I would like to hear what those most vehement in their opposition to the policies of GW Bush have to say about this. it would seem to have everything they favor: multilateralism, promotion of modernization and democracy through non-military means, promoting change through incentives and rewards rather than through force or threats. What is there to object to in this policy? It should make EVERYONE happy:
- The Bush administration has launched an ambitious bid to promote democracy in the "greater Middle East" that will adapt a model used to press for freedoms in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe.
Senior White House and State Department officials have begun talks with key European allies about a master plan to be put forward this summer at summits of the Group of Eight nations, NATO allies and the European Union, U.S. officials say. With international backing, the United States then hopes to win commitments of action from Middle Eastern and South Asian countries.
"It's a sweeping change in the way we approach the Middle East," said a senior State Department official. "We hope to roll out some of the principles for reform in talks with the Europeans over the next few weeks, with specific ideas of how to support them."
Details are still being crafted. But the initiative, scheduled to be announced at the G-8 summit hosted by President Bush at Sea Island, Ga., in June, would call for Arab and South Asian governments to adopt major political reforms, be held accountable on human rights—particularly women's empowerment—and introduce economic reforms, U.S. and European officials said.
As incentives for the targeted countries to cooperate, Western nations would offer to expand political engagement, increase aid, facilitate membership in the World Trade Organization and foster security arrangements, possibly some equivalent of the Partnership for Peace with former Eastern Bloc countries.
....It also seeks to avoid appearing to dictate to the Islamic world.
Article comments
1 - Graeme Currie
It is an excellent idea. However, it must be remembered that the Helsinki process was an initiative of the Soviet Union's, and the effect it had in undermining Communism was an unexpected by-product from the Soviet point of view (though intended to some extent by the West). The question must therefore be - what do the states of the (Greater) ME stand to gain from this process? The Soviets thought Helsinki would give them legitimacy for their WWII gains and sphere of influence. Does the White House (or the State Dept.) envisage compromise on key ME issues (such as the status of Jerusalem, the West Bank and the children of Palestinian refugees)?
The incentivces mentioned in the article cited: "Western nations would offer to expand political engagement, increase aid, facilitate membership in the World Trade Organization and foster security arrangements, possibly some equivalent of the Partnership for Peace with former Eastern Bloc countries." may not go far enough - they are all items on the agenda of Western countries in any case.