My Favorite Part of Obama’s (Great) Speech in Cairo

I know there has been controversy about the promotion of democracy in recent years, and much of this controversy is connected to the war in Iraq. So let me be clear: no system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other.

That does not lessen my commitment, however, to governments that reflect the will of the people. Each nation gives life to this principle in its own way, grounded in the traditions of its own people. America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election. But I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn't steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. Those are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere. --Barack Obama

The above quote outlines the perfect middle way forward when it comes to democracy promotion. It basically takes coercive democracy promotion techniques off the table, particularly military options. But it does not abandon the cause of human rights. It sets the United States up to lead by example, rather than through force. Just as Obama says, a few sentences later, that individual state governments must “maintain…power through consent, not coercion,” Obama understands well that America must follow that same principle when it relates to other countries in the world. Cooperation to solve international problems is his modus operendi; arm-twisting is anathema. This is a 180-degree turn away from the ways of Bush. And it is also a message to those in the human rights community who hope to harness the power of the American military to bring about the regime change of despotic leaders that he is not on board with that project.

UPDATE: David Brooks takes issue with my favorite part of the speech. He doesn't like that Obama's idealism seems like a facade, whereas his realism seems to be what actually drives his foreign policy decisions. (I happen to like this arrangement, because I think it works best for achieving even highly idealistic goals like democracy promotion). Specifically, Brooks takes issue with how Obama seems to be giving Egypt a free pass on its lack of democracy. Two points on that: first, I don't remember ANY President in recent memory giving Egypt (or Saudi Arabia) a hard time about democracy. Not even the most idealistic of all our recent Presidents--George W. Bush--did so in a major speech. Iran and Syria consistently get bashed with the "you-are-authoritarian" stick, but never our friends Egypt and Saudi Arabia. There are good reasons for this, which Brooks is foolish to ignore. Furthermore, visits to Egypt usually feature U.S. Presidents heaping PRAISE upon Hosni Mubarak. Obama did not even mention his name once. This will be interpreted by Egyptian elites as a snub of Mubarak, and a far cry from a free pass. Brooks also seems to have missed the last 10 minutes of Obama's speech in which he talked extensively about women's rights, a highly idealism-driven issue that countries like Egypt would very much prefer Obama would ignore.