Posted on 06/29/2005 6:10:04 PM PDT by SJackson
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s highly publicized tour of the Middle East, Asia and Europe carried with it little or no surprises. The Middle East leg of her journey, which lasted from June 17-20, was saturated with the same kind of duplicitous rhetoric that defined her legacy during President George W. Bush’s first term in office. She verbally reprimanded and threatened Syria and Iran for not fully and unconditionally embracing democratic reforms, while expressing “encouragement” regarding the Palestinian, Iraqi and Lebanese endeavor for democracy, following the supposed democratic elections in these countries.
However, those who are even slightly familiar with the logic of US foreign policy in the Middle East need not bother to decode Rice’s rhetoric.
While, on the other hand, the sins of America’s foes are augmented, embellished and often right-out fabricated to necessitate diplomatic pressure, economic sanctions and, as a “last resort”, war. Iraq was an example of the latter, while Iran’s current political attitude toward US interests in the region is qualifying it for the important role of being the Middle East’s most formidable bogeyman that must be taken down.
This logic, simply put, is absurd. Who can possibly contest that Iran, despite all of its blunders, has taken more steps toward democracy than Egypt has? Yet while Iran received disproportionately higher criticism than any other country during Rice’s trip, Bush’s closest trustee strangely declared that Egypt’s “President Mubarak has unlocked the door for change.”
It appears Washington’s new style manual is based on its comprehension of two inevitable scenarios. First, there is the Arab Human Rights Development Report of 2004, which warns that “power will be transformed through armed violence” if Arab states don’t adopt serious political reforms and significantly raise the margin of freedom in their societies.
But the second scenario is equally harmful to the US Middle East policy, for a genuine democracy will most likely bring to power the repressed anti-US forces dotting the Arab world. After all, the Egyptian opposition that are very much pro-democracy and reforms as well as strong advocates of civil society, refused to meet with Secretary Rice during her stopover in Egypt.
“We are against the US policies in the region and we cannot have any negotiations with them, and all the opposition parties in the country agree on what I’m saying,” Georges Isaac, a co-founder of the Egyptian Movement for Change, known as Kefaya (Enough), told Arab News. “If we want political reform to be implemented in the country we want to do it ourselves; not to be imposed or to be even discussed with Rice.”
Washington’s undeclared new dogma professes a new Middle East policy that works both toward avoiding complete political meltdowns, chaos and violence throughout the Arab world — evidently very harmful considering the United States’ disastrous debacle in Iraq — while trying to maintain the presence of the friendly faces of the friendly regimes. In short, a managed democracy.
Managed democracy was in fact the subject of awesome experiments immediately following the end of World War II, initiated in Europe, extending to Central America and was later utilized in Eastern Europe following the collapse of the Soviet Union. But in the Middle East, there is the formidable problems of cosmetically reforming a plethora of countries all at once as well as the zero credibility that Washington enjoys anywhere in the Arab or Muslim world. Washington seems to be thinking that the Arab peoples are willing to forge alliances with whomever to get rid of these oppressive and degenerate regimes. But the oppressiveness of the regimes can hardly be separated from Washington’s own regional designs that compelled a decades-long sinful matrimony between oppressive rulers and equally domineering American foreign policy.
Thus American withdrawals from Iraq and an end to the unbalanced policy toward the Palestinian-Israeli conflict are often amalgamated with the Arab peoples’ most pertinent demands for political rights, human rights and civil liberties.
Rice’s Middle East trip was tantamount to an official declaration of Washington’s prospective Middle East approach. This approach, as I see it, is a blend between the US’ traditional policies of designations — friendly allies vs. evil enemies — and carefully premeditated “democratic” reforms that uphold the status quo without tipping the political balance in favor of those critical of Washington’s regional role and foreign policy. And in the Middle East, they are many.
Efforts for democratic reforms are wasted on muslims. More importantly, incredible amounts of American resources have been and will continue to be wasted on terrorists. Its sad.
Just curious, how long, if ever, do fellow Freepers and other experts out there think it will take for the Islam/Muslim/Arab world to join the rest of the civilized world and become reasonable, rational, non-emotionally hysterical and hopefully clear thinking adult human beings?
Is this possible? How could this be accomplished by hook or crook or stealth or psychologically astute methods? Can we hope that our government has a plan in place or action?
Whadda ya think?
The "glorious" parts of Muslim history have been under the rulership of a benevolent dictator.
Elected representatives are as foreign as are "Americans".
Islamic scholars did translate and study Greek democracy, however.
Tough call to predict.
Don't tell me...your solution is to "nuke 'em all'til they glow?"
As "reasonable, rational, non-emotionally hysterical and hopefully clear thinking adult human beings" as typical Americans? I'd guess about 3 generations, on average.
Considering the Middle East suffered some serious set backs due to League of Nations involvement, and later United Nations' incompetence - along with some rather shoddy policy making by much of the Western World, it is no surprise that Islam hasn't advanced into the modern area very well.
For those of you who believe that Arabs or Islam is the problem, go wear a sheet and burn a few crosses. The rehabilitation of the Middle East is going to be tough, and it is going to be long. Christian Africa has many of the same problems. Christian South America has many of the same problems. I'll admit that Extremist Islam is a tougher nut to crack, but it is run by the same kind of thugs who run secular dictatorships, and corrupt governments into the ground. It is a question of power, and extremist Islam is one way many of these men hold their power.
Destroy those men, and encourage democratic reform and hope to God that progress toward a culture of Freedom and Liberty will be born. Writing off the Middle East is not a solution. It is defeatism, no different than that spouted by Kennedy, Pelosi, Kerry, etc. The only difference is that anyone who writes off the Middle East actually believes it is hopeless, whereas, the Democratic leadership that denigrates our efforts there only do so because they think political victory lies in that strategy.
So take your defeatist, bigoted views and keep them to yourself. Islam is not beyond redemption, and Arabs are people just like any other. Christ didn't give up on us, can we do any less for the generations of Arabs who will come after this?
Muslim history--loaded with ruthless barbarism.
Western Christian histoty--loaded with dictatorships and ethnic cleansing.
Mix together
???????
Is it a good policy? If one looks at Lebanon, Egypt & Iran, we see stirrings of a grass roots rebellion against tyranny. However, in terms of Iraq, it is like watching a game, and not knowing the score. I just can't figure out what the future holds for that country. I am not trying to disrespect Mr. Bush. I am just giving an honest assessment
I couldn't agree more. It's not a policy driven by naivety, but of hope. While we fight the factions who want to kill us, we project upon the reasonable factions a vision of the way things could be - if they will just grab the brass ring. Will it work? Only time will tell. However, the alternative is a requiter of hatred, bloodshed, pessimism, and invalidation of ALL people in those nations. That's beneath the sensibilities of this great nation.
"....anyone who writes off the Middle East actually believes it is hopeless"
I do not believe it is hopeless. Many people such as myself simply believe it is not worth one drop of American blood.
This is not racist...the vast majority of the so called governments in the ME simply have not earned a seat at the table. Let them wallow a few hundred more years in thier own backstabbing misery. Sometimes a lesson learned in this fashion leaves a greater impact on ones cultural persona....than when something is forced apon another. Let the cavemen be.
Sooner or later, they'll come to their senses.
Or not.
Nah, i say we pit two (or more) sides against each other and get them to fight it out. When one side is winning we send arms to the other side until they are winning. Continue until they are way too busy killing each other to worry about us.
Considering we support wholehearedly and to a fault, the misogynistic totaliatarian monarchy of the Saudis, our rhetoric does ring a bit hollow.
Perhaps if the Great Emancipation Adventure had started with the those pukes instead of Bush holding their hands and giving them a pass because of the oil, we might have more credibility.
Likewise Jordan (whose legistlature was disbanded by the King), Egypt and Pakistan - of course the fly in the ointment is that just like Algeria in 1990, elections in these countries would result in the fundies winning.
Hence we have in Southern Iraq a defacto Sharia state.
Kurdistan is a success story, but then, they aren't Arabs and unlike the Pakistanis, have no wish to be Arabs.
If that's what we wanted, then it's working.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.