One of the greatest ironies of these strange times is that US President George
W Bush pleaded with America's North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) allies
on June 29 to pull his chestnut out of the fire, and save him from the
disastrous outcomes of two failed states over which his administration is
currently presiding: Afghanistan and Iraq.
Bush knows the chances of his reelection in November depend to some extent on
the Iraq situation, which continues to be engulfed in violence. At the same
time, the awesome task of rebuilding Afghanistan is running into serious dead
ends, and even the involvement of 6,500 NATO forces cannot seem to help. The
all-powerful American military has not been able to bring the peace and
stability to Iraq or Afghanistan, denying Bush the chance to present them as
"trophies" to the American people to help him earn a second term in the White
House. Even his diplomatic endeavors could not persuade NATO members at the
recent Istanbul summit to commit troops in Iraq - instead they will help with
training and equipping local troops.
Afghanistan interim President Hamid Karzai - who is pejoratively described as
the "mayor" of Kabul - showed up at the Istanbul meeting to plead for an
additional 2,200 NATO troopsto be sent to all areas of Afghanistan,
not just to the north. Elections in the country have already been rescheduled
from June to September to October of this year, and the Istanbul impasse
further muddied the timetable for the vote designed to anchor Afghanistan's
recovery from decades of war.
Meanwhile, increased attacks by Taliban, al-Qaeda and Afghan resistance forces
threaten to derail the elections. United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan's
special representative, Jean Arnault, has warned that a further postponement of
the elections may be warranted due to the deteriorating security situation. In
fact, the world body will make a final decision on the timing of the polls
later this month.
While in Istanbul, Karzai sounded desperate. "I would like you to please
hurry," he urged. "Come sooner than September and provide the Afghan men and
women with the chance to vote freely, without fear, without coercion." His
speech met with polite applause but no commitment.
In the midst of these depressing developments, Bush decided to change the
subject in his speech at the NATO summit. He said "freedom is the future of the
Middle East" and that Islamic countries need not fear the spread of democracy.
Even his regular use of the word "freedom" raises hackles in the Middle East,
since it is a throwback word. a reminding of the enslaved polities under
communism. Middle Eastern countries are mostly ruled by authoritarian regimes
that are harsh in their rule. However, those who are being ruled - as much as
they might want a participatory system for their countries - do not envision
themselves as enslaved masses a la their counterparts of the communist
polities. More to the point, the exhortation for democracy from an American
president who has been so consistently one-sided on the Palestine-Israeli
conflict sounds disingenuous and hypocritical to Arab people.
Here is an American president who told the Palestinians about two years ago
that if they wanted American support and economic assistance, they had better
elect someone other than Yasser Arafat. Today, Arafat - a democratically
elected leader of the Palestinian people - is under virtual house arrest under
the regime of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, whom Bush has referred to as
a "man of peace". The continued isolation of Arafat by the US and Israel has
yet to produce another legitimate leader in the occupied territory. President
Jacques Chirac of France reminded the American president during the Istanbul
summit of that reality when he said, "People can have whatever opinion they
like of President Arafat or any other president. But legitimacy cannot be
contested if a different legitimacy is not proposed."
Those who are desirous of democracy in the Middle East are not exactly elated
that Bush - a much-hated person in that part of the world - is making an
argument for it. Viewed from the Middle East, even two years after the fall of
the Taliban, democracy is far from becoming a reality in Afghanistan. Iraq does
not look too promising either. Besides, many in the Arab world are fully aware
of the selective exhortation for democracy on the part of the current Bush
administration. This is the same administration that continues to support some
of the worst tyrants in the world of Islam, in Central Asia.
Bush is also wrong in stating that Islamic countries "fear" democracy. This
alleged fear of democracy in Islamic countries is not on the part of the
masses. Rather, it is on the part of the rulers, most of whom are the US's
long-time friends and allies. Bush is hoping that the "liberation" of Iraq is
but the first step toward the transformation of the entire region. However,
viewing what is currently transpiring in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, a potential
ouster of current regimes is not likely to result in a resonance of the slogan:
"let freedom reign". Instead, another autocrat is likely to take over. Only the
next autocrat is likely to be a hardline Islamist.
The terror attacks on the US triggered American actions that are beyond
anyone's control. The struggle within Islam has been almost a never-ending
phenomenon, except in the wake of American militarism in Afghanistan and Iraq,
militants are gaining popularity in the Muslim world at large. As an outside,
but a very powerful force, the US will continue to influence the world of
Islam. However, the sad part of America's involvement is that it is also likely
to influence that region negatively - ie, most, if not all, of its actions will
create anti-American reactions, defeating the chances of democracy, more under
the Bush presidency than under his successor's.
The current administration appears to have never bothered to understand the
Muslim predicament. Muslims want a good life as much as anyone else. However,
their greatest obstacle has been the absence of democracy, and their resultant
backwardness in the realm of economic development. The US has always been a
supporter of the anti-democratic status quo in the world of Islam. Only since
September 11 has it, rather haphazardly and inconsistently, decided to become
an advocate for democracy. However, for Muslims, Afghanistan and Iraq are as
much reminders of the American failure to implement democracy, as the Islamic
republics in Iran, Pakistan and Sudan are arguments against the establishment
of Islamic rule anywhere else.
Now the Muslim predicament is about how to create political systems that
represent the best of the East and the West. They know that their own
autocracies are the greatest obstacles in the achievement of that noble goal.
But America remains the second, but even more powerful obstacle in their path.
Ehsan Ahrari, PhD, is an Alexandria, Virginia, US-based independent
strategic analyst.
(Copyright 2004 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact
content@atimes.com for information on our
sales and syndication policies.)
