Religious fulfillment through political policy or just bad judgement?
Not long ago, Condoleeza Rice stated that the U.S. foreign policy for the past 50 years has been a mistake and that the U.S. needs to break from its support of even complacent dictatorships and pursue the instilment of Democracy throughout the world.
This is a noble concept for most people; I mean who in America would argue that Democracy is not a grand thing that has brought a level of enlightenment to our society that much of the world only aspires to? It is this democratic model, which works so well for us, that is being used to justify much of America’s foreign policy today. But is this from genuine want to improve the lives of other people in the world or justification of a modern crusade wrapped in a pill that most Americans can swallow?
Lately we have been subjected to constant repetition of “spreading democracy” much like we heard the term “weapons of mass destruction” during the lead up to the invasion of Iraq. This notion of spreading our democracy is reaching an almost rapturous pitch that often closer resembles a sermon from a Baptist Minister than the formulated policy of a powerful nation. One has to wonder, why the sudden shift in view of our foreign policy that has kept its general outline for five decades, and was it the right thing to do?
In the past, the United States has often supported non-democratic societies and even tin pot dictators because the truth of the matter is that it is the economically and strategically effective way to manage our interest abroad. When you are supporting a dictator or like government, the amount of people and funds needed to sway interest in that nation is quite manageable. However, should you support a democracy in a nation where the general population views you with vile contempt, the cost and effort to maintain influence over that nation rises to huge proportions if you can manage to have any influence at all.
In the case of the Middle East, you might think it a grand idea to instill democracy; however, the consequences of such actions are just now coming to light. Haamas has recently won a stunning victory in open and free democratic elections, yet the United States and Israel are reeling over the implications of this. What if all of Israel’s neighbors were to become democracies where the vast majority of the people are willing to strap a bomb on their bodies and claim revenge? There very well may be war by sundown.
Article comments
1 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
I don't know Preston. I have no problem with Hamas having won in Ramallah. I mean the election was a joke, with both Fatah and Hamas having been imposed on the local Arabs with the idea of keeping them down while smelling like a rose in America's corridors pf power.
I realize that the idiots on Government Hill here have trouble with Hamas. But rest assured, as soon as they come to terms to devise some kind of criminal deal to divvie up the treasury here, they will be blessed as kosher by such fine individuals as Dov Veisglas...
2 - Nancy
I just wish BushCo were as intent on establishing (or restoring) democracy here in the US as they are in planting it elsewhere. To say that the US is a democracy is a farce; we're a plutocratic oligarchy, nothing more. I feel that if Bush is so intent on instilling democracy abroad, then he should move to whatever country he wants to influence, become a citizen, and run for office there. Good riddance.
3 - Preston Parkhurst
Ruvy, The only way the US and Israel would have found the elections to be acceptable is if Simon Peres were elected the head of the PA. I am curious as to why you believe that Hamas is an imposed position, afterall the PA under Arafat was weak and ineffectual.
Nancy, I just find the notion that somehow democracy is the cure to all ills of people and nations to be a bit absurd. I believe that Iraq will prove this in spades.
4 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Preston,
First of all, as much as I hate the guy, I would never call Shimon Peres, Simon. There ain't nothing simple about that snake.
Second of all, so you comprehend my point of view.
In 1993, Arafat was just a putz living in Tunis. The Americans and Israelis installed him as "raïs" in the "Palestinian Authority" and the regime of stealing, rape and robbery began the day he arrived. The agreement that created this monster was a mistake, and it has only proven to be fatal to Jews and Arabs.
The Hamas was nurtured, if not created by Israeli intelligence, in order to weaken Fateh in the late 1980's. But the bottom line is that both Fateh and Hamas are nothing more than criminal gangs. Unfortunately, these days, the Israeli "government" is nothing more than a pack of thugs also.
The big problem the Americans are having with Hamas is that they haven't figured out how to manipulate their leaders. As I pointed out, as soon as some financial deal comes about between Olmert and whatever Abu Hhara (father of shit) is running Hamas, all will be well.