THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

MOVEMENT TOWARD economic and political liberalization has slowed in much of the Arab Middle East. Saudi Arabia, awash in tens of billions of dollars thanks to high oil prices, has watered down or frozen the reform programs its spokesmen were promoting a year ago; some would-be reformers are in jail. Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak has appeased the Bush administration by casting himself as a champion of Palestinian accommodation to Israel instead of Egyptian accommodation to a free press or elections. The violence in Iraq has hardly been an advertisement for Western-style democracy, and the Bush administration itself has been modest in its efforts, dedicating far less funding to its Broader Middle East and North Africa Initiative than to more prosaic aid programs elsewhere.

Yet impetus for change in the region has not expired, as it did after the first U.S. war with Iraq. This time the pressure for liberalization is coming not only from Washington but from Arab business and political elites as well as common citizens fed up with their countries' stagnation and exclusion from the freedom and prosperity spreading elsewhere in the world. That mood can be glimpsed in the strong support among Palestinians for elections and for reform of the Palestinian Authority. It can be seen also in the rise of independent civic groups and human rights movements around the region, which have been gathering to draft and deliver pro-democracy manifestos and insisting that their governments listen.

Last week 30 representatives of civic organizations from 13 Arab countries met in Rabat, Morocco, on the sidelines of the first meeting of the "Forum for the Future," the diplomatic instrument the Bush administration and governments of other industrialized countries created this year to encourage liberalization in the zone from Morocco to Afghanistan. Media accounts of the meeting focused on the predictable rhetoric of Arab ministers who rejected Western pressure for change and insisted that the real issue was not reform of their monarchies and dictatorships but the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Such rhetoric, delivered by many of the same people, has remained unchanged at Middle Eastern conferences for decades, regardless of the situation in Palestine or the character of U.S. policy. What was new in Rabat was the presence of the civil society delegation, which delivered an entirely different message.

"The main obstacle hindering reform," said the civil society statement, read by spokesmen such as Bahey Eddin Hassan of the Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies, "is the lack of willingness on the part of most Arab governments to undertake real reforms." "Palestinian and Iraqi issues," it added, "should not be used as excuses for not launching reforms"; moreover, Western governments should "stop using double standards" in assessing "violations of human rights and democracy principles in each country." Instead, they should "relate their political and economic cooperation to the progress of reforms."

What reforms? The civil society representatives were explicit: "Allow free ownership of media institutions and sources"; "allow freedom of expression and especially freedom of assembly and meetings"; "ensure women's rights and remove all forms of inequality and discrimination against women in the Arab world"; and "immediately release reformers, human rights activists and political prisoners."

None of these demands will be met soon by Mr. Mubarak and his brethren. Yet the fact that their foreign and finance ministers were obliged to listen to them in the presence of the representatives of the world's richest nations -- rather than throwing their authors in jail -- was something new in the Middle East. We hope Mr. Bush will follow up his pro-democracy rhetoric with more money and more practical action in his next term. But even if the Forum for the Future succeeds only in perpetuating such exchanges, and protecting the civil society groups that participate in them, it will be worthwhile.

Oftentimes I scratch my head trying to make sense of some of the post I read and this one of them.

You responded to my other post about the US decision to not participate in any international court by saying that there was was worse people in the world. I said simply that anyone can find anyone worse than themselves and that is no reason to get away with lowering previously held higher standards. In this case abiding by some kind of reasonable rule of law of which in my opinion the US has not been of late. If the world's superpower crosses over what is reasonable then that leaves the rest of the world powerless to do anything about it and that is why it should be our obligation to keep ourselves from abusing our power. I think we have abused our power (as in being a superpower of the world) by invading Iraq for no reason and by setting up such an atmosphere where abuse was allowed to flourish in the prisons of Iraq. (redefining the geneva convention and stuff like that) We have abused our power by keeping people in jail with no charge and thus no way to ever defend themselves.

That bit about finding someone more nice than us is not actually relevant.

I read it and didn't choose to respond either as the whole premise of us "Americanizing" anybody is ludicrous. Democracy/freedom does not automatically equate with Americanization.

If, however, the French decided to finance, support, foster, protect, and encourage terrorism, sooner or later I believe they would be a legitimate target.

Echo what Foxy said. And I'll say it again: If you support the enemy of the US, you are not supporting the US. Period.

If you tell me you support the US, just not this administration, that's the kind of spew that comes from the mouth of Garafalo, and I find it specious.

Ticomaya wrote:

Echo what Foxy said. And I'll say it again: If you support the enemy of the US, you are not supporting the US. Period.

If you tell me you support the US, just not this administration, that's the kind of spew that comes from the mouth of Garafalo, and I find it specious.

when have i ever said i support any enemy of the u.s., tico ?? the answer you're looking for is "never", because i "never" have and never will. because i don't...

November 19, 2004, By Prof. Greg Palast
Monday’s New York Times, page 1: “American commanders said 38 service members had been killed and 275 wounded in the Falluja assault.”

Monday’s New York Times, page 11: “The American military hospital here reported that it had treated 419 American soldiers since the siege of Falluja began.”

That's right! C.I. thinks that only people that share his point of view should be allowed to voice their opinions and that only they matter. That's completely against what I believe America to be about. We all need to be allowed to voice our own opinions whether they are as extreme as Franks or as smooth as Craven's.

When I used the word "you," I was speaking in the broadest terms, not specifically talking about one person. I wasn't talking about you, DTOM, and certainly wasn't accusing you of supporting any enemy of the US. Sorry if you misunderstood me.

The Secretary of Defense cannot hire a single additional soldier or put armor on a single Humvee without budget authorization from Congress.

revel wrote:

The list might be "quite long" but in the list we were not
in any danger from Saddam Hussien and he was not doing anything that he hasn't been doing for a long time including the times that we were supporting him, so that excuse to me just don't cut it.

Remember it was Uncle Saddam who refused to cooperate with UN weapons inspectors and come clean with the whereabouts of his WMD. The actions taken against him were fully justified, regardless of the fact that large stockpiles of WMD were not subsequently found.

It was a UN resolution that required a full UN decision. The inspections had not even been completed when Bush and pals decided to preempt them and go to war.

revel wrote:

Again, Iraq was not part of our war on terror which commenced right after the attack on our nation on 9/11 of which Bin Laden and AQ started. The whole world was in sympathy with us then because we were in the right when we went to Afghanistan because the Taliban who was in charge of Afghanistan refused to hand over Bin Laden. ...

Why do you crave the world's sympathy?

I don't crave the world's sympathy necessarily. I was merely making the point that when our actions were just, more people were willing to help us when they were not just more people were not willing to help us. Moreover, when our actions were just then we in our country were all united in supporting it. There is not a presumed rightness to every action we do despite "conservatve a2kers" thinking it is.

revel wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:

I've been accused by some of looking at things "simplistically"; of having a "black or white" view. Okay .... maybe so. Depending on the issue, I often respond to such criticism with an equal amount of scorn at the nuance and relativism some try to thickly layer on an issue. The US is at war with some insurgents and terrorists in Iraq. If you claim to not be anti-American, you better be supportive of the US troops fighting the good fight over there.

In my view you have just crossed some kind of line that I am not articulate enough to pinpoint.

Well, if you find someone who can help you articulate it, let me know.

revel wrote:

At the risk of laying on the thickenss of an issue; lets look at it another way. Laughing

If an administration during some point in America's history decides that the french were just too tied up in the unproven allegations of the oil for food scandal and just generally too anti american and they have some known terrorist in their country so they are harboring terrorist and so we decide to invade their country and amerianize it because after all, who wouldn't want to be americanized and then there are those in America that do not support such action at that time and they voice their opinions, are they going to be supporting the enemy of the US and not the US? I think it is more like not supporting the actions of the current administration.

I was planning on responding to this, but upon reflection, it doesn't make any sense to me. Maybe you can rephrase?