Monday, January 30, 2006
Democracy in the Middle East
There are two developing crises in the middle east right now. The first is Iran's nuclear programme. The second is Hamas being democratically elected to take over the Palistinian Authority.
The Wests position on both situations is rather predictable. Iran should not be able to persue nuclear technology at all, since it's leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, called for the destruction of Israel.
An interesting point to note about Ahmadinejad: although Iran has had democratic elections for some years now, Ahmadinejad was the first elected President that wasn't backed (read: selected) by the religious clerics who ACTUALLY rule the country. His election platforms were to have less relations with the West, the destruction of Israel, and wider distribution of Iran's oil wealth amongst the lower class. It was a fairly centrist platform (relatively speaking, of course). Once elected however, he found out quickly that his ideas were deeply divisive amongst the population, and he couldn't gather any "political capital" for his agenda. Until the nuclear programme controversy. Ahmadinejad is a strong believer in Irans right, as a sovereign nation, to nuclear energy. This has been a strong belief of the Muslim clerics in Iran for many years, so they started to love him for it. He coupled this stance with a bunch of anti-Israeli rhetoric, and almost over-night, he had won the support back of the populace.
Similarly, the west is none to happy with the election of Hamas in Palestine, a group who been a major supporter of terror attacks in Israel, and throughout the middle east. They also included the destruction of Israel, as one of the key points in their election campaign. The concern with Hamas is that their legions of suicide bombers, who previously were viewed as terrorist extermists, may now gain international credibility, and the fact that the Palistinians have given the group a pretty clear "mandate". And just as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's election had added legitimacy, not being supported by the clerics; Hamas' election also was given added credibility since it was the first time the uber-corrupt Fatah group had been defeated, and by a wide margain to boot.
The way that the west deals with these two situations, will have serious implications for the future. The West is finally seeing its "dream" of democracy in the middle east come to fruition, but the results are less than ideal. Realistically the prospect of any country in the middle east electing a pro-west government, democratically, is highly unlikely. The Wests ability to maintain peaceful relations with these new governments', is and will continue to be, tested regularly. Even the infallible George W. Bush is having his doubts about the situation. Remarkably, rather than denouncing the legitimacy of the terrorist organization, he's given them the option of disarming, and having diplomatic relations! This is an unusually weak position for ol' W. He's even defended the Palistinian people for electing Hamas, using the corruption of Fatah as the basis for that argument. It goes to show that for once in the idiots life, he's walking the walk AND talking the talk (for the time being, anyway).
The next several weeks should be very interesting to see how this plays out. If there is a workaround to get Iran its nuclear energy, while at the same time keeping nuclear weapons technology out of their hands, I think it would be a victory for both sides. Likewise in Palestine. If the West does try to issolate Hamas, I can see nothing but bad things happening. The Palestinians are not accustomed to the PA doing any good for them. For many years under Fatah, the PA was about as corrupt a group as there is in politics. This was a major reason why Hamas was elected. However, if Western aid is cut off, and the people's needs are not being met, its unlikely they would revolt against their own government, but much more likely attack Israel.
The manner in which western nations handle these two incidents could have implications for years to come, in regards to middle eastern countries adopting democratic forms of government. If these two governments end up being internationally isolated from the rest of the world, many middle eastern nations will see democracy to be incompatible with their way of life. It could also have nasty implications in countries that are just begining to adopt democracy, like Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, amongst others.
All good democracies have growing pains. Its a matter of fact. The United States had their Revolution. We in Canada were consumed with rebellions in the early years of confederation. First in Lower Canada, then Upper Canada, and the final rebellion with Louis Riel out in Manitoba. I could go on and on. Canada to this day, almost 140 years into our existance, have still not quite got it down. Quebec still wants to fuck off into the sunset, and we, as a nation, are becoming more polarized politcally by region. Not to mention that Queen fucking Lizzy still has a goddamn veto over us (damn those colonial shackles)!
My point is, democracies aren't easy. They take a long time to fully flourish. But its this growing period that defines a nations character, and as such, its future. If Iranians continue to elect leaders who are hell-bent on the destruction of their neighbours, their future will not be not bright. If, however, Iranians realize that with the right to vote comes responsibility, their destiny will be their own to control. Same goes for the Palastinians keeping Hamas in check. I'm done.
The Wests position on both situations is rather predictable. Iran should not be able to persue nuclear technology at all, since it's leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, called for the destruction of Israel.
An interesting point to note about Ahmadinejad: although Iran has had democratic elections for some years now, Ahmadinejad was the first elected President that wasn't backed (read: selected) by the religious clerics who ACTUALLY rule the country. His election platforms were to have less relations with the West, the destruction of Israel, and wider distribution of Iran's oil wealth amongst the lower class. It was a fairly centrist platform (relatively speaking, of course). Once elected however, he found out quickly that his ideas were deeply divisive amongst the population, and he couldn't gather any "political capital" for his agenda. Until the nuclear programme controversy. Ahmadinejad is a strong believer in Irans right, as a sovereign nation, to nuclear energy. This has been a strong belief of the Muslim clerics in Iran for many years, so they started to love him for it. He coupled this stance with a bunch of anti-Israeli rhetoric, and almost over-night, he had won the support back of the populace.
Similarly, the west is none to happy with the election of Hamas in Palestine, a group who been a major supporter of terror attacks in Israel, and throughout the middle east. They also included the destruction of Israel, as one of the key points in their election campaign. The concern with Hamas is that their legions of suicide bombers, who previously were viewed as terrorist extermists, may now gain international credibility, and the fact that the Palistinians have given the group a pretty clear "mandate". And just as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's election had added legitimacy, not being supported by the clerics; Hamas' election also was given added credibility since it was the first time the uber-corrupt Fatah group had been defeated, and by a wide margain to boot.
The way that the west deals with these two situations, will have serious implications for the future. The West is finally seeing its "dream" of democracy in the middle east come to fruition, but the results are less than ideal. Realistically the prospect of any country in the middle east electing a pro-west government, democratically, is highly unlikely. The Wests ability to maintain peaceful relations with these new governments', is and will continue to be, tested regularly. Even the infallible George W. Bush is having his doubts about the situation. Remarkably, rather than denouncing the legitimacy of the terrorist organization, he's given them the option of disarming, and having diplomatic relations! This is an unusually weak position for ol' W. He's even defended the Palistinian people for electing Hamas, using the corruption of Fatah as the basis for that argument. It goes to show that for once in the idiots life, he's walking the walk AND talking the talk (for the time being, anyway).
The next several weeks should be very interesting to see how this plays out. If there is a workaround to get Iran its nuclear energy, while at the same time keeping nuclear weapons technology out of their hands, I think it would be a victory for both sides. Likewise in Palestine. If the West does try to issolate Hamas, I can see nothing but bad things happening. The Palestinians are not accustomed to the PA doing any good for them. For many years under Fatah, the PA was about as corrupt a group as there is in politics. This was a major reason why Hamas was elected. However, if Western aid is cut off, and the people's needs are not being met, its unlikely they would revolt against their own government, but much more likely attack Israel.
The manner in which western nations handle these two incidents could have implications for years to come, in regards to middle eastern countries adopting democratic forms of government. If these two governments end up being internationally isolated from the rest of the world, many middle eastern nations will see democracy to be incompatible with their way of life. It could also have nasty implications in countries that are just begining to adopt democracy, like Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, amongst others.
All good democracies have growing pains. Its a matter of fact. The United States had their Revolution. We in Canada were consumed with rebellions in the early years of confederation. First in Lower Canada, then Upper Canada, and the final rebellion with Louis Riel out in Manitoba. I could go on and on. Canada to this day, almost 140 years into our existance, have still not quite got it down. Quebec still wants to fuck off into the sunset, and we, as a nation, are becoming more polarized politcally by region. Not to mention that Queen fucking Lizzy still has a goddamn veto over us (damn those colonial shackles)!
My point is, democracies aren't easy. They take a long time to fully flourish. But its this growing period that defines a nations character, and as such, its future. If Iranians continue to elect leaders who are hell-bent on the destruction of their neighbours, their future will not be not bright. If, however, Iranians realize that with the right to vote comes responsibility, their destiny will be their own to control. Same goes for the Palastinians keeping Hamas in check. I'm done.
