[Mb-civic] Playing the Democracy Card

[ean at sbcglobal.net]

The following illuminates how serious American leaders have been about 
promoting democracy

***

>From Policy Planning Study 23, written by George Kennan for the State
Department planning staff in 1948:

"we have about 50% of the world's wealth, but only 6.3% of its
population....In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy
and resentment. Our real task in the coming period is to devise a pattern
of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of
disparity....To do so, we will have to dispense with all sentimentality
and day-dreaming; and our attention will have to be concentrated
everywhere on our immediate national objectives....We should cease to talk
about vague and...unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of
the living standards, and democratization. The day is not far off when we
are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then
hampered by idealistic slogans, the better."



http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=2268

TomDispatch March 17, 2005

Playing the Democracy Card

How America Furthers Its National Interests in the Middle East

By Dilip Hiro

The United States flaunts the banner of democracy in the Middle East only
when that advances its economic, military, or strategic interests. The
history of the past six decades shows that whenever there has been
conflict between furthering democracy in the region and advancing American
national interests, U.S. administrations have invariably opted for the
latter course. Furthermore, when free and fair elections in the Middle
East have produced results that run contrary to Washington's strategic
interests, it has either ignored them or tried to block the recurrence of
such events.

Washington's active involvement in the region began in 1933 when Standard
Oil Company of California bid ten times more than the British-dominated
Iraq Petroleum Company for exclusive petroleum exploration rights in Saudi
Arabia's eastern Hasa province.

As a leading constituent of Allied forces in World War II, the U.S. got
its break in Iran after the occupation of that country by the British and
the Soviets in August 1941. Eight months later President Franklin
Roosevelt ruled that Iran was eligible for lend-lease aid. In August 1943,
Secretary of State Cordell Hull said, "It is to our interest that no great
power be established on the Persian Gulf opposite the important American
petroleum development in Saudi Arabia."

The emergence of Israel in 1948 added a new factor. Following its
immediate recognition of Israel, Washington devised a military-diplomatic
strategy in the region which rested on the triad of Saudi Arabia, Iran,
and the new state of Israel, with the overall aim of keeping Soviet
influence out of the Middle East. While each member of the troika was tied
closely to the U.S., and links between Iran and Israel became
progressively tighter, Saudi Arabia and Israel, though staunchly
anti-Communist, remained poles apart. Nonetheless, the overall arrangement
remained in place until the Islamic revolution in Iran in 1979.

Besides pursuing the common aim of countering Soviet advances in the
region overtly and covertly, each member of this troika had a special
function. Being contiguous with the Soviet Union, Iran under the Shah
helped the Pentagon by providing it with military bases. By inflicting a
lightning defeat on Egypt and Syria -- then aligned with Moscow -- in June
1967, Israel proved its military value to the U.S. This strengthened
Washington's resolve to get Israel accepted by its Arab neighbors, a
policy it had adopted in 1948 and implemented soon after, even though it
meant subverting democracy in Syria.

In March 1949, following Brig.-General Husni Zaim's promise to make peace
with Israel, the CIA helped him mount a military coup against a
democratically elected government in Syria. After Zaim had signed a truce
with Israel on July 20, he tried to negotiate a peace treaty with it
through American officials. A month later, however, he was ousted by a
group of military officers and executed. The military rule that Washington
triggered lasted five years albeit under different generals.

As the possessor of the largest reserves of petroleum in the region, Saudi
Arabia helped the U.S. and its Western allies by keeping oil prices low.
Furthermore, as a powerful and autocratic monarchy Saudi Arabia played a
leading role in helping to suppress democratic movements in the small,
neighboring, oil-rich Gulf States.

American clout increased when Britain -- the dominant foreign power in the
region for a century and a half -- withdrew from the Gulf in 1971. The
British withdrawal allowed the U.S. to expand its regional role as the
four freshly independent Gulf States -- Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab
Emirates, and Oman -- struggled to adjust to the new reality. But instead
of pressuring these sheikhdoms to institute democracy, Washington either
opted for secret defense agreements with them or let the House of Saud
implement an anti-democratic agenda in the region unhindered.

The Saudi Anti-Democratic Mission

In 1962, during a severe crisis in the House of Saud, Crown Prince Faisal
promised political reform, especially the promulgation of a written
constitution specifying a Consultative Council, with two-thirds of its
members elected. But when he ascended the throne two years later he
reneged on his promise.

Washington said nothing. It also remained silent when Riyadh helped
suppress democracy in neighboring countries.

After its independence from Britain in 1961, Kuwait acquired a
constitution which specified a National Assembly elected on a franchise
limited to males belonging to families domiciled in Kuwait since 1921 --
in other words, about a fifth of adult citizens. Despite its limited
nature, the Assembly evolved into a popular forum for expressing the
aspirations and grievances of several important constituencies. Stung by
criticism of official policies by its representatives, and encouraged by
the Saudi monarch, Kuwaiti Emir Sabah ibn Salim al Sabah suspended the
Assembly in 1976, accusing it of "malicious behavior," and then dissolved
it. Its revival in 1981 lasted a mere five years.

At no point did Washington criticize the ruler's undemocratic actions.

Since 1992, when limited parliamentary elections were restored, voters
have returned more Islamist MPs than pro-Western liberals. Emir Jabar ibn
Ahmad al Sabah's efforts to extend the vote to women have failed, while he
has made no move to extend the vote to the remaining four-fifths of adult
male citizens -- nor has America pressured him to do so. He and the
Americans fear, of course, that a universal adult male franchise would
bolster the strength of the Islamist bloc in the Assembly.

Bahrain: Limited Democracy Derailed

In Bahrain, Saudi Arabia's anti-democratic mission melded with America's
military needs. Bahrain became independent in August 1971. Its
constitution, drafted by a constituent assembly (half nominated, half
elected on a limited franchise), specified a National Assembly of 42
deputies, 30 of whom were to be elected on a restricted franchise. The
first Assembly convened in December 1972 while Saudi Arabia watched
warily.

As in Kuwait, however, the elected representatives criticized the
government, angering the ruler, Shaikh Isa al Khalifa. This -- combined
with pressure from Riyadh -- led the Emir to dissolve the Assembly in
August 1975 and suspend the constitution.

Once again, Washington said nothing about the quashing of limited
democracy in Bahrain. Why? In 1971, after the Pentagon leased naval
facilities previously used by the British, Bahrain became the headquarters
of the American Middle East Force. In 1977, the ruler extended the
US-Bahraini agreement; and in 1995 Bahrain became the headquarters of the
U.S. Navy's Fifth Fleet.

Jordan: An Election Law Altered by Decree

Jordan provides another telling example of how American administrations
have dealt with democracy in the Middle East. In an uncommonly free and
fair election in November 1989, the Islamic Action Front (IAF), the
political wing of the Muslim Brotherhood, won 32 seats in the 80-member
House of Representatives. It joined the government and ran five
ministries.

During the 1990 Kuwait crisis which culminated in the 1991 Gulf War, the
Jordanian king took into account popular opinion, both inside and outside
parliament, which was opposed to joining the US-led alliance against Iraq,
and advocated a negotiated solution to the crisis. By so doing, he acted
as a constitutional monarch.

Instead of praising this welcome democratic development, the
administration of George Herbert Walker Bush pilloried Hussein as "a dwarf
king." Unable to stand the pressure, King Hussein crawled back into
Washington's fold after the 1991 Gulf War. To thwart the possibility of
the IAF emerging as the leading party in the next election, he altered the
election law by decree. In quietly applauding his action, the elder Bush's
administration showed its cynical disregard for democracy.

Egypt: Supporting the Autocrat

While King Hussein manipulated the Jordanian political system with some
sophistication to achieve the result he wanted, President Anwar Sadat of
Egypt blatantly used the government machinery and state-run media to
produce a pre-ordained electoral result to endorse his signing of the
U.S.-brokered bilateral peace treaty with Israel in 1978-79 after he had
broken ranks with the Arab League.

The depth and durability of popular antipathy towards peace with Israel,
while it continues to occupy the Palestinian Territories, is highlighted
by the fact that a quarter-century after the peace treaty, relations
between the two neighbors remain cold. While remaining firmly under
American tutelage, President Husni Mabarak has continued to spurn offers
to visit Tel Aviv.

As in Jordan, the Muslim Brotherhood, the oldest political party in the
Middle East and long outlawed in Egypt, offers a credible challenge to the
semi-dictatorship of Mubarak (in power since 1981). His regime has
continued to be the second largest recipient of the U.S. aid after Israel
under both Democratic and Republican Presidents.

Several months ago, Mubarak mused that democracy in Egypt would mean
Muslim Brotherhood rule over the country. The key question now is: Will
Mubarak -- who recently agreed to hold the Presidential election scheduled
for September through "direct, secret balloting" instead of simply
rubber-stamping his sole candidacy in a stage-managed referendum -- let
the Brotherhood challenge him?

The answer will come in the wording with which Article 76 of the
constitution will be amended and passed by a Parliament dominated by
Mubarak's National Democratic Party. At present, it specifies a single
presidential candidate, endorsed by at least two-thirds of parliamentary
deputies, to be offered to the voters for approval.

Yemen: Rebuffing Democracy

Another victim of the way American administrations have placed their
narrow interests above any program to democratize the Middle East was
Yemen. Ever since the creation of Republic of Yemen, following the union
of North Yemen and South Yemen in 1991, the country has had a multiparty
political system. Indeed, since North Yemen had been governed by the
General People's Congress and South Yemen by the Yemen Socialist Party, a
peaceful unification could only come about through the creation of a
multi-party system.

In April 1993, the government organized the first general election on the
Arabian Peninsula based on universal suffrage. It was for a 301-member
House of Representatives and the Presidency. This historic event went
unnoticed in the United States where the Clinton administration continued
to rebuff the Yemeni government because of its insistence on an Arab
solution to the 1990-91 Kuwait crisis and its negative vote on United
Nations Security Council Resolution 678 authorizing military action
against Iraq.

Encouraged by the Yemeni election, six Saudi human rights activists --
professors, judges, and senior civil servants -- established the Committee
for the Defense of Legitimate Rights (CDLR) in Saudi Arabia. It demanded
political reform in the kingdom, including elections based on universal
suffrage. Government persecution followed, including job dismissals and
arrests. Prof. Muhammad al Masaari, the head of the CDLR, managed to flee
first to Yemen, and then to Britain.

Yet Washington did not protest.

Now George W. Bush loudly applauds the local elections held recently in
the Saudi Kingdom. His administration ignores the fact that only half of
the seats were even open for contest, and so distrustful were Saudi
citizens of their government's electoral promise that only a quarter of
eligible voters even bothered registered. Women were, of course, barred
from voting.

By contrast, Bush endlessly laments the absence of freedom for the people
of Iran, which his Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice recently described
as "a totalitarian state." These statements run counter to the facts.
Since the 1979 revolution in that country, the Islamic regime has held
seven parliamentary, eight presidential, and two local elections -- as
well as four Assembly of Experts polls – all of them multi-candidate and
based on universal suffrage with a voting age of 15.

What explains this blatant myopia? While practicing an Islamic version of
democracy, Iran is actively opposing the economic, military, and strategic
ambitions of America in the region.

Actually, the historic pattern of American administrations in the Middle
East -- downgrading democracy at the expense of narrow national interests
-- is in line with what the United States has been practicing in Central
and South America for a much longer period -- a phenomenon that has gone
largely unnoticed in the United States itself.

Dilip Hiro is the author of The Essential Middle East: A Comprehensive
Guide (Caroll & Graf) and Secrets and Lies: Operation "Iraqi Freedom" and
After (Nation Books).


-- 
You are currently on Mha Atma's Earth Action Network email list, 
option D (up to 3 emails/day).  To be removed, or to switch options 
(option A - 1x/week, option B - 3/wk, option C - up to 1x/day, option D - 
up to 3x/day) please reply and let us know!  If someone forwarded you 
this email and you want to be on our list, send an email to 
ean at sbcglobal.net and tell us which option you'd like.


"In times of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act."
   ---   George Orwell


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.islandlists.com/pipermail/mb-civic/attachments/20050320/34266ab0/attachment.html