Arab problems democratizing being blamed on US (and - surprise, surprise - Israel) Posted by Suzanne Nossel

The other day I did a post about how Bush's democratization efforts in the Mideast, though not without positive impact, are boomeranging into anti-US sentiment because of the larger wrapping of arrogance, unilateralism, chest-thumping, etc.

This morning's NYT reports on the latest Arab Human Development Report by the UN Development Program in which the US and Israel are blamed for the lack of progress toward democratization in the Arab world.   I haven't been able to track down the report itself online, but the summary suggests it calls for "swift and fundamental" democratic reforms, but rather than pinning the blame on Arab governments, shifts it to the region's usual suspects.  It states that as a result of the US invasion of Iraq:

the Iraqi people have emerged from the grip of a despotic regime that violated their basic rights and freedoms, only to fall under a foreign occupation that has increased human suffering.

Apparently the Bush Admin put on heavy pressure to try to get rid of this language.

This is the third such Arab Development Report UNDP has published, and the series has in the past been praised in that Arab academics have taken a clear-eyed appraisal of their region's problems and what needs to be done about them.   It is a report written "by Arabs for Arabs" that comes to grips with forces like modernization and globalization.   It is too bad that this latest version seems to try to turn the tables on the West, but it is emblematic of the problems that Bush's brand of democratization will run into. 

Some commentators have pointed out that we are better off with democracies that resent us and are bent on getting out of our orbit than with autocracies that breed terrorism.   

That's true, but those aren't the two alternatives:  throughout the last century the US helped seed democracies around the world that felt deeply aligned with our values.  The positive results of those policies are why belief in the spread of democracy is now among the major foreign policy pillars to have attracted bi-partisan consensus.   But now, for the first time ever, US-style democratization is getting a bad name.  We don't know the consequences of fostering a region filled with democracies that tend to be anti-US (and are unrepentant in their anti-Israel sentiments).  But it's possible we're about to find out.

Comments

[J Thomas]

"...throughout the last century the US helped seed democracies around the world that felt deeply aligned with our values."

Examples?

The philippines? Hardly.
Chile? Costa rica? Honduras? Nicaragua? Panama?

South korea? Taiwan? Vietnam?

Indonesia?

Well, there are the old standbys, germany and japan.

And then there's guam and puerto rico.

Have I missed anybody? Grenada? Kuwait?

[Jim M.]

The U.S. did more in the last century to stifle democracy than it ever did to encourage it. In the name of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" the U.S. supported every tinpot dictator in the world, but no one more than the oil-rich arabs.

[VD]

Heck, even Germany was not seen as a great success at the time. First, it was a highly controversial war, sending the bulk of our troops off to meddle in a European problem while sparing the remnant to fight against the nation that ACTUALLY attacked us in the Pacific.

After the war, we had years of headlines like this cover of Life Magazine in 1946:

http://home.san.rr.com/vagabondia/images/tmp/lifecover.jpg

It would seem that saving nations from themselves has ever been a thankless and unappreciated job. The truth about this report is that it is absolutely incorrect when it refers to US forces in Iraq as "foreign occupation". Using such language is a violation of UN Resolution 1546, unanimously approved by the Security Council, granting sovereignty to the government of Iraq.

[Alex Urevick-Ackelsberg]

That's true, but those aren't the two alternatives: throughout the last century the US helped seed democracies around the world that felt deeply aligned with our values.
I'm with J on this- what history books are you reading?

Can you please give some examples of this outside of E. Europe and Japan? As far as I can tell we proped up every sort of despot under the sun in the name of fighting Communism (I'm trying to remember the name of that guy we funded who fought a big war against Iran. You know, the one who's American purchased weapons were used against his own citizens. Anybody?). We also destroyed any democracy that was perceived to be friendly to the Soviets or against U.S. business interests.

Here I thought that this was going to be a blog filled with quality analysis and well thought out positions, and you put out posts like this? I think you need to read up a bit on your history, and excersize the rational parts of your brain a little more. Painting a rosey picture of US history is for the cheerleaders, not those people who want to play (or coach) the game.

I know that you guys are inside-the-beltway types, but does that really preclude you from rational thought on national security?

[Alex Urevick-Ackelsberg]

Here are some more examples of countries that we helped Democratize during the cold war:
El Salvador, Argentina, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, the Congo, Saudi Arabia, Bolivia.

I'm not here to moralize about the realist doctrine that was followed during the cold war, but to pretend that our policy wasn't realist is at best disingenuous, and at worst completely ahistoric and delusional.

What purpose does glossing over our foreign policy history serve outside of making us feel better about ourselves?

[Jeffrey Laurenti]

Suzanne's post about UNDP's latest Arab Development Report was, unfortunately, based on the highly abbreviated account in the New York Times today. But in fact the report does not "blame" the Arab world's huge democratic deficit on the US and Israel (though it says their occupations of Iraq and Palestinian territory, PLUS "the escalation of terrorism adversely influenced Arab human development").

What the report "blames" as causative are factors within Arab societies: "Freedoms in Arab countries are threatened by two kinds of power: that of undemocratic regimes, and that of tradition and tribalism, sometimes under the cover of religion. These twin forces have combined to curtail freedoms and fundamental rightrs and have weakened the good citizen's strength and ability to advance."

The report lashes out at "political authorities sometimes breach[ing] the inviolability of the home," at "extremist groups which perpetrate assassinations and bombings," at "double subjugation" of cultural and religious minorities, at economic and political corruption, and at societal structures like "clannism, which implants submission," and "educational methods which tend to rely on dictation and instil submissiveness."

That seems pretty much on target.

Suzanne rightly does not suggest that the Israeli occupation over the Palestinians, or the American war in Iraq, should be seen in the Arab world as helpful to democratization. And it's not surprising that Arab intellectuals who believe passionately in human rights and democracy should see them as "adverse influences" as well.

[Kenneth]

"the Iraqi people have emerged from the grip of a despotic regime that violated their basic rights and freedoms, only to fall under a foreign occupation that has increased human suffering."

It seems to have escaped the notice of the UNDP that the Iraqi people "emerged from the grip of a despotic regime" as a result of the US lead invasion & occupation, and that the "increased human suffering" in Iraq is the result of the actions of the anti-democratic terrorists.

If we were to follow the "logic" of this report to it's natural conclusion, then democracy, freedom and human rights will come to the Middle East only when the Baathists & Islamists prevail, stop democracy from spreading to through the Arab world and Israel is destroyed. This report is a product of the very ideology that has kept the Arab states under despotic rule for decades. Bush has acknowledged the past failed US policy of "stability" by supporting dictators. He has declared the promotion of democracy is now US policy throughout the Middle East and that it is in America's best interest to do so.

As for the absurd notion that the existance of Israel hinders democracy in the Middle East, one need only ask, what Arab democracy ever existed before 1948? And if the Arab dictatorships use the "Zionist threat" as an excuse to keep their own people oppressed, is it not the responsibility of the Arab gov'ts and people to correct the problem? Does any serious observer imagine that Assad in Syria or Khaddafi in Libya would suddenly hold free & open elections the day after Israel is no more?

[J.S.]

Curious what you all think of my essay on respecting culture at:

http://voicesofreason.info

J.S.

[J Thomas]

Kenneth, you appear to have fallen into the verbal trap of believing that there are two sides. This is a trap with very sharp teeth. It bites hard.

Your idea that israeli actions can't be helping to suppress arab democracies is utterly absurd. We could use a similar argument about Bush's behavior WRT iran. Bush is admittedly trying to stop iran from getting nuclear weapons. But in line with your israel argument, we could say that Bush's efforts to stop iranian nukes must be completely and utterly ineffectual. After all, how many nukes did iran nave before Bush started trying to stop them? So, does that prove that Bush has nothing to do with it? After all if Bush is what's stopping them, then he could die today and iran would have nukes tomorrow, right?

Please try to be more careful. This kind of thinking can hurt you.

[Kenneth]

J Thomas

Thank you for your kind concern, but I assure you I am quite well. However, you must have injured yourself in writing your so-called argument. It is confused, illogical and full of non-sequitors and false comparisons.

The Iranian's have been trying to develop nuclear weapons since before Bush became president. They will continue to do so until they are either stopped (by US military strikes) or the regime is overthrown (by pro-democracy Iranians). EU negotiations with Iran will not succeed in preventing the Iranian's from obtaining nukes. Your suppositions are illogical, pointless and certainly are not "inline with (my) israel argument".

My point is clear and, I believe, correct. Israel is not responsible for the lack of democracy in the Arab world. The Arabs are. True, historically, the US, Britain & France actively supported anti-democratic regimes in the Arab world. Under Bush, the US policy has now changed. The mindset that the Arab elites employ in blaming every problem in their region on the Zionists, is on display in the UNDP report. That is the root of the problem.

[Peter]

Scott, I'd urge you to go take a look at the report, and decide for yourself whether it really blames every problem in their region on the Zionists". Go to:

http://www.undp.org/

[J Thomas]

Kenneth, I'm afraid you have utterly missed the point.

But I agree with you that there's some reason to think that the current iranian govenrment is trying to get nuclear weapons, and there's no particular reason to think they will stop doing so while they are in power. And there is further no reason to think that the next iranian government will stop either. They are representing the will of their people who want nukes. Only a military defeat and occupation will prevent them from attempting to get nukes, for as long as the occupation stays in sufficient force to stop them.

Your point is clear and is utterly illogical. I'll let it go.

"When a wise man argues with a fool, how do you know which one is the fool?"

"They're both fools."

[Peter]

Sorry, my point was addressed to Kenneth, not Scott. And I would definitely urge everybody to check out the Arab Human Development Report for themselves, rather than draw their conclusions from a skewed New York Times article:

[Kenneth]

Peter,

You make a good point that one should read the actual report, not the NWT's coverage of it. I wasn't referring to the AHDR report per se, but to the frequent accusations by Arab (and Iranian) gov't and media that all the problems of the region are caused by the Israel.

J. Thomas: Please explain your point then. I have read and re-read your Iran-nukes-Bush paragraph and I cannot make sense of it, and I doubt you can either.

"After all if Bush is what's stopping them, then he could die today and Iran would have nukes tomorrow, right?" What do you mean by this non-sequitor? Is this supposed to explain how Israel is preventing Arabs from having democracies?

You may disagree with my positions, but at least my arguments are logical. The fool you are debating with is yourself.

[J Thomas]

OK, Kenneth, since you asked me to I'll explain a little.

Here is your argument:

"As for the absurd notion that the existance of Israel hinders democracy in the Middle East, one need only ask, what Arab democracy ever existed before 1948? And if the Arab dictatorships use the "Zionist threat" as an excuse to keep their own people oppressed, is it not the responsibility of the Arab gov'ts and people to correct the problem? Does any serious observer imagine that Assad in Syria or Khaddafi in Libya would suddenly hold free & open elections the day after Israel is no more?"

You say that all it takes to show that israel is *not* hindering democracy in other middle east countries, is to notice that there were few or no arab democracies before 1948.

The claim is, then, that israel can't be hindering democracy today because there wasn't enough democracy to matter before israel was there to hinder them.

I made the parallel argument -- Bush cannot be hindering iranian nuke development today because there were no iranian nukes before Bush was there to hinder them. Same argument exactly. It's perhaps a little bit more obvious that it's an idiotic argument the way I make it, but the way you did it was almost as obvious.

Later you argue that israel is not hindering democracy in arab nations with the implied claim that syria and libya would not hold free elections the day after israel became a secular state or otherwise disappeared. I made the parallel argument to show that Bush is not hindering iranian nukes -- if he was, then if Bush died iran would have nukes the next day, right? This is an obviously ridiculous argument, and it's basicly the same argument you made except that I went to some trouble to make it obvious how utterly stupid it was, while you may not have noticed how stupid your version was.

HTH.

The more fundamental mistake, though shows up here:

"If we were to follow the "logic" of this report to it's natural conclusion, then democracy, freedom and human rights will come to the Middle East only when the Baathists & Islamists prevail, stop democracy from spreading to through the Arab world and Israel is destroyed."

This is traditional two-valued logic. You seem to think there are only two sides available, USA and israel on one side with Baathists and islamists on the other, and one or the other must prevail, and everyone chooses one side or the other. The mistake here will be particularly obvious to anyone who knows something about Baath versus islam. It's only a giant-immediate-threat common enemy that could get those two on the same side. And there's no particular reason for arab democracy-lovers to want either an israeli or a US model. There are many more than two sides here. Some americans seem to believe that israel and the USA have identical interests, but I've never yet met an israeli who had that illusion.

[Kenneth]

JThomas,

Thank you for taking the time to actually debating ideas, rather than simply insulting and (intellectually)threatning me. Unfortunately, you persist in forming your arguments around your Iran-nukes-Bush straw man rather than addressing my points directly. You put up an absurd "analogy", shoot down the analogy, and then claim you have countered my argument. And you continue to call my arguments "stupid". That is really unbecoming.

You have failed to identify a single instance in which Israel prevents democracy in the Arab world. The examples in which the Arab states use the excuse of the Arab-Israeli conflict to justify the lack of freedom & democracy for their own people are legion.

Your analogy is false on the obvious ground that while Iran is actively pursuing a nuclear weapons development program, Syria, Libya, Tunisia, Egypt and Iran are not actively pursuing the development of free and democratic societies. It can be argued that the US and the EU are trying to prevent Iran from developing nukes (with little success). It cannot be argued, with any evidence, that Israel is trying to prevent democracy in the Arab world. It can be argued that the dictatorial regimes of the Arab world are actively preventing the development of freedom & democracy, (& with great sucess).

Perhaps my conjecture was unclear. When I made the comment about following the argument of the report to to it's "logical" conlusion, I was referring to the "logic" of the anti-democratic elites who assert that Israel is to blame for all their problems. I would have thought it was obvious from my posts that I believe such arguments false.

I am well aware there are more than 2 sides to the complex issues of democracy, society and freedom in the Middle East. I was not lumping Baathists and Islamists together, but pointing out the fact these groups, and other anti-democratic traditions such as monarchists, all coming from different ideological perspectives, reject democracy and freedom while blaming Israel for their many failings.

Amir Tahiri wrote an revealing collumn a few weeks back about his recent travels in the Middle East. The elites (the gov't, press & academics)in the countries he visited were blaming Israel for all their problems and saying it was the one big issue all Arabs must be dealt with first. Yet when he spoke to taxi drivers, shopkeepers and farmers, they told him they didn't care about Israel, rather it was their own oppressive governments that were the biggest problem.

In an earlier post you site the rather checkered US record for supporting democracy. Sometimes the have, and sometimes they have not, as suited their national interests as perceived at the time. In the Middle East, up until very recently, the US record has been very anti-democratic, or at best, neutral. Bush has declared a change in that policy and the test is whether the US will actually back it up consistantly.

Finally, JT, You might do better to frame your arguments around sound reasoning rather than cheap rhetorical tricks, and to back them up with evidence rather than insults or threats.

[J Thomas]

Kennety, I don't recall threatening you in any way. If I have inadvertently done something that left you feeling threatened, I apologise, I did not intend to. I regard you as a more-or-less-anonymous entity, and I have absolutely no intention of figuring out where you live and burning the place down with you in it, or shooting you with a sniperscope, or any other hostile action.

Sorry to insult you, but you left yourself wide open to it by presenting insanely stupid arguments. That you feel insulted when I call them stupid is unfortunately your problem. I did not intend an insult but a description.

Now, to the foolish argument that I am foolishly responding to, you made a claim about israel's relation to arabs, and your arguments in its favor were ridiculous. I have not made a claim about that but have only pointed out that you did not in any way support your claim.

I could make a claim that israel has actively discouraged arab democracy. I could point to lebanon where israel armed and supported extremists who helped overthrow the lebanese democracy, and israel went so far as to invade the country themselves supported by their antidemocratic allies. But this was a special case, lebanon is a country that shares a border with israel. Israel does not invade arab nations unless they are its immediate neighbors.

It's hardly disputable that the USA has actively opposed arab democracy in various ways, in the past. And of course the CIA and Mossad have worked together, and a survey of the reports from ex-CIA and ex-Mossad agents would turn up various examples of Mossad cooperating with the USA in this. But how much can we trust ex-agents who reveal secrets? Maybe they're all lying. What israel does secretly is mostly secret unless you believe the people who reveal it.

It's reasonable that israel would oppose arab democracy in general. For one thing, arab dictators tend to be weak and unstable, they tend to maintain armies that are barely strong enough to protect them from private armies that might otherwise overthrow them. They need to do frequent purges to reduce the likelihood of coups. Such states are not much of a military threat. Also, arab populations tend to be more strongly anti-zionist than arab governments. Democracy would tend to get the governments in line with the populations. Dictators are usually reasonably practical about starting senseless wars, democracies are utterly undependable about that. (Saddam was an exception, he started a war with iran that he could not win without lots of US support that he wound up not getting. And given great provocation he invaded kuwait when it was predictable that the USA would oppose him. It's irrelevant whether the ambassador and the CIA told him we wouldn't, he should have known not to believe us after the first time.)

More important, arab democracies might get some sympathy from US public opinion, where arab undemocratic governments get none. And there's always the possibility that an arab democracy might cut through the government corruption and establish a functioning economy.

But these are all arguments from reason. Just because it's *rational* for the israeli government to oppose arab democracies doesn't mean they see it that way. For all we know Sharon might believe that israel would be better off if egypt, syria, jordan, lebanon, saudi arabia and iraq all had popular representative governments with strong economies and strong militaries, that had great relations with the USA.

So to my way of thinking it's an open question. The evidence that israel has been acting to oppose arab democracies is not at all certain, while no evidence whatsoever has been presented that they have not.

[muhtar]

Thank you for your sharing.! seslichat seslisohbet

[cheap coach handbags]

Thank you for your sharing! I like i very much!

[trpornizle]

En güncel ve kaliteli pornoları izleyebileceğiniz ve sexfilmiseyretebileceğiniz youjizz kalitesindeki porn sitemize hepinizi bekleriz. porn izle , porn , rokettube ve escort sitesini de unutmayın lütfen : ) Hea bi de sex izle var..
thanks google.