Weapons Of Mass Democracy!

Salameh Nematt     Al-Hayat     2003/07/24

As long as Washington, as its Israeli ally, is determined to deal with the Middle East from a military-security angle, it is unlikely that any results different from those obtained by Israel will ever be achieved.

Security solutions, if separated from the political track, and considering the roots of violence that led to the 9/11 attacks, will only create further violence in Iraq, just like in Palestine. The U.S.' political solutions, both for Iraq and Palestine, are not actual solutions, because they don't present a clear vision for a political future. Indeed, according to the Roadmap, the Americans' solution for the Palestinian issue has maintained the final situation blurry and open to many possibilities. The Roadmap doesn't define clear borders for the planned Palestinian state, nor does it ensure consistency with the international resolutions, which are the only reference that can draw Arab and international approval. In light of the strategic alliance between the U.S. and Israel, it becomes difficult for the Palestinians to trust the U.S. as a mediator with good intentions. Regarding Iraq, Washington openly disregarded international law and the Geneva Convention concerning its occupation of Iraq before and after the war. This has left Iraq at the mercy of a group of people, which intentions to disregard the international community's will in dealing with nations is very clear, and doesn't even present an acceptable or convincing alternative.  

In other words, the American plan for Palestine and Iraq can't possibly succeed if it does not include a comprehensive vision taking into consideration the political givens. This requires putting an end to the two occupations, according to a set timeline and with international approval. If not, the situation on the ground will necessarily lead Washington to face in Iraq what Israel is facing in Palestine.  

The fact is that there are many similar points in the U.S. policy in Palestine and in Iraq, most notably the fact that it refuses to acknowledge the political forces on the ground and insists on imposing its solutions, which do not reflect the political reality. The American credibility in the Middle East and maybe in the world at large has most probably never been worse than it is today. As a matter of fact, the gap between the slogans about democracy, freedom and respect of human rights on one hand and the actual practices on the ground has never been that great.  

The bigger problem facing U.S. foreign policy these days is the near total lack of trust, as a result of the gaping discrepancy between these policies and the declared principles. Could it be, for instance, that the appointed Palestinian Prime Minister be more democratic and better representative of the people, than the elected President? What does Washington's talk about democracy have to do with its insistence on establishing an interim Iraqi ruling council that excludes the opposition forces, thus disregarding the Iraqi public opinion?    

There are no illusions about the true strategic goals of the U.S. occupation of Iraq, which cannot be consistent with the declared goal of establishing a democratic system representing a role model for the region. 

In short, those non-democratic states in the region can relax and not feel threatened of an American invasion with weapons of mass democracy, as long as they cooperate with Washington at the security level. As a matter of fact, the U.S. administration won't even hesitate to reward these regimes, disregarding the reality the people live in, as long as they serve the American goals.

Perhaps it would be better for Elizabeth Cheney to use the money destined to foster democracy in the Middle East towards reeducating the officials in the administration about the principles of democracy, before starting to impose them on others.