I remember well the silence of the Obama administration in 2009 when Iranians rose up in revolt against their rulers. Fouad Ajami in a Wall Street Journal article today also recalls that moment. He writes: (my bolding)
. . . Mr. Obama had come into office with a belief that he knew and understood the Islamic world. He was proud that Islam was a strand in his identity. He was sure that the policy of his predecessor had antagonized Islam. President George W. Bush's "diplomacy of freedom" was not given the grace of a decent burial. "Ideology is so yesterday," Secretary Clinton proudly proclaimed in early 2009. Realpolitik was to be the order of the day.
The Bush diplomacy had declared an open ideological assault against the Iranian theocracy. Mr. Obama would offer that regime an olive branch and a promise of engagement. Syria had been pushed out of Lebanon and viewed as a renegade regime that had done its best to frustrate the American war in Iraq. The Obama diplomacy would offer the rulers in Damascus diplomatic rehabilitation.
Thus the word went forth to the despots in the region that the American campaign on behalf of liberty that Mr. Bush had launched in 2003 had been called off. A new Iraqi democracy, midwifed by American power, was fighting for its life. The Obama administration would keep Iraq at arm's length.
This break of faith with democracy was put on cruel display in the summer of 2009, when the Iranians rose in revolt against their rulers. True, American diplomacy was not likely to alter the raw balance of power between the regime and its democratic oppositionists. But the timidity of American power, and the refusal of the Obama administration to embrace the cause of the opposition, must be reckoned one of American foreign policy's great moral embarrassments. . . [more . . .]
Me: Mr. Ajami goes on to talk about Syria, Lebananon, and Tunisia in this article. But I wanted to record Ajami's assessment of President Obama's inexplicable and shameful failure to support the 2009 uprising. Though it struck me forcefully at the time, it seemed that Obama's silence never received the attention it deserved. Now the distinguished Fouad Ajami offers his opinion, and explains how the ebb of Americn power continues to affect the Middle East.
(Ajami is a professor at the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. )
Update 1/20/11 - Regarding the visit of Chinese President Hu Jintao to Washington, Ellen Bork notes that awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to Liu Xiaobo
undermined the carefully cultivated image of a legitimate regime in full control of, and tacitly accepted by, its people. Chinese leaders fear international support for individuals who are brave and stubborn enough to work for a democratic alternative to the Communist party. . . .
On January 13, he [President Obama] did meet at the White House with a group of experts and activists on China. But people who would have offended Chinese leaders — people like Harry Wu, the former prisoner of China's laogai or forced labor camps; Rebiya Kadeer, the exiled Uighur leader; Ngawang Sandrol, a Tibetan nun jailed and tortured for her songs of praise for the Dalai Lama; Wang Juntao, a former Tiananmen protester; or Wan Yanhai, a famous AIDS activist and longtime associate of Liu Xiaobo — they were absent.
The president's determination to avoid using the weight and prestige of his office to support democratic opponents of authoritarian regimes in China, Iran, Belarus, and elsewhere is quickly becoming a hallmark of his administration. It's a dispiriting trend. And it suggests that the president simply does not grasp the meaning and potential of Liu Xiaobo and his fellow Chinese democrats. (my emphases)
Update #2 - Washington Post editorial - "President Obama makes Hu Jintao Look good on rights"