World Politics

[Nurvingiel]

Plus, if 200 years ago there was an Empress, would the law not still be in place that this is possible? Japanese law is probably much more complicated than that though...

[Insidious Rex]

Surprised no one has made any comments about the resignation of the Lebanese Government that happened today. Thats a pretty huge deal really. Really a first for an Arab country. Im guessing they took a lot of motivation from what they say in the Ukraine a few months earlier. Change can happen at the level of the common person. And even in an Arab country! Course that whole situation is a long way from shaking out though.

But its interesting if you think about it. We have the Lebanese political situation. We have the palastinian election and some movement on the peace process in the middle east. we have elections in Iraq of course (even if its not quite the result we wanted) and some small tinkering recenlty with the stacked political situation in Egypt. Is this the sign of dominoes slowly falling or just political pandering of the current world climate toward democracy?

[Snowdog]

I-R, It looks like the critics are realizing it...

President's Critics Reconsider Democracy's Prospects in the Middle East

By Jefferson Morley
washingtonpost.com Staff Writer
Tuesday, March 8, 2005; 6:00 AM

In countries where President George Bush and his policies are deeply unpopular, online commentators are starting to think the unthinkable.

"Could George W. Bush Be Right?" asked Claus Christian Malzahn in the German newsweekly Der Spiegel. Essayist Guy Sorman asked last month in the Paris daily Le Figaro (by subscription), "And If Bush Was Right?" In Canada, anti-war columnist Richard Gwyn of the Toronto Star answered: "It is time to set down in type the most difficult sentence in the English language. That sentence is short and simple. It is this: Bush was right."

The tipping point came last week when Lebanon's pro-Syrian government fell. The international online media, much of which had been critical of Bush during his first term, had to acknowledge democratic developments on the American president's watch. Many commentators also cited free elections in Afghanistan last fall, Palestinian elections in early January followed by the Jan. 30 Iraq elections. Then came local elections in Saudi Arabia and Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak's announcement of constitutional changes allowing his opposition to challenge him electorally.

Given Bush's insistence that the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq would lead to a democratic political order in the Middle East, many Europeans are "somewhat embarrassed" by these developments, Sorman wrote in Le Figaro.

"Hadn't they promised, governments and media alike, that the Arab street would rise up [against U.S. military forces], that Islam would burn, that the American army would get bogged down, that the terrorist attacks would multiply, and that democracy would not result nor be exported?"

"These dramas did not occur," Sorman says. "Either Bush is lucky, or it is too early to judge or [Bush's] analysis was not false."

Rüdiger Lentz, Washington correspondent for the German broadcast network Deutsche Welle, wrote, "There have been many good reasons to criticize the messianic political style of Bush's first term. But isn't it time now to stop finger-pointing and bickering?"

"After all, one has to acknowledge that Afghanistan and Iraq might have been catalysts for what we see now happening in Lebanon, in Egypt and even between the Palestinians and Israel."

In Germany, the economic daily Financial Times Deutschland accused Europeans of ignoring events in Lebanon. "It is bizarre that here in Germany, where the Berlin Wall once stood, this development (in Lebanon) is greeted with hardly a shrug," according to a translation by Der Spiegel Web site. The paper borrowed a phrase from New Yorker columnist Kurt Andersen saying that Europe is engaging in political "short selling -- hoping for bad news to back up the continent's 'ideological investment'" in opposing Bush.

"Short selling," the paper concluded, "is an honorable strategy on the stock exchange but in terms of democracy, it is looking more and more like a major mistake. Indeed, it isn't honorable at all."

Robert Fisk, veteran Middle East correspondent for London's Independent (by subscription) begged to differ on Monday. Writing from Beirut, Fisk predicted that Bush's call for Syria to withdraw from Lebanon would only hurt the Lebanese.

"Have we forgotten 150,000 dead?" he asked referring to the estimates of the number of people killed in the Lebanese civil war of 1975 to 1989. "Have we forgotten the Western hostages? Have we forgotten the 241 Americans who died in the suicide bombing of 23 October 1983? This democracy, if it comes, will be drenched with blood -- but the blood will be that of the Lebanese who live here, not that of the foreigners who wish to bestow freedom upon them."

Palestinian journalist Daoud Kuttab is not so pessimistic.

"The Lebanese intifada has provided a strong model for the Arab world," Kuttab writes in the West Bank-based Arabic Media Internet Network."It has sent shock waves throughout the Arab world," he says, noting that many Arabs had given up on the possibility of peaceful and patriotic democratic movements.

Whether Arab democrats will credit Bush is another issue, Kuttab says. The administration's pro-Israeli policies still give them pause. While the American president's campaign for democracy "echoes deep seated demands that have gone unnoticed in the entire region," Arab democrats also believe that Palestinians "deserve the same democratic independence from the Israeli occupation that they [are] seeking from their autocratic regimes."

The unhappy truth, says Kuttab, is that Arabs find themselves living under occupation in Iraq and Palestine and living under autocracy in 21 other countries.

"But despite this miserable state of affairs, a glimmer of hope has finally emerged giving lovers of peace democracy and human rights something to celebrate," he writes.

Rami G. Khouri, editor and columnist for the Daily Star in Beirut says Arab democrats and Bush policymakers both deserve credit.

In Egypt, Lebanon and Palestine, he writes, established power structures are "being compelled to change by the force of will of their own people -- people in the streets who risk imprisonment, retributive punishment, or even death by challenging and resisting their prevailing power elite."

At the same time, Khouri goes on, "the presence of the U.S. and other foreign forces in Iraq also certainly has played a role in focusing the minds of various Arab leaders on their need to change and modernize quickly."

"The urgent, significant, unprecedented political reality" is that ordinary Arabs and the U.S. government "share mutually advantageous common goals," he writes. Those goals include replacing dictatorships, forging a just Israeli-Palestinian peace and establishing diplomacy and the rule of law in the region.

"This has never happened in recent memory, which is why it is important now to focus on what needs to be done by all concerned parties, rather than argue about who started the ball rolling. We both did."

[Snowdog]

test ... for some reason this didn't update on the thread list when I posted.

[IronParrot]

The valid criticisms of George W. Bush's campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq were always criticisms of his means (and I'll agree, the opacity and dishonesty of the U.S. administration with affairs like the WMDs were deplorable). All the dung his opponents were flinging at his ends, however, were largely a combination of highly negative speculation and logically fallacious remarks about how all he's after is oil. Clearly, there has been a mission to foster a democratic environment in the region, and clearly, it has made progress.

Yes, democracy is blooming there, albeit with a start that is as rickety as can be expected. Yes, we should thank America for it. In the long run, this will be good for the Middle East. However, Bush's opponents still have a critical debate at their disposal that could affect the outcome of future foreign policy, and that's the debate about whether or not the ends necessarily justify the means. Is there another way, a better way, to democratize the Middle East aside from the pressure of a purportedly "imperial" America? I don't know, but they might.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

although, democracy does bode well for any US oil prospects in the near future...

my criticisms have always been about the means, which raises the question. does the end justify the means? i say no, absolutely not, as Italy buries one of their diplomats, killed by american troops after securing the release of an italian hostage held by iraqi rebels.

[Snowdog]

as Italy buries one of their diplomats, killed by american troops (in the process of running a checkpoint in an area that is plagued by carbombs) after securing the release of an italian hostage held by iraqi rebels.

See added info in quote.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by Snowdog

See added info in quote.

thanks SD, that wasn't in The Guardian report, even though The Guardian, i feel, is the most reliable newspaper

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by IronParrot

The valid criticisms of George W. Bush's campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq were always criticisms of his means (and I'll agree, the opacity and dishonesty of the U.S. administration with affairs like the WMDs were deplorable).

I haven';t had time to read all this - but I have to comment on this statement - THIS AGAIN? He went off the same intelligence the whole world had. Everyone thought that Husseuin had WMD and as the evidence showed in the recent report - Hussein's goal was to develop a turn key system he was working on, have everything in place and just wait until the the sanctions were lifted. If you are going to make statements that Bush lied - please get the facts right. He didn't lie - he went off of the known intelligence that even Clinton came out and said he had seen the same evidence during his adminstration.

[jerseydevil]

Originally Posted by IronParrot

Yes, democracy is blooming there, albeit with a start that is as rickety as can be expected. Yes, we should thank America for it. In the long run, this will be good for the Middle East. However, Bush's opponents still have a critical debate at their disposal that could affect the outcome of future foreign policy, and that's the debate about whether or not the ends necessarily justify the means. Is there another way, a better way, to democratize the Middle East aside from the pressure of a purportedly "imperial" America? I don't know, but they might.

Yeah and for decades diplomacy was tried and look where it got us. Give it a rest - how much hot air can you take from the UN and the EU before enough is enough?

[IronParrot]

Jersey, I am and always have been in favour of peace through first-world firepower. Hell, I've lived in former British territories all my life and seen the benefits of colonialism firsthand.

My point is that the ends are not at stake here. Clearly, America has laid the groundwork for what I think will be remembered as successful. I'm saying that America's opponents shouldn't bother arguing the ends and stay with the means where they belong. And by means, I'm not talking about unilateralism-versus-multilateralism. I'm talking about what's best to maintain a positive perception of the democratic project, and that involves minimizing the potential for media backlash over things like civilian casualties and prisoner abuse. As far as the role of the UN goes, that's a factor you can't ignore when dealing with this image. That's for America's benefit if it wants to continue democratizing unstable regions and toppling dictators without drawing criticism over every single failing.

A backlash against America is not good for America spreading democracy. Hence, you want to minimize it.

As for the WMDs - okay, I'll concede, he wasn't lying so much as going off intelligence that he couldn't have known was faulty, given his detachment from the lower intelligence bureaucracy where the errors are bound to occur. You know it, I know it, but it seems public global perception is still an obstacle to overcome.

[Nurvingiel]

Originally Posted by IronParrot

Jersey, I am and always have been in favour of peace through first-world firepower. Hell, I've lived in former British territories all my life and seen the benefits of colonialism firsthand.

This is an odd way to refer to Canada, despite the technical accuracy. I mean, the same applies to the United States.

[Insidious Rex]

Well it seems clear the people of Lebanon arent quite yet ready to whole heartedly embrace Jeffersonian democracy as we have been bragging about since the government resigned. Yesterday the other side came out in support OF the Syrian presence. And in numbers 10 fold larger then the protesters against it. So lets not get too far ahead of ourselves yet on this whole democracy thing. Clearly when close to a million people publically rally for Hezbollah then you need to realize a LOT of people just dont think like us.

This is a long term thing I think. I was a little disapointed that Bush made speeches the other day basically bragging about whats going on in Lebanon as if it was all his doing. A former leader was assasinated. And people reacted with great anger over it. And the government gave way in the furor. But many many Shiites feel a strong tie to the Syrian government and my worry is that if we assume theyll just roll over you could have serious destabilization in Lebanon again. And then Syria would be in a position to say see.... we told you...

[IronParrot]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

This is an odd way to refer to Canada, despite the technical accuracy. I mean, the same applies to the United States.

Canada may be a sovereign state, but it remains a constitutional monarchy with certain inextricable ties to Britain. I say "former" territories to also indicate that for a number of years, I lived in a place that was still a British colony at the time (that being Hong Kong). In both cases, unlike the United States, a significant proportion of the territory's development was under British administration.

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

carried over from 'wishes' thread, i have to say to spock that communism is actually a form of socialism, so i am not really condemned by my own worsds

[Spock]

Actually Communism is enroute to Socialism, not a form of it. "(

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

three things to say today:

firstly, maoist rebels in nepal are once again in the news, they are being far too extremist, but it seems to be the only way to get the king to notice his people, i feel extremely sorrowful for the nepalese

secondly, congratulations to Nambariin Enkhbayar, President of Mongolia, formerly of the ruling communist party. first policy of the new government, to target unemployment and corrupt industrialists, so good luck with that one, mr president!

thirdly, it seems that mr bush is unwilling to allopw president hamid karzai, of the new afghani republic, to control the troops stationed in afghanistan, does the american gov't want to continue occupation, or not?

[Spock]

Actually the first two are great news Chrys. The third, is faulty reporting or listening in your area . We had the reports here too and he wanted control of US troops as well as the Afgan troops and that's something we won't permit. Of course if he really thinks he can control his country without us, I'm sure we'd leave in reasonable order.

[The Gaffer]

Any thoughts about this European commitment to doubling aid as a proportion of GDP to 0.5%? Will there be any moves from the other G8 members to match this?

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

Originally Posted by The Gaffer

Any thoughts about this European commitment to doubling aid as a proportion of GDP to 0.5%? Will there be any moves from the other G8 members to match this?

i doubt it

and it isn't really enough, is it?