|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
American and Arab Youth Share Ideas
US-Promoted Reform: Genuineness or Rhetoric?*
(Part Three)
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.
September
3
Dear
Mona el-Kouedi,
Thank
you for your sincere compassion for the victims of the Katrina
disaster. It is a solemn reminder that all humans, even Americans, are
subject to the laws of nature and in need of the comforts of a higher
power.
Your
last e-mail brought up the most difficult issue about America’s
mission to spread democracy. We both agree that they are heavily
involved in the region and that they are attempting to spread
democracy, but we differ over America’s intentions. We both realize
that America’s latest moves in the region are not “only for
democracy” and the mission to create individual liberty and freedom
for the Arab peoples, but we differ over US intentions. In other
words, we differ over the level of sincerity in US rhetoric about
democracy.
You
hold the standard Middle Eastern viewpoint that America’s intentions
are to increase its hegemony, empire, superpower—call it what you
may—and not to act for the benefit of the Middle East; but why would
the US invade Iraq in exchange for a loss in world prestige and
financial cost?
| America
is a supporter of Israel, but Israel has been a friend of the
US and democracy. |
You
claim that the US acted unilaterally in Iraq with “the support of
nobody at all,” but you have discounted Britain, Australia, much of
Europe, and many other willing partners. You claim that, had the
United States been in it for noble intentions, the world would have
backed its efforts. Take a moment to consider the noble intentions
that France and Germany had in striking down multilateralism—namely
a loss of US prestige in the world, a rise in their national opinion
polls, continual cover-up of illegal business contacts, and the
“noble” UN sanctions scandal. Which noble intentions do you
prefer? As far as I can tell, most Europeans believe that Arab
countries don’t even have the capability to create a liberal
democracy. America may be naïve, but it is not bigoted.
In
your view, Iraq proves that the United States speaks “empty
rhetoric” about Arab democracy because, according to both Bush and
Kerry, the war in Iraq was for the security of Israel, not the Arab
peoples. Sure, America is too heavy-handed as a supporter of
Israel, but Israel has been a friend of the US and of democracy.
(Palestinian refugees can turn on Satellite TV and watch Arab-Israeli
politicians denounce the government in front of the world in a fashion
that has never been seen in the modern Arab countries.) I am not
a supporter of the current government in Israel, but at least they can
evacuate the Gaza strip without resorting to violence.
I
believe the Israeli-US argument is usually used as a front for Arab
peoples and governments to deflect criticism from themselves. I
understand that many Americans (including myself) say that we have to
solve the Israeli-Palestinian crisis to build trust. But can
Palestinians renounce violence and accept Israel’s right to exist,
not merely de facto, but also morally?
The
100,0000 civilian deaths and the Abu Ghraib scandal you site
illustrate your point about the farce of Iraq and democracy. My
heart goes out to the victims. But your October 2004 NYT civilian
death estimate has been proved a farce (See 100,000
Dead—or 8,000). And can anyone in the world honestly
admit that prisoners in Abu Ghraib have been treated worse than they
used to be? Despite the dishonorable actions by American soldiers and
some government theorists, Abu Ghraib is no longer a concentration
camp with brutal torture and deadly murders occurring daily. No
one from Amnesty International or the Arab Street could dispute that
fact.
You
claim that the US introduced a distorted version of democracy that the
autocratic rulers benefited from. This is a very serious charge.
Please give me examples instead of mere claims! And please be
careful if you use Iraq as an example, for the last time I checked,
all ethnic groups (including the Sunnis) were struggling to put
together their constitution that included Shari`ah (Islamic
law) as the basis for all law.
I
only have room to give a rebuttal of your claims and I did not go into
a defense of America’s actions and intention, so let me close by
quoting Winston Churchill: “Democracy is the worst form of
government on this earth, except that it is better than all other
forms.” The point is that democracy is imperfect (as the United
States adequately proves) but it is still better than autocracy.
America’s
intention is to spread democracy in the Middle East. Its
intention is also to create a Palestinian State, save Israel, destroy
terrorism, and end autocratic regimes however slowly. Just
because they also have intentions for the latter does not discount
their intention to create a form of democracy that is defined by the
Arab peoples.
With
all due respect and honor,
Salam
Aleikum,
Benjamin
Brandenburg
*****
September
13
Dear
Ben,
I
really apologize for my very late reply. I was just stuffed with a new
activity that we are founding in Egypt. It’s a model Organization of
the Islamic Conference. I’ll also be traveling in a couple of hours
to the UK and then to France.
Anyway,
I had some comments on your last e-mail. I will try to be as concise
as I can. I will also follow the sequence of ideas in your e-mail.
I
think you raised a really important question of why the United States
would invade Iraq in exchange for a loss in world prestige and
financial cost. It would be amazing if you can provide an answer,
bearing in mind that the United States is a rational international
actor, isn’t it?
Your
words about the participation of Britain, Australia, etc. reminds
me of the Fahrenheit 9/11 movie. Really, what are the numbers of
troops participating in the war from these countries?
You
talked about the ignoble intentions of France and Germany, for
instance. Thanks for the very true description of their
intentions—undermining the US power, rising in national opinion
polls, and so on. That’s in addition to the United Nations’
ignoble intentions. I agree with you, but tell me why should the
United States be considered an exception? You perfectly illustrate the
French and German intentions in Iraq, but you deny the same intentions
for the United States. Here is a good question: Is the US an angel?
I
still believe that the statement of Bush and Kerry about the war in
Iraq being important for the security of Israel is very relevant and
dangerous. I am not debating the level of democracy that Israel has; I
am rather talking about the connection between the security of Israel,
the war in Iraq, the US, and the balance of power in the region.
I
am not talking about democracy here; I’m talking about politics.
More
importantly, this statement reflects some of the US INTENTIONS that
are, quite clearly, not noble. They said it bluntly: The war in Iraq
is important for Israel. It is not for the Arabs. It is not for
democracy. Do you need a clearer statement to illustrate the US empty
rhetoric about democracy?
You
said that the US-Israeli argument is used by the Arab people to avoid
criticism. Please don’t take the Arab-Israeli conflict as something
minor that is not worth mentioning. No, dear. Israel is a real problem
in the region. Don’t you think that the same thing is happening with
the American government? They are using democracy as a front to
deflect criticism, or to avoid talking about the issue in general, so
as to make it a second- or even last-ranked issue (I am only using the
notion of the American government, and not the American people,
because I can judge the administration by their actions, but I can’t
judge the people and I can’t generalize on them, because I don’t
know them all—although you generalized and used both the Arab people
and governments interchangeably).
You
asked if the Palestinians can renounce violence and accept Israel. Let
me ask you: By the same token, can Israelis renounce violence and stop
killing civilians, women, children (like Mohamed El-Dorra)? Can Israel
accept the existence of a Palestinian state? This is to show you that
the situation is not that easy, and that it is not a one-sided
process; you have to look at it from different dimensions. Please
don’t neglect the Palestinian side.
Oh,
I’m sorry if my number of civilians deaths is not accurate. You tell
me the number. It is not 100,0000? OK, tell me, is it 99,9999? Or is
it only 8,000? Remember that these records are of 2004; now we are at
the end of 2005, so don’t forget to add the 888 who died in
Al-Aaimmah bridge in Iraq.
| If the Iraq deaths were only 8,000, would this make a big difference? |
Tell
me, also, if the deaths were only 8,000, would this make a very, very
big difference? Aren’t those 8,000 innocent? Aren’t they
civilians? Aren’t they civilians? Didn’t they die because of the
war on Iraq?
You
also claimed that the prisoners of Abu Ghraib haven’t been treated
worse than they used to be. I really couldn’t imagine that you wrote
such a statement. Your words mean that what happened in Abu Ghraib
isn’t a big deal. The Arabs are used to this. They aren’t
Americans. They aren’t Europeans. They are just Arabs who are used
to such treatment. They must accept what happened as long as they
accepted it before. Do you think that this is an acceptable logic to
accept what happened?
I’m
sorry, dear Ben, but I may consider this as a racist statement. It
really hurt me.
Finally,
regarding the example of Iraq, once more, after the latest debates
about the constitution, do you think that it reflects the Arab Islamic
nature of Iraq?
I
really tried to make this e-mail concise, but it seems that I failed.
I would end my e-mail with the same question that I raised before, and
which I believe is very important and relevant to our debate: What are
the conditions for humanitarian intervention? When does a country like
the US has a right to invade another country like Iraq under the
pretext of humanitarian intervention and spreading democracy?
That’s
all for now. Thanks, Ben, for your kind e-mail. Regarding the Egyptian
election, we may discuss it later. I may not e-mail you very
frequently from September 13 through 25 because I will be in the UK
then France.
Keep
in touch.
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 Four
|
|
|
|
|
|
