Vis a vis Lebanon, this is a classic example of the Bush administration taking credit for something that has nothing to do with them. What democracy initiatives has Bush brought about in Syria? What, specifically, has he done to help democracy in Syria? Apart from rhetoric: nothing (see the current Juan Cole column http://www.juancole.com).

This is not to say that movements in the Arab world towards democracy are not welcome, but the current wave of democracy predates Bush and has nothing to do with him. Genuine moves towards Arab democracy in, for example, Djibouti or Comoros, are ignored because they don’t fit into the ‘we are bringing democracy to the darkies’ paradigm (be honest: had you actually heard of Djibouti or Comoros before this post? Could you find them on the map? That’s an indication of how much the West, and the Western media, cares about Arabs, and Arab democracy).

‘Only weeks ago Cairo jailed Ayman Nour, a charismatic young MP who had just launched a new liberal party. The only real grassroots movement in Egypt, the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood, is illegal. Mr Mubarak likes to tell visitors that Egypt is not Scandinavia. Let us first build the middle classes, he argues, then we will have some liberals to liberalise with. This is bogus. In the course of suppressing an episodic Islamist insurgency he has laid waste to the entire political spectrum, leaving his opponents only the mosque as a rallying point and abetting a creeping theocracy.’

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/aaf3ae7a-89f6-11d9-aa18-00000e2511c8.html

‘Mubarak (a former military officer who, since 1981, has been “elected” four times without opposition) said nothing about ending his government’s detention of the most likely challenger for the presidency, Ayman Nour. Nor did he say that Egypt’s largely state-controlled media would grant access to opposition candidates or that they would be allowed to hold public rallies.

Furthermore, it appears the only parties that will be allowed to nominate candidates will be those the parliament deems acceptable (Mubarak’s National Democratic Party controls 85 percent of the seats in parliament and the other 15 parties have no political power whatsoever). Thus it is unlikely the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood, Egypt’s largest Islamic group, will be able to participate for fear that if it gained power it would turn Egypt into a religiously fundamentalist state. What kind of democracy is that? And there’s nothing to say Mubarak, who is 76, won’t seek another term….’

http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050301/NEWS/503010342/1021

Mubarak’s move, mindlessly applauded in the West will change NOTHING in Egypt. Now that’s not to say that at some point in the future democracy won’t come to Egypt. It’s just barely possible I suppose as well that Mubarak (or, more likely, his successor) will lose control of the situation. However, rest assured if the popular will of the people is expressed and the Muslim Brotherhood swept into power, Washington will be there to make sure that the democracy train is quickly derailed (cf Algeria).

We have been here before, you know.

OF COURSE any move towards democracy is good. It’s also true that wars, by shaking up given situations, can lead (inadvertantly) to liberalism, although the price, frankly, is not worth paying. I mean I’m glad the Ottoman Empire collapsed, but it hardly justifies World War 1.

The facts, however, remains stubbornly what they were. Bremer did not want the elections we just saw in Iraq to happen. Instead this was an (awe inspiring and wonderful) demonstration of popular protest AGAINST Bush etc. Moreover there are similar forces arising in Iraq even as we speak. For example, here:
‘In one of Baghdad’s fiercest hotbeds of anti-American violence, something different is happening: Two weeks ago, young men and old walked down the street holding up banners protesting US military incursions. They used their mouths, not their guns….in January a dozen residents – a group of childhood friends – decided that people needed a voice for their political views and formed a nonviolent political group. While some residents remain skeptical – some are unsure of the direction it will take, others say that Americans will only listen to force – many hope this is the seed of a new movement.

“We want to be assured the resistance will respect democracy, rights of women, different religions. We don’t want types like Al Qaeda … and Saddam,” says Wahdi Nadhmi, a political analyst and professor at Baghdad University. “If the patriotic elements start a civil struggle, it will be welcomed by most Iraqi people.”

After Friday prayers, some 150 people walked down the steps of the Abu Hanifa Mosque and joined in a demonstration. They decried the entry of US soldiers and search dogs into the mosque a few days earlier.’

http://csmonitor.com/2004/0602/p07s01-woiq.html

THESE are the genuine seeds for Iraqi democracy but it’s preposterous to state that they arose as a result of the invasion: you think the Americans are happy with people protesting their occupation?

Incidentally, I have no problems with the ‘finger for fascism’ thing: I would happily have done it myself. To repeat, the elections were elections by Iraqis, for Iraqis: the americans did everything they could to stop them. The fact that the Republicans then went on to take the credit for this (and that some on the left believed them) is a sign that lying is so instinctive for these people they no longer know the difference between lies and the truth.

Incidentally I specifically praised moves towards Arab democracy in Djibouti and Comoros (and other places), but most in the West neither know nor care about who the darkies vote for in these ‘far off lands of which we know nothing’.

You probably wouldn’t even give Bush credit for orchestrating Saad Eddin Ibrahim’s release?

As for the Iraqi elections, how could Bush not get credit? He negotiated with the Iraqis for the best way to start the democracy, a compromise was reached, and it worked out pretty well. So well that the people of Lebanon have decided they want to rule themselves also. Or would you claim the Lebanese were not influenced by the Iraqi blue fingers?

Juan Cole spends a thousand words summing up the history of Lebanon, then this is how he describes the recent spark that ignited the current revolution, “The assassination of Rafiq al-Hariri, the popular multi-billionnaire Sunni prime minister (1992-1998 and 2000-2004), angered a broad swathe of the Sunni community, convincing them it was time for the Syrians to go. Despite the lack of any real evidence for the identity of the assassin, the Lebanese public fixed on the Syrians as the most likely culprit.” Why does that sound like he’s rooting for the other side? Or does he just mean that the Lebanese shouldn’t get hasty in their revolt before it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Syrian insurgents did the killing (cause they’ve never been know to do this in the past, right?)

I still do not understand this point. Bush was forced to have these elections: the original plan was for a stitch up. There was no compromise on that, unless you stretch a point and state that the price paid by Sistani was that the Americans get to stay in Iraq forever. This is probably not a price he is willing to pay forever, although he seems willing to go along with it for the next few months.

Given that Syria’s position vis a vis Lebanon is almost precisely the same as United States’ position vis a vis Iraq (oh come on….an army that was ‘welcomed’ by the people and which remains to ‘preserve security’ and which pulls political strings behind the scenes….the parallels are so close it’s embarassing), I could well believe that the Syrians are being inspired by the (peaceful) anti-Coalition protesters in Iraq. Or perhaps that’s not what you meant?

I’m sorry, incidentally, but you’re going to have to clarify your use of the statement ‘the other side’, usually used by the extreme right in the US to accuse (covertly or overtly) their opponents of treason. Given that Bush et al support Saudi Arabia, the most extremist fundamentalist state in the world, does this mean Bush, too, fights ‘for the other side’? Can we have him tried for treason?

Incidentally, you obviously have some information denied to the rest of us proving that Syria was behind al-Hariri’s murder. May I ask you bring this information to the relevant authorities as soon as possible?

You are completely correct, incidentally, that I would give Bush no credit for the release of Saad Eddin Ibrahim. Neither, seemingly, would Saad Eddin Ibrahim himself. Here is what he has to say about Bush.

‘Last month former secretary of state Madeleine K. Albright visited Egypt on a fact-finding mission for the Council on Foreign Relations. While there, she met with officials and civil society leaders, including an opposition member of Egypt’s parliament, Ayman Nour, who heads a new political party called El Ghad, or Tomorrow. In his assessment of the situation in Egypt, Nour was sharply critical of President Hosni Mubarak’s failing policies.

Shortly afterward—as soon as Albright and company had left—the parliament met in emergency session to approve a government-sponsored motion stripping Nour of his parliamentary immunity. Minutes later, as he was leaving the parliament building, he was arrested by members of the notorious State Security Agency. His home and party headquarters were raided and searched, and computers and many of his papers were seized…In the days that followed, the state-controlled media competed in denouncing Nour, calling him a crook and accusing him of forgery and of lying about the membership of his party. The state security prosecutor ordered him held in solitary confinement for 45 days…I was dismayed by the faint “we take note’” reaction of State Department spokesman Richard Boucher to Nour’s arrest and the trumped-up charges against him….President Bush has repeated that the United States will stand by those who work for freedom in their countries. Scores of courageous Arab dissidents have taken a stand for freedom, and many face pending trials or have spent years in prison. But the United States has yet to be heard from in their defense.

What we have so far from George W. Bush is fine language in his inaugural and State of the Union speeches. That message was loud and clear. The credibility of the messenger is what is still in doubt.’

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A15631-2005Feb10.html

However, you clearly know and understand more about Egyptian domestic policy and its relation to American foreign policy than Mr Ibrahim. May I ask you email him c/o Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars and correct his errors?

‘U.S. military commanders have ordered a halt to local elections and self-rule in provincial cities and towns across Iraq, choosing instead to install their own handpicked mayors and administrators, many of whom are former Iraqi military leaders.

The decision to deny Iraqis a direct role in selecting municipal governments is creating anger and resentment among aspiring leaders and ordinary citizens, who say the U.S.-led occupation forces are not making good on their promise to bring greater freedom and democracy to a country dominated for three decades by Saddam Hussein. ’

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A42905-2003Jun27

Of course if Bremer had permitted these elections to go ahead it would have been yet another sign of how wonderful the occupation was. Heads I win, tails you lose. If we are forced to hold elections it is a sign of how wonderful and democratic we are. If we destroy civic democracy it is a sign that we are being ‘careful’ in safeguarding democracy. And any variation thereof.

The salient point is that because ‘our’ motives are ‘good’ anything can be justified, and usually is.

Incidentally the president of Togo has promised to hold elections soon as well, ending his dictatorship. Perhaps this is becauase of Bush as well? Presumably he is inspired by the invasion of Iraq?

http://www.voanews.com/english/2005-02-18-voa66.cfm

“you’re going to have to clarify your use of the statement ‘the other side’” let’s not be childish, the other side obviously refers to the only other party in the conflict. Syria. He didn’t have to make such an interesting point about the democratic revolutions lack of proof. Why give it its own paragraph? I guess he didn’t poor picked on Syria to not have anyone to defend its credibility.

“the original plan was for a stitch up.” You have some information the rest of us don’t? You have the Watergate files proving Bush was going to ramrod in his own man? Because I’m thinking their is more quid pro quo surrounding Syria and certain dead ex-prime ministers than there is Bush and his negotiations for democracy.

As for Lebanon, that was my point. Until the Lebanese can call in the FBI and hold grand jury investigations we won’t know who the assassins were. But we all know who the prime suspects would be if there were a real investigation.

And maybe I should write Mr. Ibrahim. When he said “What we have so far from George W. Bush is fine language in his inaugural and State of the Union speeches. That message was loud and clear. The credibility of the messenger is what is still in doubt.” He seems to have missed the fact that a planned US increase in foreign aid to Egypt has been canceled by Bush at the same time Bush released a memo to Egypt denouncing Egypt’s crack down on pro-democracy figures. Ibrahim himself featured in the memo. So I guess, unless you don’t count cutting several hundred million in foreign aid, Bush only gave “fine language”.

You said “Neither, seemingly, would Saad Eddin Ibrahim himself.” But your excerpt of Ibrahim doesn’t have anything in it about him talking about himself. You are either mis-interpreting him, or he has just thoroughly discredited himself in the US eyes. For if he claimed that his new trial and subsequent release had nothing to do with Bush’s cut in foreign aid coupled with a letter of chastisement to Egypt that named Ibrahim personally, then he has a lot of explaining to do. Cause from over here, a whole bunch of convictions followed by an acquittal looks like something caused the government to decide it wanted an acquittal. Hmm, could it have been all that lost foreign aid? Or maybe Ibrahim was just able to come up with new evidence that he wasn’t guilty of making fun of the government?

That’s a good idea, Steve, but it was me that said it, not you. Why must you always steal credit for my ideas? Could it be because you hate America?