Reply
Mon 27 Oct, 2003 12:39 pm
In widely publicized criticism in August, the Arab League (22 nations, all of which are governed by monarchies, clerics or military dictatorships) charged that the new American-installed Iraqi Governing Council was illegitimate because it was not freely elected but consisted only of appointed representatives from various interest groups. The league's secretary general announced that Iraq's former seat in the Arab League would therefore remain vacant until the country has an elected government (which would then make it the league's only elected government). [Washington Post, 7-30-03]
Ironic, perhaps, but these other countries are ruled by their own monarchs and dictators--not a group installed by an occupying power. There is a distinction, no?
I'm not defending the current set-up in those countries. But let's face it, the US can hardly be the favorite outside nation among the Arab League at the moment!
That is funny, McG. In an ironic way, as D'artagnan noted.
Well, who knows. Maybe at some point, we will stop supporting some of those dictatorships (and other less malignant non-democracies) -- and the notion of that kind of non=-representative rule will finally be eradicated.
Although it should be mentioned that there are places in the world where an iron fist imposing a rule of law makes more sense than the kind of anarchy "imposed democracy" sometimes causes.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace