Understanding
the difference between Iraq under Saddam and under the rule of Iraqis
is related to your question of what is “just humanitarian
intervention.” In two of my four responses to you, I laid out in
greater detail the reasons for invading Iraq. In short, there was
a security threat—a bubble ready to burst—that threatened
worldwide security. Second, there were the demonstrable acts (let us
not forget the Kurdish and Shiite victims of gas warfare) of a
dictator towards Iraq’s citizens, acts that should have never been
accepted by anyone. I would love to go into further detail, but we are
debating America’s democratic intentions, not the Iraq war.
We
are here to discuss the level of sincerity in America’s “forward
strategy of freedom.” I fear that the Middle East’s highly
educated and unlettered alike still believe that America’s democracy
campaign is opportunistic and fake, and that it is driven by a close
relationship with Israel, a dislike of Islam, a thirst for more oil,
and a readiness to back autocrats when this suits the United States.
While
there are very minor elements of truth to those claims (yes, we live
in a political world), the major motive is still a bit selfish. You
see, after 9/11, the Bush administration concluded that America’s
long-term security depends on ending the system of autocracy in the
Middle East, which, they believe, encourages terrorism. Call it
selfish if you may but there is little doubt that American influence
created conditions for reform.
It
was just after Condoleezza Rice shrewdly cancelled a scheduled visit
to Egypt that Mubarak announced an unprecedented contested election.
This allowed for Egypt’s first real civic debate. Future historians
will remember Ayman Nour’s stirring words on the campaign trail:
“I have toured one out of 26 governorates, and not one single pane
of glass was broken, so how come we have been told for 24 years that
we need riot police and emergency laws, that we aren’t ready for
democracy?” Although Mubarak took no risk to ensure his victory, the
winds of public debate have been heard.
Lebanon’s
dramatic overthrow of the Syrian yoke was only made possibly by
American steps to isolate Syria’s autocratic rulers, which was made
possible by the toppling of Saddam Hussein. Iraq, with violence and
all, is valiantly struggling towards a new constitution and federal
order that in sha’ Allah (God willing) will be accepted in a
referendum, which will ensure more elections and less violence. Palestine
is still under Israeli occupation, but, in spite of this, they have
elected a new leader and will vote on a parliament next year. The
rest of the Middle East has caught the stirrings of democracy. An
Arab springtime of democracy might not bloom in one season, but the
end is inevitable.
After
all, who wants it to remain the same? Those who’ve read the
Arab Human development Reports certainly don’t. I ask you, would
this condition have been created had the US democracy talk been
insincere?
American’s
democracy talk may partially be for security reasons, but America’s
history as the world’s first modern democracy demands that the
message be for real. I encourage the Arab world to look past some
of the actions of America and focus on its message.
I
end my debate with one final question: What does the United States
have to do to prove that its democratization intentions for the Middle
East are sincere?
Salam
Aleikum,
Benjamin
Brandenburg
*****
September 15, 2005
Dearest
Ben,
I
am writing you now from London. Guess what we are debating? Terrorism
as well. It’s everywhere.
First
of all, dear Ben, I am so sad for the misunderstanding of my last
e-mail. Maybe it is because we are communicating without meeting in
person. I think that, sometimes, when you read words, things become
very abstract and different from what they really mean. Or maybe it is
because I am not a very good writer.
Well—I
said that I considered what you said as racist but I didn’t say that
I considered you to be racist. I know this would be an unacceptable
accusation and I quite understand how you may reject it. When I said
that your statement was somehow racist, I, FOR SURE, did not mean that
you were so. I thought this was a political debate. I am sorry if I
hurt your feelings. I really apologize.
Although
you said that we had many differences, I tried, during this debate, to
impose provocative questions and answers so as to get the common
ground between us. To have a real dialogue, I think we must tackle the
most controversial issues, as I think we did. I think that this debate
has been fruitful because we represent the viewpoints of our peoples.
I am not generalizing, but it’s somehow true.
If
you want me to agree with the American-led democratization process so
as to be well-educated and liberal, then I don't think that we will be
making a real debate. I can write you a poem about American democracy,
but here on the Arab street, as I said, we can hardly feel it with
American troops everywhere in the region.
| I can write you a poem about American democracy, but here on the Arab street we can hardly feel it. |
Having
some differences in opinion, I think, doesn’t mean that we have to
close the debate. On the contrary, I think it aims at having another
starting point. That’s why I asked the question about humanitarian
intervention. I thought that out of it we could realize our common
ground. But, Ben, without having the confidence to express our major,
major differences, I think we won’t reach a real common ground.
The
question you asked is very broad. I think it should come after many
other questions—that’s if we really want to reach a common ground.
But
if you want an instant answer for your question, I would say that the
United States and others should respect the peoples’ capacities in
achieving democracy. I know that this is quite a short answer, but, as
I told you, this question can’t be asked without many others come
first. We have to ask the first question first, I guess.
Regarding
your remarks on the Egyptian election, I would certainly love to
debate this issue. I will e-mail you once I return back home in
sha’ Allah.
Thank
you very, very much, Ben, for your important comments. I think they
gave me clear ideas of how Americans view their work and ours.
Hope
to continue our debates.
Best
wishes.
Thanks
so much, IslamOnline.
Yours,
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.
