          | |||||
      
| |||||
|
Editorial Of democracy and double standards
August 3rd, 2005 -- Surprise visits seem to be the stuff of American diplomacy in the Middle East these days. First, the American secretary of state paid an unscheduled call on Israeli, Palestinian and Lebanese leaders on 22-24 July. Then her counterpart at the Department of Defence showed up in Baghdad on the 27th. The contrast in the styles of the two officials is certainly notable, but apparent differences of approach are more likely symptomatic of the contradictions inherent in what at least purports to be the central tenet of United States Middle East policy, the promotion of democracy in the region. Of the tasks at hand for each of them, Rice’s were the easier — shoring up the Gaza disengagement business and giving a “shot in the arm” to Lebanon’s new government, even if the State Department was quick to make clear that it would have no direct dealings with some of its members whose politics are not to Washington’s liking. Donald Rumsfeld, on the other hand, found himself sharing the platform at a press conference with an Iraqi prime minister of similar political background. One moreover who took the opportunity of the defence secretary’s visit to predict that US troops should soon begin leaving his country. On that subject, the Administration appears to have bitten the bullet. “Insurgencies tend to go on for five, six, eight, ten, 12 years,” said Rumsfeld. “Foreign forces are not going to repress that insurgency. We’re going to create an environment so that the Iraqi security forces can win against that insurgency.” If the environment the US has managed to create in Iraq up to now is anything to go by, his words are unlikely to bring much comfort to the country’s beleaguered population. Asked about negotiations rumoured to have taken place between US officials and Iraqi insurgents, Rumsfeld said such meetings go on “all the time”, but he added — in his inimitable style — that “no one’s negotiating with the people that are chopping people’s heads off”. Rumsfeld arrived in Baghdad from Kyrgyzstan, where the US has use of a military base for its forces in Afghanistan. A few days after he left, the US suffered a setback when the government of neighbouring Uzbekistan ordered US forces to relinquish the base they have been using there. Relations between Washington and Tashkent have been deteriorating rapidly since Uzbek security forces brutally suppressed a rebellion in Andizhan in May, reportedly killing some 800 people. Originally muted American criticism has turned sharper of late. The final straw for the Uzbek government reportedly came when Rice intervened to ensure that Kyrgyzstan did not deport 29 Uzbek refugees wanted by Tashkent for their part in the uprising. The Pentagon was given 180 days to quit the base at Khanabad. While perhaps of minor logistic importance, the loss of the base is rather more significance in geopolitical terms, with clear implications of Chinese and Russian influence being reasserted in a region into which the US appeared to have made very significant inroads in 2001. One country which might feel slightly better off with American military bases in one fewer of its immediate neighbours is Iran. Like Lebanon, it too has just seen a vibrant election campaign. Like Iraq, its political leaders are Shi’ite Islamists of one kind or another. Like Israel, say, or India, Pakistan or North Korea, it wants to develop nuclear power. Unlike them, it is a signatory of the Non-Proliferation Treaty, prepared to cooperate with the International Atomic Energy Agency and open up its facilities to that body’s inspectors. Iran, it seems, has rather more respect for the NPT than does the US. John Bolton’s reward for trying to undermine it and a number of other international instruments and institutions is to be made America’s ambassador to the UN. Which brings us back to that central tenet of US policy. Democracy is all well and good when the right side wins. Iraq may be allowed to be exceptional because the US has no choice there, but neither Ahmadinejad in Iran nor Hizbullah in Lebanon nor Hamas in Palestine are on the right side as far as the US is concerned. While Condoleezza Rice may have the diplomatic skill to enable Washington to pull off the feat of keeping its allies supportive of this “dual standards” approach, especially given that some of them share it, the sheer clumsiness of John Bolton’s approach can only drive them away. |
| ||||
|
WHAT'S NEW? | ABOUT MEI | WHO'S WHO? | SUBSCRIPTIONS GET NEWS BY E-MAIL | FOR WEBMASTERS | LINKS | CONTACT MEI
All content ©1971-2004 Middle East International. Middle East International magazine, 1 Gough Square, London EC4A 3DE, UK. Tel: +44-207-832-1330 | Fax:+44-207-832-1339 | E-mail  | |||||
