[Peace-discuss] Promoting democracy in the Middle East

[C. G. Estabrook]

	Khaleej Times Online
	Promoting democracy in Middle East
	BY NOAM CHOMSKY
	4 March 2005

    SO-CALLED "democracy promotion" has become the leading theme of
declared US policy in the Middle East. The project has a background. There
is a "strong line of continuity" in the post-Cold War period, writes
Thomas Carothers, director of the Carnegie Endowment Program on Law and
Democracy, in his new book Critical Mission: Essays on Democracy
Promotion.

    "Where democracy appears to fit in well with US security and economic
interests, the United States promotes democracy," Carothers concludes.
"Where democracy clashes with other significant interests, it is
downplayed or even ignored."

    Carothers served the Reagan State Department on "democracy
enhancement" projects in Latin America during the 1980s and wrote a
history of them, drawing essentially the same conclusions. Similar actions
and pretensions hold for earlier periods as well, and are characteristic
of other dominant powers.

    The strong line of continuity, and the power interests that sustain
it, affect recent events in the Middle East, pointing up the real
substance of the posture of "promoting democracy."

    The continuity is illustrated by the nomination of John Negroponte as
the first director of national intelligence. The arc of Negroponte's
career ranges from Honduras, where as Reagan's ambassador he oversaw the
Contra terrorist forces' war against Nicaragua, to Iraq, where as Bush's
ambassador he briefly presided over another exercise in alleged democracy
development -- experience that can inform his new duties to help combat
terror and promote liberty. Orwell would not have known whether to laugh
or to weep.

    In Iraq, the January elections were successful and praiseworthy.
However, the main success is being reported only marginally: The United
States was compelled to allow them to take place. That is a real triumph,
not of the bomb-throwers, but of nonviolent resistance by the people,
secular as well as Islamist, for whom Grand Ayatollah Al Sistani is a
symbol.

    Despite US-UK foot-dragging, Sistani demanded speedy elections,
reflecting popular determination to achieve freedom and independence, and
some form of democratic rights.

    The nonviolent resistance continued until the United States (and the
United Kingdom, trailing obediently behind) had no recourse but to allow
the elections. The doctrinal machinery then went into high gear to present
the elections as a US initiative. In line with the great-power continuity
and its roots, we can anticipate that Washington will not readily tolerate
political outcomes that it opposes, particularly in such a crucial region
of the world.

    Iraqis voted with the hope of ending the occupation. In January, a
pre-election poll in Iraq, reported by Brookings Institution analysts on
The New York Times op-ed page, found that 69 per cent of Shias, and 82 per
cent of Sunnis, favoured "near-term US withdrawal."

    But Blair, Rice and others have been explicit in rejecting any
timetable for withdrawal -- that is, putting it off into the indefinite
future -- until the occupying armies complete their "mission," namely --
to bring democracy by forcing the elected government to conform to US
demands.

    Hastening a US-UK withdrawal depends not only on Iraqis but also on
the willingness of the American and British electorates to compel their
governments to accept Iraqi sovereignty.

    As events unfold in Iraq, the United States continues to maintain a
militant posture toward Iran. The recent leaks about US special forces on
the ground in Iran, whether true or false, inflame the situation.

    A genuine threat is that in recent years the US has dispatched more
than 100 advanced jet bombers to Israel, with loud announcements that they
are capable of bombing Iran -- updated versions of the planes that Israel
used to bomb the Iraqi nuclear reactor in 1981.

    It's a matter of conjecture, but the sabre rattling may serve two
purposes: to provoke the Iranian leadership to become more repressive,
thus encouraging popular resistance; and to intimidate US rivals in Europe
and Asia from pursuing diplomatic and economic initiatives toward Iran.
The hard line has already scared off some European investments in Iran,
for fear of US retaliation, reports Matthew Karnitschnig in The Wall
Street Journal.

    Another development being hailed as a triumph of democracy promotion
is the Sharon-Abbas ceasefire. The news of the agreement is welcome:
better no killing than killing.

    Take a close look at the ceasefire terms, however. The only
substantive element is that Palestinian resistance, even against the
occupying army, must cease.

    Nothing could delight US-Israeli hawks more than complete peace, which
would enable them to pursue, unhindered, the policies of takeover of the
valuable land and resources of the West Bank, and huge infrastructure
projects to break up the remaining Palestinian territories into unviable
cantons.

    US-backed Israeli depredations in the occupied territories have been
the core issue of the conflict for years, but the ceasefire agreement
contains not a word about them. The Abbas government accepted the
agreement -- perhaps, one might argue, because it's the best they can do
as long as Israel and the United States reject a political settlement. It
might be added that the US intransigence can continue only as long as the
American population allows.

    I'd like to be optimistic about the agreement, and leap at any straw
in the wind, but so far I see nothing real.

    For Washington a consistent element is that democracy and the rule of
law are acceptable if and only if they serve official strategic and
economic objectives. But American public attitudes on Iraq and
Israel-Palestine run counter to government policy, according to polls.
Therefore the question presents itself whether a genuine democracy
promotion might best begin within the United States.

     Noam Chomsky is a professor of linguistics at the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology and the author, most recently, of Hegemony or
Survival: America's Quest for Global Dominance.

    ©2005 by Noam Chomsky