If you want to be notified the next time I write something, sign up for FREE email alerts or subscribe to the RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

[Quote:]

The United States Is “Agressive, Morally Decadent and Racist”

United States policy in the Middle East is leading to a blooming of democracy. Right? While democracy does seem to be taking its first baby steps in the region, a new survey indicates that most in the Middle East are extremely distrustful of the US — but the basis of that thinking isn’t what you think it is.

The shift in European media coverage of the Middle East has been lightening quick. Within the space of nine short weeks from early January to the beginning of March, the image of a region rapidly sliding into a morass of chaos and violence has whiplashed to a storybook tale of an Arab world witnessing the birth of democracy. The Palestinians went to the polls in early January, the Iraqis in late January, the protests in Lebanon — optimistically dubbed the Cedar Revolution by the US State Department — appear to be leveraging the Syrian occupiers out of the country and even Saudi Arabia held regional elections recently. United States President George W. Bush claimed on Tuesday that “the thaw has begun” in the Middle East.

In other words, the subtext of the last few weeks seems to be, “maybe the Americans were right.” Maybe, despite the well-documented difficulties the US had in justifying its invasion of Iraq, democracy can indeed be exported at the tip of a sword. Indeed, we’re getting very early hints that the Cold War of cultures between the West and Islam could meet the fate of the first Cold War — with a victory for Western values, culture and democracy.

[Quote:]

French Favored

A wiser course for Bush on Lebanon might have been to stay in the background and let the French take the lead in helping Lebanon hold free elections this spring. A new study of Middle Eastern public opinion by the Center for Strategic Studies at the University of Jordan found that France has a much better image than the United States and Great Britain, which jointly led the invasion of Iraq.

The survey of opinions in Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, Syria and Palestine found widespread hostility toward the United States and Great Britain, which were viewed as “racist,” “morally decadent” and “imperialistic.” These opinions were not held about France, which opposed the Iraq invasion.

Rather than viewing the Bush administration as supporting democracy, large majorities of those questioned disagreed, condemning the United States as a major human rights violator. More than 85 percent in Jordan, Egypt, Syria and Palestine called Bush’s war in Iraq an act of terrorism. In Lebanon, that view was held by 64 percent. [For more on the survey, see Der Spiegel’s online edition, March 9, 2005.]

So it shouldn’t have come as much of a surprise that Bush’s attempt to bask in the glory of the Lebanese protests would have provoked a negative reaction in the Middle East. When Bush boasted that “clearly and suddenly, the thaw has begun,” many Arabs immediately grew suspicious that the anti-Syrian demonstrations were just the latest example of U.S. manipulation of politics in a Middle Eastern country.

[Quote:]

It is not democracy that’s on the march in the Middle East

The claim that democracy is on the march in the Middle East is a fraud. It is not democracy, but the US military, that is on the march. The Palestinian elections in January took place because of the death of Yasser Arafat - they would have taken place earlier if the US and Israel hadn’t known that Arafat was certain to win them - and followed a 1996 precedent. The Iraqi elections may have looked good on TV and allowed Kurdish and Shia parties to improve their bargaining power, but millions of Iraqis were unable or unwilling to vote, key political forces were excluded, candidates’ names were secret, alleged fraud widespread, the entire system designed to maintain US control and Iraqis unable to vote to end the occupation. They have no more brought democracy to Iraq than US-orchestrated elections did to south Vietnam in the 1960s and 70s. As for the cosmetic adjustments by regimes such as Egypt’s and Saudi Arabia’s, there is not the slightest sign that they will lead to free elections, which would be expected to bring anti-western governments to power.

What has actually taken place since 9/11 and the Iraq war is a relentless expansion of US control of the Middle East, of which the threats to Syria are a part. The Americans now have a military presence in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, the UAE, Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman and Qatar - and in not one of those countries did an elected government invite them in. Of course Arabs want an end to tyrannical regimes, most of which have been supported over the years by the US, Britain and France: that is the source of much anti-western Muslim anger. The dictators remain in place by US licence, which can be revoked at any time - and managed elections are being used as another mechanism for maintaining pro-western regimes rather than spreading democracy.

Jack Straw is right about one thing: there’s no happy future in the regional status quo. His government could play a crucial role in helping to promote a real programme for liberty and democracy in the Middle East: it would need to include a commitment to allow independent media such as al-Jazeera to flourish; an end to military and financial support for despots; and a withdrawal of all foreign forces from the region. Now that would herald a real dawn of freedom.