Dear members,
Assalamu Alaikum. Please read this analytical article by Soumaya
GhannousiSoumaya Ghannoushi, Guardian - London, UK
Monday, February 26, 2007
Friendly dictators have nothing to fear. The Bush administration is back
to its old ways in the Middle East.
So much for all the noise about democracy, reform, and good governance.
The Bush administration has quietly tucked the file of political reform in the
Arab world away. Friendly dictators have nothing to fear. The administration is
back to its old ways. What matters in the region is not political change but
stability (a euphemism for the preservation of political and military
interests), and the flow of oil at the lowest possible prices.
The Bush administration had assumed that its invasion of Iraq would tip
the existing balance of powers in the region upside down. Neighbouring Arab
regimes would have to comply with American/Israeli dictates, or be ousted and
replaced by new more domesticated, more docile "elites", responsive to
Washington's demands and compatible with its vision for the region. Hand in
hand with the heated battles fought by armies on the ground was a cold war
waged with the slogans of democracy and reform, and promises of freedom and
progress.
The truth is that the Americans were never committed to democracy in the
region. To them, it was a convenient instrument for the construction of a new
Middle East tailored to fit their strategies. That Anatoly Sharansky, the
former Israeli illegal settlements minister who stands to the right of the far
right Ariel Sharon, was the inspiration for Bush's democratisation project is a
symptom of the deadly flaw at its core. The American president, though not
exactly known for being a voracious reader, is widely reported to have
recommended Sharansky's book to just about everyone he met. He quoted it almost
verbatim in the inaugural speech of his second term. The book, he declared, was
part of DNA. "If you want a glimpse of how I think about foreign policy," he
told a Washington Post journalist, "read Natan Sharansky's book, The Case for
Democracy. It's a great book."
Three factors underlie the administration's decision to abandon its much
vaunted democratisation project and return to the game of maintaining the
status quo, of aiding and abetting "good" dictatorships - a policy to which the
US had been firmly committed since the cold war:
1) The occupation of Iraq and toppling of its president did not unleash
the era of affluence and prosperity prophesied by Bush and his neocons. Iraq
did not exactly turn into the envy of the Arab world. If anything, Iraqis and
Arabs found themselves in the unlikely position of lamenting the passing of
Saddam's years, brutal as they were.
2) Ballot boxes became a fearful prospect where the administration's
proteges often found themselves at the bottom of the race, if not outside it
altogether. Instead, it was the "hardliners", the nationalists and Islamists,
who are more responsive to the interests, demands and aspirations of their
people than to those of the White House, who got the lion's share of the votes.
This was the case in Egypt, where in 2005, the Muslim Brotherhood, the
oldest and largest Islamic movement in the Arab world, succeeded in winning
approximately one-third of the votes, in spite of the wide violations that
mired the process and even though the organisation had confined itself to
contesting 144 out of the 454 parliamentary seats to avoid aggravating the
government. The same scenario was replicated months later in the Palestinian
legislative elections which, much to Washington's horror, ended up bringing
Hamas to power. The Bush administration could take no more. Democracy, it
transpired, was not for the likes of those who voted in the Egyptian and
Palestinian elections.
"Either you elect the elites and rulers we need, or no democracy, reform,
or change for you!"
3) A shift in priorities occurred in Washington. Confronting the Iranian
"threat" shot up to the top, while reform sank downwards. Instead of tyrannies
and democracies, the region became divided into "moderates" lined up against
the "Shia crescent", and "extremists" favourably disposed to it. Along with
Jordan, Saudi Arabia, which had until recently been dismissed as a Wahhabi
terrorism incubator, found itself rehabilitated and promoted to the ranks of
friendly moderates.
In her recent visit to the country, the American secretary of state
demanded that the Egyptian government release Ayman Nour, the pro-US leader of
the al-Ghad party. Listening to her, one would have thought that Mr Nour was
the only political prisoner languishing inside Egypt's packed jails. In fact,
days before the Ms Rice's visit, the authorities embarked on a renewed wave of
mass arrests, targeting prominent members of the Muslim Brotherhood, the
non-violent Islamist group that is the country's strongest opposition force.
It is worth noting that although the Muslim Brotherhood is the largest
party affected by the ban, scores of other political forces suffer the same
fate: 12 such parties have recently had their licensing requests refused by the
Egyptian authorities. In addition, the long-awaited municipal elections were
postponed for fear of a repeat of the legislative elections' outcome, while the
state of emergency in force for 26 years was renewed. Yet, with all the
repression, corruption and tyranny, Mubarak's regime was hailed a shining model
of moderation.
Two years ago, Ms Rice confessed, without being subjected to sensory
deprivation or cross-examination, that the US has been the chief impediment to
change in the region.
"By now, it should be clear that decades of excusing and accommodating
tyranny for the sake of stability, have only led to injustice and instability
and tragedy," she said. "For too many years - 60 to be precise - American
presidents were on both sides of the aisle. By the way, Democrats and
Republicans were prepared to have a policy of exceptionalism in the Middle East
concerning democracy.
"We were prepared to say, well authoritarian regimes are there either
because the Middle East, well they don't really want freedom, or we want
stability or any number of reasons that we have. We have not to push the
democracy agenda in the Middle East."
Now that the administration has decided to revert to its old ways in the
Middle East, Ms Rice should take the stage once more and say, "We have
supported tyranny in the past and we continue to support it today. Forget all
the nonsense about democracy, reform, or change. You see, when push comes to
shove, our interests must prevail."
Related Topics:
.
Shah Abdul Hannan
Farewell to democracy
Soumaya Ghannoushi, Guardian - London, UK
Monday, February 26, 2007
Friendly dictators have nothing to fear. The Bush administration is back
to its old ways in the Middle East.
So much for all the noise about democracy, reform, and good governance.
The Bush administration has quietly tucked the file of political reform in the
Arab world away. Friendly dictators have nothing to fear. The administration is
back to its old ways. What matters in the region is not political change but
stability (a euphemism for the preservation of political and military
interests), and the flow of oil at the lowest possible prices.
The Bush administration had assumed that its invasion of Iraq would tip
the existing balance of powers in the region upside down. Neighbouring Arab
regimes would have to comply with American/Israeli dictates, or be ousted and
replaced by new more domesticated, more docile "elites", responsive to
Washington's demands and compatible with its vision for the region. Hand in
hand with the heated battles fought by armies on the ground was a cold war
waged with the slogans of democracy and reform, and promises of freedom and
progress.
The truth is that the Americans were never committed to democracy in the
region. To them, it was a convenient instrument for the construction of a new
Middle East tailored to fit their strategies. That Anatoly Sharansky, the
former Israeli illegal settlements minister who stands to the right of the far
right Ariel Sharon, was the inspiration for Bush's democratisation project is a
symptom of the deadly flaw at its core. The American president, though not
exactly known for being a voracious reader, is widely reported to have
recommended Sharansky's book to just about everyone he met. He quoted it almost
verbatim in the inaugural speech of his second term. The book, he declared, was
part of DNA. "If you want a glimpse of how I think about foreign policy," he
told a Washington Post journalist, "read Natan Sharansky's book, The Case for
Democracy. It's a great book."
Three factors underlie the administration's decision to abandon its much
vaunted democratisation project and return to the game of maintaining the
status quo, of aiding and abetting "good" dictatorships - a policy to which the
US had been firmly committed since the cold war:
1) The occupation of Iraq and toppling of its president did not unleash
the era of affluence and prosperity prophesied by Bush and his neocons. Iraq
did not exactly turn into the envy of the Arab world. If anything, Iraqis and
Arabs found themselves in the unlikely position of lamenting the passing of
Saddam's years, brutal as they were.
2) Ballot boxes became a fearful prospect where the administration's
proteges often found themselves at the bottom of the race, if not outside it
altogether. Instead, it was the "hardliners", the nationalists and Islamists,
who are more responsive to the interests, demands and aspirations of their
people than to those of the White House, who got the lion's share of the votes.
This was the case in Egypt, where in 2005, the Muslim Brotherhood, the
oldest and largest Islamic movement in the Arab world, succeeded in winning
approximately one-third of the votes, in spite of the wide violations that
mired the process and even though the organisation had confined itself to
contesting 144 out of the 454 parliamentary seats to avoid aggravating the
government. The same scenario was replicated months later in the Palestinian
legislative elections which, much to Washington's horror, ended up bringing
Hamas to power. The Bush administration could take no more. Democracy, it
transpired, was not for the likes of those who voted in the Egyptian and
Palestinian elections.
"Either you elect the elites and rulers we need, or no democracy, reform,
or change for you!"
3) A shift in priorities occurred in Washington. Confronting the Iranian
"threat" shot up to the top, while reform sank downwards. Instead of tyrannies
and democracies, the region became divided into "moderates" lined up against
the "Shia crescent", and "extremists" favourably disposed to it. Along with
Jordan, Saudi Arabia, which had until recently been dismissed as a Wahhabi
terrorism incubator, found itself rehabilitated and promoted to the ranks of
friendly moderates.
In her recent visit to the country, the American secretary of state
demanded that the Egyptian government release Ayman Nour, the pro-US leader of
the al-Ghad party. Listening to her, one would have thought that Mr Nour was
the only political prisoner languishing inside Egypt's packed jails. In fact,
days before the Ms Rice's visit, the authorities embarked on a renewed wave of
mass arrests, targeting prominent members of the Muslim Brotherhood, the
non-violent Islamist group that is the country's strongest opposition force.
It is worth noting that although the Muslim Brotherhood is the largest
party affected by the ban, scores of other political forces suffer the same
fate: 12 such parties have recently had their licensing requests refused by the
Egyptian authorities. In addition, the long-awaited municipal elections were
postponed for fear of a repeat of the legislative elections' outcome, while the
state of emergency in force for 26 years was renewed. Yet, with all the
repression, corruption and tyranny, Mubarak's regime was hailed a shining model
of moderation.
Two years ago, Ms Rice confessed, without being subjected to sensory
deprivation or cross-examination, that the US has been the chief impediment to
change in the region.
"By now, it should be clear that decades of excusing and accommodating
tyranny for the sake of stability, have only led to injustice and instability
and tragedy," she said. "For too many years - 60 to be precise - American
presidents were on both sides of the aisle. By the way, Democrats and
Republicans were prepared to have a policy of exceptionalism in the Middle East
concerning democracy.
"We were prepared to say, well authoritarian regimes are there either
because the Middle East, well they don't really want freedom, or we want
stability or any number of reasons that we have. We have not to push the
democracy agenda in the Middle East."
Now that the administration has decided to revert to its old ways in the
Middle East, Ms Rice should take the stage once more and say, "We have
supported tyranny in the past and we continue to support it today. Forget all
the nonsense about democracy, reform, or change. You see, when push comes to
shove, our interests must prevail."
Related Topics:
soumaya_ghannoushi_140x140.gif&Width=250
Description: Binary data
