Petition [EN] Pétition [FR] Petición [ES] Petiţie [RO] Ψήφισμα [EL] Petice[CZ] Petition [DE] Petizione [IT] Petycja [PL] Petitie [NL] Petíció [HU] Petição [PT] Namninsamling [SV] Underskriftindsamling [DA] Petícia [SK] Achainí [GA] Peticija [LT] Петиция [RU] Eskaera [EU] Petskribo [EO] Petició [CA] Athchuinge [GD]
The analogy carries on to that so-called "democracy promotion" in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Iran. So-called because upon close inspection, it is purposeful window dressing in the first two cases, ignorant rhetoric for the service of conflict buildup in the last -- e.g. even less than words without deeds, words covering other deeds. Now the Western leaders' problem with a true promotion of democracy is that it is quite likely to produce an empowering of various Islamists, including ones associated with terrorism (as seen in different contexts in Iran, Algeria, Lebanon, yes Iran again, Palestinian Autonomy, Pakistan's tribal areas, Iraq).
Multi-Million Dollar Question: What is the best and practical and realistic way to defeat the beast?
Methinks that beast is a rather minor beast blown out of proportion, much smaller and wreaking much less havoc than the beasts of small-arms smuggling, African militias, deforestation business, unchecked global corporations meddling in the previous, water pollution, oil depletion, global warming, and yes Western military and economic policies outside the West. It should have been waaay down the priority list.
It is also not a monolythic beast as Westerners are made to think about it, meaning that whatever policies we'd think about, there is no one-fits-all. The latter philosophy will sooner or later make the policy some form of elimination, leaving no room for policies like prompting of change of tactics by engagement, delegitimisation by addressing problems serving as their causes.
There is also the issue ignored by many starry-eyed European liberals just like US neocons, the issue of practicality. People are rather ignorant about how "peacekeeping" looks on the ground, and to what extent they have been failures lately. One could just recall how Bundeswehr soldiers just stood by on force protection during the major anti-Serbian riots in Kosovo a few years back. Or just the other day, regarding the Afghanistan mission, we read about British 'peacekeepers' screwing up counter-insurgencyby repeating every error of the Americans, and illustrating that, an account of constant heavy battles faced by British troops who just aren't in control. *Traitor*, n. A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.
As an illustration:
According to the preliminary results of a recent public opinion survey of 1,700 Egyptians by the Cairo-based Ibn Khaldun Center, Hezbollah's action garnered 75 percent approval, and Nasrallah led a list of 30 regional public figures ranked by perceived importance. He appears on 82 percent of responses, followed by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (73 percent), Khaled Meshal of Hamas (60 percent), Osama bin Laden (52 percent) and Mohammed Mahdi Akef of Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood (45 percent). The pattern here is clear, and it is Islamic. And among the few secular public figures who made it into the top 10 are Palestinian Marwan Barghouti (31 percent) and Egypt's Ayman Nour (29 percent), both of whom are prisoners of conscience in Israeli and Egyptian jails, respectively.
The pattern here is clear, and it is Islamic. And among the few secular public figures who made it into the top 10 are Palestinian Marwan Barghouti (31 percent) and Egypt's Ayman Nour (29 percent), both of whom are prisoners of conscience in Israeli and Egyptian jails, respectively.
The article I quote this from is worth to read in full, but I will quote the conclusion (which follows the above quote):
None of the current heads of Arab states made the list of the 10 most popular public figures. While subject to future fluctuations, these Egyptian findings suggest the direction in which the region is moving. The Arab people do not respect the ruling regimes, perceiving them to be autocratic, corrupt and inept. They are, at best, ambivalent about the fanatical Islamists of the bin Laden variety. More mainstream Islamists with broad support, developed civic dispositions and services to provide are the most likely actors in building a new Middle East. In fact, they are already doing so through the Justice and Development Party in Turkey, the similarly named PJD in Morocco, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Hamas in Palestine and, yes, Hezbollah in Lebanon. These groups, parties and movements are not inimical to democracy. They have accepted electoral systems and practiced electoral politics, probably too well for Washington's taste. Whether we like it or not, these are the facts. The rest of the Western world must come to grips with the new reality, even if the U.S. president and his secretary of state continue to reject the new offspring of their own policies.
These groups, parties and movements are not inimical to democracy. They have accepted electoral systems and practiced electoral politics, probably too well for Washington's taste. Whether we like it or not, these are the facts. The rest of the Western world must come to grips with the new reality, even if the U.S. president and his secretary of state continue to reject the new offspring of their own policies.
Earlier you wrote:
The biggests recent failure of European Middle-East policy was getting dragged into an embargo of the Palestinian Authority's democratically elected government.
Do we have support democratic governments (like Hamas) that are hostile to our allies (here: Israel) or that want to end democracy like FIS in Algeria?
If we supported the Algerian coup, what right did we have to feel shock and horror at the brutal civil war that ensued?
And what right do we have now to feel shock and horror at Israel arresting PA parlamentarians and cabinet members, and reports that the Gaza economy has completely collapsed and people are fishing for scraps of food in garbage dumps?
You can't have your cake and eat it, too. Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides
Talking to Hamas: Fine. Sending them money: Not unless they recognize Israel etc
Are you saying that sending money to the Hamas government and/or stop sending money to Israel would reduce the risk of terrorism to us?
I doubt that would help us.
It would reduce the pitiable state of the Palestinian people.
Europe has sent billions to the Palestinians in the last couple of years and it did not change!
Hamas may be less corrupt right now, but I am not sure they would spend that money on development.
You forget that in the meantime, Israel destroyed property worth billions (including civilian and police buildings financed by that EU money), and keeps the occupied areas under an almost total blockade that also ruins the economy.
There are controls on that money. *Traitor*, n. A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.
It would reduce the pitiable state of the Palestinian people. Europe has sent billions to the Palestinians in the last couple of years and it did not change!
In addition, as long as Gaza was under occupation there was no chance of the economy improving.
How long of a respite did Gaza get between Sharon's disengagement and Hamas' election victory? Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides
Lebanon has been more successful developing their economy in the 90s than Palestine was in the 90s.
What drives me nuts is this constant focus on the US and Israel. Why do you focus on them?
I never said that the US or Israel are not creating problems. But they are not the only ones to blame for the misery in the Arab world. I am sure you agree. However, in most of your comments, Migeru and Colman and others, you bring up US and Israeli wrong doings. If I may be frank: That is boring.
Can we also talk about Europe's faults and what Europe could do better?
On Gaza, the EU has been extremely engaged, and provided lots of financial and diplomatic support. Remember the Madrid summit and the Oslo agreements? It so happens that, on Gaza, Israel plays a major role. It also happens that the US does too. I don't focus on them, but they're part of the picture, and not exactly in the background either. I have brought up what I think the EU has and has not done, as has DoDo.
I have also given some of my opinion of what Europe does and should do, and its failures. You chose to react to an afterthought mention of UNIFIL, and to the issue of the Mohammed Cartoons. How about
Europe is trying to engage everyone in the Middle East instead of lecturing countries and peoples about values and democracy, endorsing war and occupation, or getting involved in an escalation of diplomatic snubs. The biggests recent failure of European Middle-East policy was getting dragged into an embargo of the Palestinian Authority's democratically elected government. ... There is also the Alliance of Civilisations sponsored by Annan, Erdogan and Zapatero. How's the Euromediterranean Partnership doing? I don't really know, I should read everything under that link. The fact is, the US' middle-east policy is a big part of the problem. What is the Eu doing about it? Rolling over, containment, maybe stalling with the Iranians so Bush doesn't have a clear opening for another war.
...
There is also the Alliance of Civilisations sponsored by Annan, Erdogan and Zapatero.
How's the Euromediterranean Partnership doing? I don't really know, I should read everything under that link.
The fact is, the US' middle-east policy is a big part of the problem. What is the Eu doing about it? Rolling over, containment, maybe stalling with the Iranians so Bush doesn't have a clear opening for another war.
Seriously, Spain was the only EU country to send its foreign minister to Syria during the Lebanon crisis. Things are being done on the diplomatic level. It takes time. I am getting bored with you coming in and screaming "WHAT SHOULD EUROPE DO?" "WHAT IS EUROPE DOING?"
Then again, "Europe" is not monolithhic. One of the problems is that it is actually hard to formulate 1) what is Europe's interest; 2) what is Europe actually doing as a unit [never mind which of the various definitions of "Europe" to use]. Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides
Sure, but Israel destroying the infrastructure is hardly the only thing that prevents the Palestinians from developing their economy.
What drives me nuts is this constant focus on the US and Israel.
Total economic blockade, barring off farmland behind the Wall, disruption with checkpoints inside the West Bank also have something to do with it, don't you think?
Why do you focus on them?
Because they are there, and because you started your diary with Fischer bringing up the matter.
I did talk about both. I think your criticism is partly justified when considering the sub-thread on the Danish cartoons controversy, but if you are interested in Europe's faults and what Europe could do better, you could have responded to my lines on integration or past terrorism in Europe or UNIFIL. *Traitor*, n. A benighted individual who perceives an illusory distinction between serving his nation and abetting the criminals who govern it.
One last thought. I don't know how to "defeat the beast". It's not even clear what "the beast" is exactly, different analyses of the problem seems to be confronting a different "beast". It might not even be a "beast", it might be a "hive". And it might be a social movement.
So, when you don't know how to "defeat the beast", you should concentrate on containing it. Some people think they know enough about "the beast" to move on to the kill. I don't. Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides
or that want to end democracy like FIS in Algeria?
There's another one that we told ourselves was "a necessary evil for the sake of stability". He said he'd call elections within 2 years, and sanctions were slapped on him. Then 9/11 came about and all he became a useful dictator. Those whom the Gods wish to destroy They first make mad. — Euripides
What happened in Algeria as far as I understand it: The generals started a bit of democratization. The people voted for FIS in the first round of elections. The generals then ended the democratization project.
Now, after a more than a decade of war and hundreds of thousands of deaths, Algeria had elections, that were considered not so bad. Not perfect democracy, but more free and a fair than in many other Arab countries.
