"The idea is not to come out with proposals that say, 'This is how the West thinks you guys should live,' " a senior administration official said. "This can't be seen as telling these guys what to do. That won't work. It is instead about saying, 'We hear voices in the greater Middle East region who want democracy and reform, and here are the things we can do to support them.' "
....The administration's general goal is to put meat on the bones of Bush's call for political change throughout the Islamic world, outlined in two speeches last fall at the National Endowment for Democracy and in London, U.S. officials say. [Washington Post] the plan also learns from the past and takes into account the dangers of democratization leading to the tyranny of theocracy:
- "We also expect to hear warnings of Islam emerging stronger in the region if countries democratize," he added. "But we recognize the danger of too rapid democratization. We want to see steady progress over a period of time — and we want to build in checks in the system."
....The concept of promoting a "Middle East Helsinki" has long been discussed in U.S. and European think tanks, but the administration's idea has received a huge boost in recent weeks. Yesterday, Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.), chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, gave a speech in Munich calling on NATO to establish a partnership plan that would help Middle East militaries with tasks such as peacekeeping, counterterrorism, military reform and civilian control of the military.
Sen. John Edwards (N.C.), a Democratic presidential candidate, said last month that as president he would establish a Helsinki-type organization in the Middle East that would "assist with civil society and political party development, monitor elections and manage crises."
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.