|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
American and Arab Youth Share Ideas
US-Promoted Reform: Genuineness or Rhetoric?*
(Part Two)
In
the context of IslamOnline.net’s coverage of the issue of the US
role in Middle East reform, we sponsored an e-mail-based dialogue
between American university student Benjamin B. Brandenburg and
Egyptian university student Mona Akil El-Kouedi.
August
28, 2005
Dear
Mona el-Kouedi,
Thank
you for your thoughtful reply. I will respond to your two major
objections. First, you believe that America did not make any major
shifts in policy, that the statements made by Mr. Bush and Ms. Rice
ring hollow because the United States still supports autocratic
regimes. Second, you claim that the US invasion of Iraq manipulated
its citizens, the world, and even democracy itself.
You
say that American support for democracy is hollow and that the
administration is still up to their dirty old tricks by upholding
regimes for their advantage—not for democracy. Allow me to update
you on America’s “hollow” efforts in the Middle East:
-
In
Egypt, they are pushing Mubarak towards opening up politics in
the coming elections (giving Kefaya [Enough] some operating
space).
-
In
Iran and Syria, they encourage democrats to undermine the regime
of the mullahs/autocrats while clumsily threatening punishment.
-
In
Iraq, they are attempting to give Iraqis security so that a new
constitution can be ratified.
-
In
Israel and Palestine, they encourage Israel’s
|
|
|
Saudi
voters, February 10, 2005 (courtesy of Arab News) |
withdrawal from
the Gaza Strip while letting Israel keep their biggest
settlements in the West Bank; and they demand that Palestine
curb its violent factions before the upcoming elections.
-
In
Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar, the US is hailing
the gradual loosening of politics without demanding full
democracy.
-
In
Jordan, they pressure King Abdullah towards modernity and
controlled democracy.
-
In
Kuwait, they are hailing the loosening of politics and the
emergence of the first woman minister Massouma Al-Mubarak
without demanding full democracy.
-
In
Lebanon, they praise the recent election and urge the new
government to freeze out Syria and develop into a liberal
democracy.
-
In
Libya, they hail Ghaddafi’s decision to abandon weapons of
mass destruction while urging US oil companies to rebuild
Libya’s oil fields.
-
In
Pakistan, they thank Mr. Musharraf for fighting Al-Qaeda but
admit that they can’t force him to shut down radical madrassas
and Islamist groups because he can’t do it politically.
-
In
the repressive Saudi Arabia, they welcome small steps towards
limited representative government but risk losing a strategic
ally because of their pressure on political and human-rights
reform.
-
And
finally in Turkey, they commend its ally for being an
example of how Muslims can elect a moderate Islamist government
that can work with the United States, join the EU, and partake
in NATO (see The Economist, July 30, for US plan of
action).
Now,
you may rightfully question US action steps in some countries (as I
do), but you, or anyone else in this world, will have an extremely
difficult time calling all of that “empty rhetoric” of democratic
reform. My dear Mona, America’s democracy campaign may be
strategically tactful in some countries like Saudi Arabia or Pakistan,
but for you be assured, it’s for real.
| Why
do many consider the overthrow of Saddam and the salvage of
Iraqis imperialistic aggression? |
You
also believe that democracy in Iraq is a “big joke” and that
the US is manipulating everybody, even “democracy” itself. Would
you say that to one of the brave Iraqis who live in danger because
they are working on the constitution that will give Iraqis liberty and
freedom? Obviously you think that the US shouldn’t be there in the
first place. I do. Here’s why:
Iraq
invaded its Arab neighbors, committed genocide of its own people,
sheltered terrorists, and laughed in the face of the Non-Proliferation
Treaty. The UN, embarrassed by this attack on its legitimacy,
created a sanctions system that we know now was pitifully corrupt. (In
May 2003, Saddam Hussein was due to fill Iraq’s position as chair of
the UN Conference on Disarmament.)
Christopher
Hitchens reminds us that, considering that at that time Iraq was a
resort for the world’s leading terrorists who could have safely
planned another 9/11, the world should have looked kindly on
America’s choice to make a change in the region, not just as a
belated vindication of long-ignored UN resolutions, but as some
corrective to the decade of shame and inaction that had just passed in
Bosnia and Rwanda.
I
am clueless as to why many think that the overthrow of Saddam and the
salvage of traumatized Iraqis constituted unprovoked, imperialistic
aggression and a false pretense for war (“manipulation”). Perhaps
it was because Bush decided to scare people into war (the WMD
argument) instead of enlightening the world about the consequences of Iraq’s
actions and the need for democracy. But that does NOT excuse those who
pretend that Iraq was no problem.
In
short, the alternative of doing nothing would have created a bubble in
the Middle East that would have resulted in more wars and terrorist
attacks. Security and expanded human rights—not democracy—are the
root justifications for the war in Iraq. Democracy is merely the
solution.
With
utmost humility,
Benjamin
B Brandenburg
PS:
Due to the length of my response, I have been unable to respond to
your question, “In your opinion, what should be the conditions for
humanitarian intervention?” Hopefully we can take this up at a later
time.
*****
September 1, 2005
Dearest
Benjamin B. Brandenburg,
Thank
you very much for your kind remarks. But, first, Ben, I wanted to make
sure that everyone is alright in the United States. We are all sad
here for Hurricane Katrina. Hope you and your family are fine and in
good health.
Actually,
I was postponing my reply till things get better in the United States,
but I realized that I had to post anything. For you to know that you
are having brothers and sisters here in Egypt, united with you in
humanity, I wanted to get across the deep condolences of all Egyptians
for the families of the victims and for the American people.
I
don’t know if it’s the right time to speak about anything related
to politics, but, anyway, this is life. I just have some comments on
your last e-mail. First, regarding the efforts of the United States in
the Middle East, I agree with you that the United States is
intervening directly and heavily in Middle East affairs. Yes, the US
is trying to impose certain solutions for the region; you have just
provided the complete description of the US mission in the Middle
East.
| The
Iraq war was a mistake. It had the support of nobody at all. |
I
am not denying that the US is doing all these things in the Middle
East. Actually, I was trying to prove it. The main argument is not on
whether the US is doing something in the Middle East or not, because
it is definitely doing something; the main question is, with what
intentions?
I
am not speaking out of the background of conspiracy theory, but, dear
Ben, as you know, this is politics. I am not saying that American
efforts are “hollow”; on the contrary, I am saying that they have
intentions, but don’t tell me it is only for the sake of democracy;
democracy is a means to an end.
You
gave some examples of the extraordinarily angelic US efforts in the
Middle East, but in your opinion what are the intentions behind such
great efforts?
If
these efforts are with no intentions, then they are irrational
actions, and if they are exerted with noble intentions—which I
really hope to be the case—then why is the US acting unilaterally?
This was one of the questions that Richard Hass asked in his book The
Opportunity. He said that the US needs the support of its allies.
So,
the war in Iraq, even from a theoretical point of view, was a mistake.
It had the support of nobody at all (except for Costa Rica, Romania,
etc.).
Iraq,
once more, was an episode of the US intention to restructure the
Middle East. The United States is in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and
the Gulf states (since the second Gulf War). We are now talking about
the United States’ physical presence with troops. Nobody can deny
that the US does exist in almost all the world, but to be a
hyper-power you must be there, physically, with your own feet.
It
is no surprise that the United States is now interfering with Syrian,
Lebanese, Iranian, Egyptian, Gulf, and Palestinian affairs to change
the map of the Middle East completely so as to acquire more hegemony.
By
the way, President George W. Bush and Senator John Kerry said in their
first debate in the last presidential campaign that Iraq is important
for the security of Israel. I was in the US at that time and I really
couldn’t believe it. They didn’t say that Iraq is important for
the security of the United States of America, but for the security of
Israel. Now tell me, if you were are an Arab and you heard this, what
would your reaction be? As a normal Arab—you are not a politician,
nor an intellectual, but a normal person that still looks at Israel
with doubts—do you trust the US democratization intentions?
|
|
| An Iraqi woman
mourns a victim of a car bomb (Reuters photo). |
I
said that the war in Iraq was a mistake; yes it was. Again, consider
that were are the same Arab who saw the American troops bombing
Baghdad resulting in about 100,000 deaths of Iraqi civilians,
according to the New York Times (October 2004), who saw the
American soldiers in Abu Ghraib, who see that Iraq now is divided and
is moving far away from its Arab identity (wasn’t this one of the US
intentions?)—after all of this, and more, don’t you think that the
people of the Middle East have the right to doubt the US intentions
when American politicians speak about democratization? I think that
the United States introduced a distorted version of democracy that the
autocratic rulers benefited from.
Well—let’s
talk more about democracy itself: What is democracy? And what are the
conditions for democracy to be achieved? I think if we can answer
these two questions, we may reach a conclusion on whether the US has a
genuine intention to achieve reform and democratization in the Middle
East or not.
That’s
all for now. Waiting for your precious reply.
Best
Wishes
Yours
truly,
Mona
Do
you have an opinion to share? Click here
to join our discussion forum, or e-mail us your comments at Middle_East_Democracy@islamonline.net.
Your comments are subject to editing and maybe used in
IslamOnline.net’s online or print material.
Move to Part Three
|
|
|
|
|
|
