US-MIDDLE EAST: No such thing as permanent friends, only permanent interests

By IPS Correspondents Reprint | | Print |

Att.Editors: The following item is by the United Arab Emirates news agency (WAM)

ABU DHABI, Apr 18 2003 (IPS) - A major United Arab Emirates (UAE) newspaper commented today on the current issue of democracy in the Arab world.

Under the topic – Universal panacea?", the ‘Khaleej Times’ said in part: ôIn democracies, governments usually reflect the will of the people. In authoritarian states, on the other hand, governments are often very different from the mood of the public, though there are exceptions. When such authoritarian states fall, either from external force or from an internal upheaval, the next battle begins – the battle for the hearts and minds of the people. Now that the war is virtually over in Iraq and the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein has collapsed, the US is gearing itself for that very battle.

ôIraqi political groups, some of which had been in exile, are meeting and some sort of interim regime will be put in place soon. Then, as in Afghanistan, a democratic election will probably take place. But this US ‘roadmap’ – to use a favored phrase nowadays – is not just restricted to Iraq. It apparently takes in the whole of the Middle East, if a recent US State Department announcement is to be believed.

ôThe announcement states that Washington will shortly disburse millions of dollars as grants to private groups working for democracy and human rights in ten countries: Algeria, Bahrain, Egypt, Iran, Jordan, Morocco, Sultanate of Oman, Qatar, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Tunisia.

ôThe inclusion of Qatar, Bahrain and Tunisia in this group is strange, though they are not likely to turn down a few million dollars coming their way. The first two countries are well on the path to democracy, with Qatar having Al Jazeera, one of the most credible media outlets in the world, and the third is a full-fledged democracy. There is little that they can learn from the US. Though the others could perhaps do with a dose of representational government and a greater degree of transparency, the point surely is that every country should have a system which is best suited to its needs, both economic and political. After all, it is the well-being of the people that really matters.

ôSome countries may benefit from authoritarian rule under a benign leader. Singapore had such a system for many years, giving the inhabitants of that nation one of the highest standards of living in the world, not to speak of an ultra-efficient government. South Korea’s economy boomed under virtual dictatorship, while North Korea’s economy languished – and continues to languish – also under a dictatorship. So it is difficult to generalize and relate political systems to economic and social growth.

ôThe US also needs to be reminded that its laudable concern for democracy and human rights has not exactly been consistent, given its history of cozying up to dictatorships, rather than democracies, from Latin America to Asia. Even Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, let us not forget, have been past beneficiaries of generous US aid and weapons.

ôDidn’t somebody once say that in international politics there is no such thing as permanent friends, only permanent interests?" concluded the paper.