Democracy Isn't For Our Friends Only
by Robert Fisk
Seattle Post-Intelligencer
January 31, 2006
Oh no, not more democracy again! Didn't we award this to those Algerians in 1990? And didn't they reward us with that nice gift of an Islamist government -- and then they so benevolently canceled the second round of elections? Thank goodness for that!
True, the Afghans elected a round of representatives, albeit they included warlords and murderers. But the Iraqis last year elected the Dawa party in Baghdad, which was responsible -- let us not speak this in Washington, D.C. -- for most of the kidnappings of Westerners in Beirut in the '80s, the car bombing of the (late) emir and the United States and French embassies in Kuwait.
Now, horror of horrors, the Palestinians have elected the wrong party. They were supposed to have given their support to the pro-Western, corrupt, absolutely pro-American Fatah, which had promised to "control" them, rather than to Hamas, which said they would represent them. And, bingo, they have chosen the wrong party again.
Result: 76 of 132 seats. That just about does it. What are we to do with people who don't vote the way they should?
In the 1930s, the British would lock up the Egyptians who turned against the government of King Farouk. Thus they began to set the structure of anti-democratic governance that was to follow. The French imprisoned the Lebanese government, which demanded the same. Then the French left Lebanon.
But we have always expected the Arab governments to do what they were told.
So today, we are expecting the Syrians to behave, the Iranians to kowtow to our nuclear desires (though they have done nothing illegal) and the North Koreans to surrender their weapons (though they actually do have them, and therefore cannot be attacked).
Now let the burdens of power lie heavy on the shoulders of the party. Now let the responsibilities of people lie upon them. We British would never talk to the Irish Republican Army. But in due course, Gerry Adams came to take tea with the queen. The Americans would never speak to their enemies in North Vietnam. But they did. In Paris.
No, al-Qaida will not do that. But the Iraqi leaders of the insurgency in Mesopotamia will. They talked to the British in 1920, and they will talk to the Americans in 2006.
Back in 1983, Hamas talked to the Israelis. They spoke directly to them about the spread of mosques and religious teaching. The Israeli army boasted about this on the front page of the Jerusalem Post. At that time, it looked like the Palestine Liberation Organization was not going to abide by the Oslo resolutions. There seemed nothing wrong, therefore, with continuing talks with Hamas. So how come talks with Hamas now seem so impossible?
Not long after the Hamas leadership had been hurled into southern Lebanon, a leading member of its organization heard me say that I was en route to Israel.
"You'd better call Shimon Peres," he told me. "Here's his home number."
The phone number was correct -- proof members of the hierarchy of the most extremist Palestinian movements were talking to senior Israeli politicians.
The Israelis know well the Hamas leadership. And the Hamas leadership know well the Israelis. There is no point in journalists suggesting otherwise. Our enemies invariably turn out to be our greatest friends, and our friends turn out to be our enemies.
How terrible to speak with those who have killed our sons. How unspeakable to converse with those who have our brothers' blood on their hands. No doubt that is how Americans who believed in independence felt about the Englishmen who fired upon them.
It will be for the Iraqis to deal with al-Qaida. This is their burden. Not ours. Yet throughout history, we have ended up talking to our enemies.
We talked to the representatives of the emperor of Japan. In the end, we had to accept the surrender of the German Reich from the successor to Adolf Hitler. And today, we trade happily with the Japanese, the Germans and the Italians.
The Middle East was never a successor to Nazi Germany or Fascist Italy, despite the rubbish talked by President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair. How long will it be before we can throw away the burden of this most titanic of wars and see our future, not as our past, but as a reality?
Surely, in an age when our governments no longer contain men or women who have experienced war, we must now lead a people with the understanding of what war means. Not Hollywood. Not documentary films. Democracy means real freedom, not just for the people we choose to have voted into power.
And that is the problem in the Middle East.
Seattle Post-Intelligencer
January 31, 2006
Oh no, not more democracy again! Didn't we award this to those Algerians in 1990? And didn't they reward us with that nice gift of an Islamist government -- and then they so benevolently canceled the second round of elections? Thank goodness for that!
True, the Afghans elected a round of representatives, albeit they included warlords and murderers. But the Iraqis last year elected the Dawa party in Baghdad, which was responsible -- let us not speak this in Washington, D.C. -- for most of the kidnappings of Westerners in Beirut in the '80s, the car bombing of the (late) emir and the United States and French embassies in Kuwait.
Now, horror of horrors, the Palestinians have elected the wrong party. They were supposed to have given their support to the pro-Western, corrupt, absolutely pro-American Fatah, which had promised to "control" them, rather than to Hamas, which said they would represent them. And, bingo, they have chosen the wrong party again.
Result: 76 of 132 seats. That just about does it. What are we to do with people who don't vote the way they should?
In the 1930s, the British would lock up the Egyptians who turned against the government of King Farouk. Thus they began to set the structure of anti-democratic governance that was to follow. The French imprisoned the Lebanese government, which demanded the same. Then the French left Lebanon.
But we have always expected the Arab governments to do what they were told.
So today, we are expecting the Syrians to behave, the Iranians to kowtow to our nuclear desires (though they have done nothing illegal) and the North Koreans to surrender their weapons (though they actually do have them, and therefore cannot be attacked).
Now let the burdens of power lie heavy on the shoulders of the party. Now let the responsibilities of people lie upon them. We British would never talk to the Irish Republican Army. But in due course, Gerry Adams came to take tea with the queen. The Americans would never speak to their enemies in North Vietnam. But they did. In Paris.
No, al-Qaida will not do that. But the Iraqi leaders of the insurgency in Mesopotamia will. They talked to the British in 1920, and they will talk to the Americans in 2006.
Back in 1983, Hamas talked to the Israelis. They spoke directly to them about the spread of mosques and religious teaching. The Israeli army boasted about this on the front page of the Jerusalem Post. At that time, it looked like the Palestine Liberation Organization was not going to abide by the Oslo resolutions. There seemed nothing wrong, therefore, with continuing talks with Hamas. So how come talks with Hamas now seem so impossible?
Not long after the Hamas leadership had been hurled into southern Lebanon, a leading member of its organization heard me say that I was en route to Israel.
"You'd better call Shimon Peres," he told me. "Here's his home number."
The phone number was correct -- proof members of the hierarchy of the most extremist Palestinian movements were talking to senior Israeli politicians.
The Israelis know well the Hamas leadership. And the Hamas leadership know well the Israelis. There is no point in journalists suggesting otherwise. Our enemies invariably turn out to be our greatest friends, and our friends turn out to be our enemies.
How terrible to speak with those who have killed our sons. How unspeakable to converse with those who have our brothers' blood on their hands. No doubt that is how Americans who believed in independence felt about the Englishmen who fired upon them.
It will be for the Iraqis to deal with al-Qaida. This is their burden. Not ours. Yet throughout history, we have ended up talking to our enemies.
We talked to the representatives of the emperor of Japan. In the end, we had to accept the surrender of the German Reich from the successor to Adolf Hitler. And today, we trade happily with the Japanese, the Germans and the Italians.
The Middle East was never a successor to Nazi Germany or Fascist Italy, despite the rubbish talked by President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair. How long will it be before we can throw away the burden of this most titanic of wars and see our future, not as our past, but as a reality?
Surely, in an age when our governments no longer contain men or women who have experienced war, we must now lead a people with the understanding of what war means. Not Hollywood. Not documentary films. Democracy means real freedom, not just for the people we choose to have voted into power.
And that is the problem in the Middle East.
posted by Hanan Elbadry at 4:14 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home