Particularly as, much of the evidence suggests, the people they turned in were almost certainly innocent of the actual bombing, which was carried out by our (at that time) mates the Syrians. The fact that Qadaffi was prepare to be complicit in a frame-up of some of his own citizens ought to have alerted everyone to the fact that our version of freedom was on the march.

I keep seeing this over and over again among left-wing commentators—democratization in Lebanon, Syria, Iran, or even Iraq is not the real test of America’s strategy. When the US gets Egypt and/or Saudi Arabia to democratize, then we can say that America is serious about democracy in the Middle East.

Your argument, John, is that these are the countries where the US has the most influence. Now, I can understand pointing to Egypt—the US sends it billions of dollars in foreign aid, after all—but Saudi Arabia? it probably wields more influence on the US than vice versa.

More to the point, why should American influence be the criterion by which to judge ripe candidates for democratization? Surely better standards would be (a) the awfulness of the current government (that is, the degree of improvement that democratization would achieve), and (b) the likelihood of democratization succeeding in the target country.

As I’ve pointed out elsewhere, Lebanon is under an extremely repressive foreign occupation, and has a democratic history to look back on. Iran and Iraq have had large, prosperous, well-educated middle classes on which to build democratic stability, and Iran even flirted briefly with democracy in the 1950’s. Meanwhile, Egypt and Saudi Arabia have zero democratic history, weak middle classes, and no substantial political opposition apart from radical Islamist theocrats. Why on earth would you consider them the acid tests for democratization?

hmmm … when WE get THEM. Interesting concept. How should we do this?

This has nothing to do with the U.S., I suppose.

Anyway, I think that American pressure on Egypt or Saudi Arabia without pressure from Europe (gasp!) as well would be next to useless.

AFAIK the Syrians were close to the USSR up until the latter’s collapse—they weren’t “our mates” in the same way as, say, the Egyptians or (for a time) Saddam.

How does that relate to Iran? Iranians, with justification, think of themselves as the most advanced, educated society in the region. When they had a form of democracy and their neighbors had none, they could feel they were occupying their proper place.

But now, their neighbors in Afghanistan and Iraq are developing genuine democracies unlike the Iranian sham version. I remember reading the comments of one Iranian woman about the elections in Afghanistan—something to the PEASANTS have gotten democracy before we did!”

No people, no nation is at all happy about being perceived, about feeling backward. Rulers who lead a country into that kind of position tend to become vulnerable.

Well, insofar as I argued that pushing hard to democratize Egypt and Saudi Arabia as soon as possible is an unwise policy with a very low success probability, it doesn’t matter much what you think it’s an acid test of—it’s unlikely to be a good one.

Now, if your point is that the crude propaganda version of the Bush administration’s policy—”let’s do everything possible to democratize the entire Middle East right away” is unwise, then I’m happy to agree with you. Then again, the Bush administration’s policy in action is quite a bit more subtle than its broad political presentation. It also seems much more likely to be effective.

I suppose you could say it’s a matter of understanding the nuances….

This is correct, but it’s obviously open to the US and to the Bush Administration in particular to change this for example by seeking to cut oil use by the US and cut off the peddlers of Saudi influence within its own ranks.

That is, unless you think, with Michael Moore, that the Saudi “influence” is tantamount to control. This might be true, but I hope not.

I don’t see how reducing domestic oil consumption would significantly affect Saudi influence on the US, unless the reduction were so drastic as to massively damage the US economy. As for “the peddlers of Saudi influence within its own ranks”—I agree that there is no shortage of such charlatans in Washington, and the less power they have, the better.

But what does any of this have to do with my point that the Bush administration’s Middle Eastern democratization policy seems so far to have been very deftly handled, and to have achieved remarkably good results?

How about Syria (Syria proper, as opposed to recent events in Lebanon)?

Could I ask everyone please to ignore the rambling gibberish that fills the Western media about Mubarak’s ‘breakthrough’? Instead turn to the Arab press, where people have a much firmer idea or what these ‘reforms’ mean?

‘Most political analysts agreed that these requirements would make it extremely difficult for independents to run for president. Mohamed Farid Hassanein, a former independent MP who resigned from parliament last year, said the proposed conditions not only discriminated against independents, but would also unleash the floodgates of “bribery and kickbacks. Getting the backing of elected MPs and members of municipal councils means that candidates will have to spend money on bribes everywhere.” Cairo University constitutional law professor Tharwat Badawi called the proposed amendment “a sham”. He said it was “insignificant”, because it gives elected MPs in the People’s Assembly, Shura Council and members of local municipal councils an upper hand in the type of candidates that can run for president. “It’s a fact,” Badawi said, “that all parliamentary institutions and local councils are dominated by the ruling National Democratic Party (NDP), which means that the proposed amendment is just cosmetic, because in any case it maintains the NDP’s monopoly over political life.”

Badawi said the amendment would spur the NDP into trying to win as many parliamentary seats as it could, so it maintains the majority required to nominate its desired presidential candidate. “As usual,” he said, “the NDP will maintain this majority by rigging parliamentary elections, and using the Interior Ministry to manipulate [the situation] in its favour.” That was also why, Badawi said, the NDP was always so adamantly against any foreign monitoring of presidential and parliamentary elections. “They allege that this monitoring is a breach of Egypt’s independence, but the fact remains that it is an NDP manoeuvre [meant to protect] the rigging of elections in its favour.”’.In any case, all of those who spoke to the Weekly agreed that President Mubarak was the only candidate who could easily meet all the conditions stipulated by his proposal.’

For the Bush administration, incidentally, to take credit for the Palestinian elections is one of the most breathtaking acts of hypocrisy I have ever seen.

http://www.time.com/time/columnist/karon/article/0,9565,1034169,00.html

http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2005/732/eg1.htm

To those who argue that this is a ‘step in the right direction’ I ask this: say Saddam Hussein had promised ‘multiparty’ elections but in such a format that he would be guaranteed to win (which is essentially the situation here) would people still be mindlessly appluading this ‘democratic breakthrough’?

As far as Saudi Arabia goes, ignoring for a second the ridiculous ‘elections’, this article is worth reading.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0712-06.htm