in a Libya badly scarred by totalitarianism. It would mean just as many, if not more diplomatic, advisorial and financial resources geared towards reforms and institution-building in Egypt, not just to bring better governance to the Egyptian people, but to ensure an ally in Cairo that will keep Israel secure from the south and never again allow the passage of Iranian or other hostile warships through the Suez canal.
 
Democratic geopolitics would mean a frank discussion with Bahrain’s leadership to ensure major reforms and a strengthening of the defense relationship with the strategically-located Gulf state.  And, it would see preparations to contain the fallout from protest-induced instability in divided Yemen, to ensure that a new more representative government does not alienate any of the country’s factions now at dangerous loggerheads.  These are not novel recommendations, but they are moves not currently being taken by the White House.  Scoop would have doubtless been urging immediate action.
 
We are witnessing a Jacksonian Dawn in the Middle East. Now we just need a similar awakening towards “democratic geopolitics” in U.S. foreign policy.  Moving forward, one can only hope that implementation is predicated upon one of Scoop’s other well-known adages: “in matters of national security, the best politics is no politics."

Raheem Kassam: Don’t believe every poll – foreign policy credentials will matter in the 2012 presidential race

Raheem Kassam is the Director of Campaigns for the Henry Jackson Society – Project for Democratic Geopolitics 

Tim Pawlenty was one of very few to take the time to rail against Obama’s foreign policy at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Washington D.C. a few weeks ago, but it’s becoming glaringly obvious that the President could face down certain GOP opponents in this area.  It all depends on who the Republicans see fit to field.

Isolationists will have you know that foreign policy isn’t at the top of the agenda for the electorate right now – it’s not even close.  But nor was it the deciding factor in the 2000 elections which featured most prominently; education, social security and – you guessed it – healthcare.  In fact, 32% of television spots between September and November 2000 focused on healthcare.  Just 0.2% were foreign/defence related in 2000.  It’s an issue that doesn’t need to dominate the mind of a voter – they just need to know their candidate has some semblance of understanding of foreign affairs; the nouse to act on their behalf on the world stage.  As Donald Trump remarked recently – there are reasons why Ron Paul isn’t electable for President.  Potentially similar reasons for Trump himself.

Presently the national deficit, government spending and civil liberties dominate the political discourse.  But America is not out of step with the rest of the world as some would try to have you think.  Debates are raging over Egypt, Libya and Iran, not to mention the current theatres of war along with South America and the world island of Eurasia.  The GOP must not fall into a tea-party concocted trap of fielding a straight up pacifist – it would cost them too much in 2012.

Most of what we’ve heard so far are vague criticisms espousing Obama’s failure to act decisively.  Rick Santorum suggests the US ‘turned its back’ on Hosni Mubarak – as if Egypt’s past few decades of rigged elections and 'emergency rule' were something for Americans to be proud of sponsoring.  A Cold War reality became a morally questionable irrelevance and Obama will take points from having this democratic revolution occur on his watch without committing U.S.resources. 

At CPAC just over a week ago, a straw poll once again was topped by the isolationist Senator Ron Paul.  Don’t let it fool you.  Most voters were under the age of 25, thus the sum total of their experience of U.S. foreign policy is less, ‘Tear down this wall,’ and more ‘Dude, Where's My WMDs?’  Older audiences will be reassured to see the U.S. maintain a strong defensive capability and an exceptionalist attitude.  Obama is not by any stretch of the imagination the embodiment of this – his foreign policy credentials (or lack thereof) necessitated the Biden shaped padding in his administration.  But after a CPAC once again dominated by isolationists, Tim Pawlenty was the one who came out on top in terms of strategic defense.  Perhaps a sign that the GOP need to consider a bold, varied ticket for 2012.  McCain and Palin, leagues apart in appearance at the least, began to mirror each other as the election drew closer in 2008.  It's crucial that a Republican ticket gets the balance and difference correct. 

Although Pawlenty is polling ahead of Palin, Gingrich and Paul – he’s still at only 7% to Mitt Romney’s 40%.  Romney wasn’t bad on the subject matter – but when you hear Pawlenty echo what the world has been thinking about the United States’ international policy, that is, ‘We undermine Israel, the U.K., Poland, the Czech Republic and Colombia, among other friends,’ you tend to think that unless the GOP finds the dream team of someone tough on big government and tough on foreign affairs – it’s going to be Obama 2012.

UPDATED: Two Revolutions: America's leaders must speak out in support of freedom in the Middle East

Will Inboden is a Distinguished Scholar at the Strauss Center for International Security and Law at the University of Texas-Austin, and a Contributing Editor at Foreign Policy magazine.

Even as events in Egypt play out almost faster than the news cycle itself, last night’s news of Mubarak’s desperate grasping at power reverberates across the Middle East, and around the globe.  The dictator’s defiance is a challenge to freedom, and conservatives across the Anglosphere should recognize it as such.  But if February is to be remembered in history as the month of liberty for the people of Egypt, the current standoff must soon give way to a democratic transition.  And the United States can play a crucial role. 

Specifically, the Obama Administration – ideally President Obama himself -- should immediately and publicly call on Mubarak to step aside now. Republican leaders should do the same.  And the White House and Republican leaders should together announce America’s active bipartisan support – diplomatic and economic – for free and fair national elections that are open to all peaceful parties in Egypt.  It should make clear to a transitional post-Mubarak government supported by the military that the United States expects it to be just that – transitional – and that its two primary responsibilities are to preserve basic order while taking active steps to support multiparty elections.

The United States has nothing to gain from supporting Mubarak any further at this point. The octogenarian autocrat has already written off the US and feels beholden only to his own interests. Meanwhile, the Egyptian people clamoring for Mubarak to go still wonder if the US supports their aspirations for liberty, opportunity, and a better life – or stands with the dictator whom they see as the obstacle to those aspirations. President Obama and Republican leaders need to speak out publicly and unequivocally, so that the Egyptian people wonder no more whose side we are on.

Amidst the prevailing standoff in Tahrir Square, not to be forgotten is that before Egypt, there was Tunisia.  And before Tunisia, there was Iran. It was, after all, the 2009 Green Movement protests in Iran that first signaled that the Middle East of the 21^st century would not be consigned to the status quo of the previous 50 years, when autocrats and theocrats alike stifled freedom and held forth their false promises of stability or revolution, respectively.  Just as Iran’s Green Movement protests helped sow the seeds of events in Egypt today, so now Egypt’s protests are terrifying Tehran, where the mullahs fear any further inspiration for Iran’s reformers. Ironically, today marks the anniversary of the Iranian revolution.  It was thirty two years ago on February 11 that the Shah fell from power, replaced by Ayatollah Khomeini and his murderous regime. 

Some commentators take away the wrong lesson from this history, and conclude that America should always support dictators in the region, lest there be more Islamist takeovers such as Iran in 1979.  The right lesson is rather this: America should support freedom in the region, which provides the most enduring type of stability and antidote to extremism.  As Charles Krauthammer writes today, the United States needs to adopt a freedom doctrine that supports democracy and democratic reformers across the region, while opposing the Islamists who might seek to hijack it. A robust freedom doctrine would include political liberty, economic liberty, and religious liberty – all of which are inimical to the Islamist agenda.

What this coming week holds, let alone the rest of the month or year, remain uncertain and will no doubt defy the best prognostications. There are no sure guarantees that Egypt will not be taken over by the likes of the Muslim Brotherhood.  But such a dismal fate would become more likely if the US remains on the sidelines or behind Mubarak – and will be less likely if we extend our support now to the Egyptian people in Tahrir Square. 

UPDATE: Well one thing I suppose I got right when first writing this post is that "events in Egypt play out almost faster than the news cycle itself" -- Mubarak's defiance of last night gave way today to the reality that he has lost his country, and he at last is stepping down.  Let us hope that this will mark February 11 as the day when the Egyptian revolution of 2011 overtook the Iranian revolution of 1979 as the region's pivot point.  As the Obama Administration continues to play catch-up, their flat-footed posture over the last two weeks mirrors their neglect of the last two years.  The White House now needs to make a forceful, clear, and direct statement to the Egyptian military and the Egyptian people of American support for their transition to democracy. Republicans should do the same, and can contribute further by developing the tenets of a "freedom doctrine" that supports democracy and opposes anti-democratic Islamist ideologies, much as the US distinguished democratic elements from communist parties in post-war Europe. For a lesson in what not to do, one needs only look at the Obama Administration's woeful record in Egypt the last two years -- and consider that in this area the George W. Bush Administration got it right.

With all eyes on Egypt, Herb London looks next door to the growing fragility of the two state solution

Herbert London is president of the Hudson Institute and author of the book Decline and Revival in Higher Education (Transaction Publishers). 

In a recent discussion of the anticipated Palestinian state Mahmoud Abbas, leader in the territory, said he “would not tolerate one single Jew in his new country, Palestine.” Speaking before journalists in Ramallah, he clearly and unequivocally noted, “We have already said completely openly, and it will stay that way: If there is a Palestinian country with Jerusalem as its capital, we will not accept that even one single Jew will live there.”

Abbas rejected any suggestion that Jews in Judea and Samaria, who have lived in their homes for decades, could remain under Palestinian rule. Meanwhile in all negotiations, the Palestinian position is that “Palestinian refugees” have the right of return to Israel. Therefore, according to the Abbas proposition, Israel should open its borders for Arabs while Palestine closes its borders for Jews.

Here is the unvarnished truth. Arabs can live in Israel as full fledged citizens with all the rights that status confers. They can have their own political parties, settle in their own communities and represent about twenty percent of the total Israeli population. But on the other side of the political ledger not one Jew, including those who reside on the West Bank, can remain once Palestine becomes an independent nation.

What more does one have to know about the Arab mentality? Sauce for the goose is not sauce for the gander. There is and will remain different standards for Arabs and Jews. Hence, what precisely is a two state solution? An Arab state immediately becomes a threat to the very existence of Israel since Jews are recognized as the enemy and, by virtue of law, must be ostracized.

To make matters even more absurd, Abbas is considered an ideological moderate. After all, he doesn’t call for killing Jews, only for a form of apartheid, of absolute separation. Should such a Palestinian nation be created, how long would it take for open hostilities between the two states to break out? Can an Israeli government that encouraged its citizens to move into the West Bank after the culmination of the 1967 war, now tell these residents that they must depart? Is the government prepared to extricate 250,000 people from this region?

These questions, and a host of others, will have to be addressed to meet the demands of a two state solution. But even more fundamental is the attitude of the Palestinians themselves. If Jews aren’t permitted there, then presumably Jewish tourist dollars and investment capital are not welcome either. Where does one draw the line?

Clearly modesty is in order. If Abbas didn’t have to mollify radical sentiment in the West Bank, these unmistakably racist comments would be an embarrassment and uttered only in private, if then. But his are the views of a radical sensing that the tide of world opinion is with him. Alas, he may be right since condemnation from the media elite over his forthright apartheid stance has not been forthcoming.

If this Palestinian state is created, Israelis should not have any illusions about what it will mean. Further isolation, increased hostility, border tension and suicide bombers are all in the cards. In fact, the deck is stacked against Israel and Abbas has made that fact patently clear. 

GOP leaders should be expressing support for Egypt's freedom advocates as the way to advance America's interests, rather than lamenting the loss of Mubarak or exaggerating claims about the Muslim Brotherhood

Will Inboden is a Distinguished Scholar at the Strauss Center for International Security and Law at the University of Texas-Austin, and a Contributing Editor at Foreign Policy magazine.

The Obama Administration should not have been caught by surprise by the Egyptian protests this week.  But it was, and as I have written over at Shadow Government, the White House’s lack of anticipation and contingency planning marks a foreign policy failure.  The Administration has been struggling to keep up ever since, and how they handle the still-unfolding events of the coming hours and days will do much to define President Obama’s legacy.

What has also been surprising is the relative silence of most leading Republicans thus far.  Even allowing that the executive branch has primary responsibility for conducting the nation’s foreign policy, Republican leaders have an opportunity to help frame the debate, shape events in Egypt, and distinguish themselves and their ideas.  In particular, prospective GOP presidential candidates and Congressional leaders should be making themselves heard this week.

The few conservative voices that have sounded thus far have focused mostly on concerns of a possible Islamist/Muslim Brotherhood takeover in Egypt, or in a related vein have lamented the potential loss of a reliable American ally in President Hosni Mubarak.  While legitimate to a point, those concerns are also overstated, and risk overshadowing what is a real opportunity for American leadership that Republicans should embrace.

Mubarak is not “pro-American”; he is pro-Mubarak.  For three decades his rule has focused on maintaining his own power.  Doing so sometimes has converged with American interests – such as his tilt away from the Soviets in the Cold War, his support for Egypt’s peace treaty with Israel, or his periodic assistance in counter-terrorism.  All of these are significant and demonstrate the value that his government has been as a regional US partner.

But Mubarak’s cooperation with the US extends only so far as he believes it to be useful to him.  Meanwhile, on the other side of the ledger he has actually increased the strength and appeal of Egyptian Islamist movements by ruthlessly suppressing any secular, pro-Western democratic opposition voices; he has overseen the sometimes vicious persecution of Christians, both Copts and evangelicals; he has presided over a state media that produces slanderous anti-Semitism and anti-American conspiracism, and he has refused to implement the free market economic reforms needed  to grow the stagnant economy and provide jobs to a generation of frustrated, despondent Egyptians.  In short, the Mubarak regime is responsible for many of the problems that beset it, and has outlived its usefulness as an American partner. 

Fortunately, even despite Mubarak’s misrule and repression of secular pro-Western reformers, the Muslim Brotherhood is only supported by a minority of Egyptians and has been a marginal player in the current protests.  The vast majority of the protestors are not calling for Shari’a law, but rather desire for themselves the same things that America stands for – liberty, opportunity, and prosperity. Such as the ability to choose their own government, to think and speak freely, and to provide a better life for themselves and their families.  Insofar as any of them express anti-American sentiments, these stem from their frustration that the Obama Administration has appeared to be on the side of their oppressive government rather than on the side of their freedom.

Moreover, as understandable as the protestors’ grievances are, the current disorder is very worrisome and threatens to spiral out of control.  Far, far preferable would have been an orderly, gradual transition to democracy willingly overseen by Mubarak over the last several years.  Instead he chose the baser path of tightened repression and sham elections, while the Obama Administration stayed largely silent and reduced its already meager support for Egyptian democracy advocates.    

Now, for GOP leaders, Egypt presents an opportunity to advance American interests and values – by supporting the aspirations of Egypt’s freedom advocates.  Should a new Egyptian government emerge soon, its leaders will remember if America supported their goals during their hour of need.

What should leading Republicans say?

1. Encourage the Egyptian military to keep playing its positive role in preserving order and protecting citizens from harm – and warn the military not to turn and use force against the reformers;
2. Express unequivocal American support for human rights, religious freedom, and democratic government in Egypt;
3. Urge the Obama Administration to work publicly and privately for a transition to democracy in Egypt through an interim caretaker government and a commitment to free and fair elections soon.    

Egypt is in the crucible, and the coming days will determine if the country descends into further chaos, violence, and even state collapse, or if order can be restored on a clear path to a democratic government.  Republicans should do all they can to support the latter.