IS TIME RUNNING OUT FOR MIDEAST RULERS?
LONDON - US Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice went to Cairo last week to tell her Egyptian hosts and the Saudis, America’s two most important Arab allies: no more stalling, you have to hold honest elections now.
Ironically, at the very same time, her boss, President George Bush, was denouncing Iran’s upcoming elections as `undemocratic.’ Iran’s Islamic Republic has many flaws, but compared to America’s Arab clients, it is a temple of democracy and human rights. The surprise upset election last of Iran’s new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, clearly confirmed this point.
Miss Rice’s tough talk was certainly long overdue. She admitted America’s policy of supporting Mideast despots and oligarchs for the past 30 years had been wrong. ( actually, Condi, it’s 60 years, but never mind).
So will Washington really push its Arab client states into genuine democracy? Don’t bank on it.
The new ballyhoo over Arab democracy comes because the Bush Administration has correctly concluded the kings, sheiks and generals who run the Mideast under American tutelage are a spent force. They have lost all legitimacy and are increasingly unable to repress the wave of Islamic militancy fueled by Osama bin Laden that is sweeping the strategic region.
So Washington decided it’s loyal Mideast satraps are due for regime change. The US needs new, more contemporary overseers to run its Mideast oil plantation. As Henry Kissinger once quipped about South Vietnam, it’s more dangerous being an ally of the US than an enemy.
Bush’s Mideast policy team and its Israeli mentors concluded the best way to defuse Islamic militancy is to bring in new `moderate’ civilian regimes elected in what appears, at least from afar, a democratic process.
The new model of Mideast rulers Washington has in mind can be seen in Afghanistan and Iraq. Turbans and general’s hats are out. The Mideast’s new look will be `moderates:’ low key non-flamboyant, English-speakers in sober business suits who are Muslims Lite and owe their total financial and political support, as well as personal protection, to Washington.
They will continue to sell oil cheap, open their markets to US business, buy arms they can’t use, allow US military bases, reconfigure their military forces for internal security control, suppress political Islam, and make nice to Israel. In other words, just what the former kings and generals did, but with far less flash and much more subtlety.
The new breed of Mideast rulers will be elected in nominally `democratic’ elections pre-determined to produce pro-US winners and exclude all but token voices from radicals or troublesome Islamists. The US media will sanctify them with glowing reports and fulsome praise.
Recent parliamentary elections in Lebanon are a good example of ersatz democracy at work. Former Lebanese PM Rafik Hariri was murdered last February. The killing seemed to implicate Syria, which had long occupied Lebanon. National outrage over the murder and US pressure drove Syria’s troops out Lebanon. New elections were held.
An anti-Syrian won the election. The White House trumpeted the vote as a dawn of Mideast democracy and vindication of its invasion of Iraq. The follow-the-leader US media faithfully amplified Bush’s message.
But from up close the situation was not so heroic. Lebanon’s politics remain deeply corrupt. Voters in northern Lebanon were bribed US$500 apiece to cast their ballots for the US-backed anti-Syrian faction.
Around $35 billion borrowed by the former Hariri government to rebuild civil war shattered Lebanon is still unaccounted for. Since Hariri cooperated with Syria, his unsolved murder may have been committed by those seeking to drive Syria from Lebanon, or in revenge for the missing billions.
Finding pliable `moderates’ in other Arab nations will be hard. Their ruthless, US-supported regimes long ago crushed any legitimate opposition, leaving only underground extremist groups. The US should be talking with them, notably the `Muslim Brotherhood,’ but they have all been branded `terrorists’ by Bush.
The United States is hated across the Muslim World. If truly free elections were held tomorrow in Egypt and Saudi Arabia, not to mention medieval Morocco, Tunisia, Libya, or the Gulf, their US-backed regimes would be swept away and replaced by anti-US Islamists and nationalists.
Control of the Arab World and its oil is a pillar of US world power. It’s unlikely Washington will ever countenance genuinely free Mideast elections. After Jimmy Carter called for democracy in Iran in 1979, and began withdrawing US support from its grotesque Shah, a key US ally, popular revolution erupted that brought in a violently anti-US Islamic government.
The Arab World’s only fully honest election was held in Algeria in 1992. It produced a landslide for Islamic parties. Algeria’s US and French-backed military junta immediately staged a coup, annulled the election and declared martial law.
Copyright Eric S. Margolis 2005
Posted by Eric Margolis on June 27, 2005 01:57 PM
Comments:
Well said, there will never be a true democracy in Middle East. Though I’d like to comment on “The killing seemed to implicate Syria, which had long occupied Lebanon.” I don’t agree that Syria have been occupying Lebanon. Lets not forget when the Syrian troops entered Lebanon, they were welcomed as part of an Arab force to calm the violence. From there on, things went down hill. Lets also not forget that Syrians and Lebanese had fought side by side against Israel. I think Syria went to Lebanon for the right reasons, but the corruption and greed of Syrian security forces had definitely a very negative impact, which lead to many people believing this is an occupation.
An occupation is what Israel does in Palestine, US does in Iraq. But Syrian occupation of Lebanon ? I don’t think so. Probably interference, but never an occupation.
Posted by Tamouh at June 28, 2005 02:29 AM
I was suspicious from the get go about who dunnit in Lebanon. The swift an orchestrated reaction to the assassination of Hariri by the US and Israel and Lebanese opposition groups was too coincidential. Within the hour they were accusing Syria and demanding the banishment of the Syrian presence. What is obvious is that Syria was the one country with anything to lose from the assassination, and they are not that stupid. The US and Isreal gain more influemce as a result. Indeed the US is menacing Syria in ways that echo their tactics with Iraq and Iran. Clearly, at least to me, and I do invite other views, the Israeli influence in the US has been at work again, making Israel an even stronger top dog in the region, not for purposes of defense, but of creating markets for their products and for seizing control or lop-sided agreements over water supplies. The US has Syria in control via oil pielines from Iraq, so it left Lebanon with nary a whimper. Ah, the machinations of empires.
Posted by ghawley at June 29, 2005 10:38 PM
Wonderful piece! It is so important to separate Bush rhetoric from action. I think it more likely the American strategy is to appear to support democracy(while doing very little tangibly to make it happen) than to support real change. Time will tell but I’ll be surprised if Bush ever lives up to his words.
Posted by Paul Whiteside at July 3, 2005 11:51 AM
