US Middle-east Policy Shift (earthquake?)

mike65

US Foreign Sec Condoleezza Rice spoke of how American policy in the middle-east had been wrong since WW2.

"For 60 years, my country, the United States, pursued stability at the expense of democracy in this region, here in the Middle East, and we achieved neither," Rice said.

"Now, we are taking a different course. We are supporting the democratic aspirations of all people."

This will be met by the indymedia crowd in particular fashion ie scorn/cynical disbelif, but I think if she says it she does so with the blessing of the President of the USA and therefore can be taken as the new orthodoxy.

Now comes the hard part. Translating the words into maybe not so gentle persuasion in Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Israel.

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=17&article_id=16100

Mike.

Sand

I remember reading a thesis by some US military officer in one of the US armys online periodicals. He argued that the US shouldnt attempt to maintain stability, but instead to encourage change. He reckoned that the goal of stability wasnt sustainable and was politically damaging in the long run where stability meant siding with politically repressive regimes.

He used the Iranian revolution against the Shah as an example of where the US didnt do itself any favours by allying itself with an unpopular leader, ignoring the popular mood in the country calling for change and so on and so forth. It made sense at the time, and it still does imo - assuming those democratic forces are somewhat liberal anyway, if not an enlightened autocracy might be better than a sectarian democracy.

Its hard to say how vastly changed the US position is. Certainly they could have been more cynical in their dealings with Saddam and Iraq and just cosied up to him again - would have been easier. And whilst they have been stern about the Uzbek massacres, at least as stern as anyone else anyway, they havent exactly put enough distance between them and him, given they need the airbase they have on Uzbek soil for operations in Afghanistan.

And yet on the other hand, Bush has been hugely supportive of democratic movements in Eastern Europe, Georgia and Lebannon. And Iran too, but thats hugely counter productive, given the nationalist feelings most Iranians have against the US and their previous meddlings.

Hopefully Rice is not just chatting for the cameras - the US after all has always claimed to champion democracy. Hopefully theyre recognising that accomadation with dictatorships isnt sustainable or beneficial in the long run. Now if only the "international community" would follow suit.

Memnoch

mike65 wrote:

US Foreign Sec Condoleezza Rice spoke of how American policy in the middle-east had been wrong since WW2.



This will be met by the indymedia crowd in particular fashion ie scorn/cynical disbelif, but I think if she says it she does so with the blessing of the President of the USA and therefore can be taken as the new orthodoxy.

Now comes the hard part. Translating the words into maybe not so gentle persuasion in Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Israel.

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=10&categ_id=17&article_id=16100

Mike.

their actions however remain the same.

First it was conquest and support of their chosen regime's in the name of stability,
now it's conquest and support of their chosen regime in the name of democracy.

Only the propaganda has changed, their mass murder and pillaging for their own greed continues. I think someone should invade america and liberate it from it's tyrannical rulers in the name of freedom and democracy.

Nuttzz

Memnoch wrote:

I think someone should invade america and liberate it from it's tyrannical rulers in the name of freedom and democracy.

LOL, the saddest thing I have read here for a long time...please give us a link to the online pharamacy that you get your happy pills from.

/edit: try getting this on dvd it will make you very happy..... http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0053084/

the_syco

Memnoch wrote:

I think someone should invade america and liberate it from it's tyrannical rulers in the name of freedom and democracy.

No-one has enough nukes.

amazingemmet

Yeah america has the sick policy of if any foreign army lands on its soil its first course of actions is to nuke them

the_syco

amazingemmet wrote:

Yeah america has the sick policy of if any foreign army lands on its soil its first course of actions is to nuke them

Hopefully, anyhoo's. What else would they do? Ask them to leave nicely? Drop a a-bomb, h-bomb, emp-bomb, or carpet bomb the invaders' country.

Remember Pearl Harbour?

If some people think that the US should ask nicely, look @ France in WW2. You either stand, or lie down.

Memnoch

Nuttzz wrote:

LOL, the saddest thing I have read here for a long time...please give us a link to the online pharamacy that you get your happy pills from.

attack the post not the poster and please refrain from making veiled personal insults. Post reported

Nuttzz

Memnoch wrote:

please refrain from making veiled personal insults.

Veiled? I didnt think I was being that subtle..... I cant retract it now.

You do have however a history of "out there" anti american opinions (which you are entitled to) hence my comments

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=2692205&postcount=2
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=2692137&postcount=34
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=2893982&postcount=10
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=2848740&postcount=7
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=2774482&postcount=34

Memnoch

Nuttzz wrote:

Veiled? I didnt think I was being that subtle..... I cant retract it now.

You do have however a history of "out there" anti american opinions (which you are entitled to) hence my comments

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=2692205&postcount=2
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=2692137&postcount=34
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=2893982&postcount=10
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=2848740&postcount=7
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=2774482&postcount=34

Yes I have a history of opposing america's foreign policy, especially that of the bush administration. and i am very much entitled to have this opinion.

As for it being "out there" that again is a matter of YOUR opinion, or those that may agree with you on that. However..... that in no way however gives you the right to make insults the way you did, and it also happens to go against the charter of the forum.

mr_angry

However, your posts seem to have a history of being non-sensical, this particular one bordering on farcical. Especially since you were advocating the invasion of a nation - something which you seem to hold against the US themselves. Should some common sense invade one of your next posts, please let us know.

Nuttzz

Nuttzz wrote:

LOL, the saddest thing I have read here for a long time...please give us a link to the online pharamacy that you get your happy pills from.

/edit: try getting this on dvd it will make you very happy..... http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0053084/

Take a short ban for that nuttzz

Hobbes

I'm confused, stability for who?

murphaph

It's all a con from Condoleeza. The US government/military are willing puppets for the illuminati that really run the world. They are sh!t scared of Islam and any regime that doesn't play ball. They don't want democracy because it'll help the lot of the oppressed peoples of the Middle East. They want democracy because it'll make it easier to divide and conquer those peoples. Yes, I'm a nut who believes in the whole conspiracy theory/Bilderberg etc. thing.

Memnoch

mr_angry wrote:

However, your posts seem to have a history of being non-sensical, this particular one bordering on farcical. Especially since you were advocating the invasion of a nation - something which you seem to hold against the US themselves. Should some common sense invade one of your next posts, please let us know.

I guess you missed the entire political satire and sarcasm in my post

mike65

murphaph wrote:

It's all a con from Condoleeza. The US government/military are willing puppets for the illuminati that really run the world...Yes, I'm a nut who believes in the whole conspiracy theory/Bilderberg etc. thing.

He! You had me worried for a moment!

Mike

ps did you see tonights BBC news report, first of a few, from Malaysia and Ghana comparing the fortunes of the two since independence (re Zimbabwe thread) ?

murphaph

mike65 wrote:

He! You had me worried for a moment!

Unfortunately I wasn't being sarcastic. I believe there's a lot more to this world and the way it's run thsn meets the eye

mike65 wrote:

ps did you see tonights BBC news report, first of a few, from Malaysia and Ghana comparing the fortunes of the two since independence (re Zimbabwe thread) ?

Damn, missed it. What was the jist of it Mike?

mike65

Well the jist of tonights report was how the two countires had expolited a natural resource to very different levels of success - Ghana has an indiginous palm oil plant, Malaysia did'nt until they imported some plants from Ghana now the latter through capitalist methods has become the worlds largest processor/exporter while Ghanas palm oil industry struggles.

I just did some googling and have found the article which I suspect inpsired the report.

http://www.westafricareview.com/issue5/asare-wong.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4398537.stm

Mike.

Stabshauptmann

Id just like to state two things to start off with: Im pro democracy and an opponant of the USA's policy of supporting dictators and other puppet regiemes

Now for some input from the devils advocate

Democracy in itself isnt neccessarily a good thing. It is a system based on the principal that people make informed decisions in their own best interest and mutual interest out of respect for the community and the country.

These factors are not always present.

Secondly some examples, the Greek Senate stoned Socrates. The mob condemned Jesus Christ. The people of Ireland backed the FF 1979 economic manifesto. Hitler was democratically elected. (Im not ranking these mistakes equally wrong or in any order other than the way they popped into my head).

Finally; are we to believe that the US is going to sit back, watch democracy evolve without interferring, keep an eye on elections without supporting any particular candidates and then accept any result and do business with whom ever emerges.
This wouldnt just be an american policy change, its totally out of character for the Bush administration.

AmenToThat

If there were to be real democratic elections in Eygpt, Syria, Pakistan and mosy importantly and most definitally Saudi, hardline Islamic regimes would most likely win.
Pakistan has the bomb and Saudi has the oil.
I think all this talk of democracy on the part of America is just to try and legitimize the occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq as they know real democry in much of the Islamic world at the moment would mean far more serious problems for America than they have now.

Sand

If there were to be real democratic elections in Eygpt, Syria, Pakistan and mosy importantly and most definitally Saudi, hardline Islamic regimes would most likely win.

Almost probably true because all those countries are dictatorships of some form or another. Theres no freedom of speech, opposition parties are either banned or kept toothless for sham democracy. The only opposition network your average dictator cant tackle head on is the Islamic theologians, who then become the only available outlet for inevitable discontent.

Elections would only give voice to those negative anti-democratic forces so elections are the very last thing to be done when building a democracy. In Iraq theyve put the roof on before laying the foundations. The US would be well advised to demand the local regimes start working on the basics like freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, shackling the secret police and stop arresting political opponents on trumped up charges. Start opening up the markets and start investing in education to create middle class that will have an investment in a stable society and will start to demand democractic representation to protect it. Then youll get your democracy.

AngelofFire

The US would be well advised to demand the local regimes start working on the basics like freedom of speech, freedom of assembly

Pardon me for digressing from the topic, but did that apply to some of the dicatatorships that had the support of the U.S. over the years. America has one rule for undemocratic regiemes where its vested interests lie and another for ones that it dislikes.


Abacha, General Sani

---

Nigeria
Amin, Idi

---

Uganda
Banzer, Colonel Hugo

---

Bolivia
Batista, Fulgencio

---

Cuba
Bolkiah, Sir Hassanal

---

Brunei
Botha, P.W.

---

South Africa
Branco, General Humberto

---

Brazil
Cedras, Raoul

---

Haiti
Cerezo, Vinicio

---

Guatemala
Chiang Kai-Shek

---

Taiwan
Cordova, Roberto Suazo

---

Honduras
Christiani, Alfredo

---

El Salvador
Diem, Ngo Dihn

---

Vietnam
Doe, General Samuel

---

Liberia
Duvalier, Francois

---

Haiti
Duvalier, Jean Claude

---

Haiti
Fahd bin'Abdul-'Aziz, King

---

Saudi Arabia
Franco, General Francisco

---

Spain
Hassan II

---

Morocco
Marcos, Ferdinand

---

Philippines
Martinez, General Maximiliano Hernandez ---El Salvador
Mobutu Sese Seko

---

Zaire
Noriega, General Manuel

---

Panama
Ozal, Turgut

---

Turkey
Pahlevi, Shah Mohammed Reza

---

Iran
Papadopoulos, George

---

Greece
Park Chung Hee

---

South Korea
Pinochet, General Augusto

---

Chile
Rabuka, General Sitiveni

---

Fiji
Montt, General Efrain Rios

---

Guatemala
Salassie, Halie

---

Ethiopia
Salazar, Antonio de Oliveira

---

Portugal
Somoza, Anastasio Jr.

---

Nicaragua
Somoza, Anastasio, Sr.

---

Nicaragua
Smith, Ian

---

Rhodesia
Stroessner, Alfredo

---

Paraguay
Suharto, General

---

Indonesia
Trujillo, Rafael Leonidas

---

Dominican Republic
Videla, General Jorge Rafael

---

Argentina
Zia Ul-Haq, Mohammed

---

Pakistan

Sand

Pardon me for digressing from the topic, but did that apply to some of the dicatatorships that had the support of the U.S. over the years. America has one rule for undemocratic regiemes where its vested interests lie and another for ones that it dislikes.

Well whilst thats a nice list I have two points to make

A) What is the bloody relevance of listing nations that the US may have or have not supported* in the *past* when the thread is discussing a proclaimed and somewhat perceived *change* in the US dealings with unfree regimes? I mean if they hadnt dealt with shady characters in the past, how could it be proclaimed as a shift in policy? Its a logical neccessity that they have dealt with disreputable regimes.

Honestly, if you wanted to contribute to the topic - you could have raised Uzbekistan - where its becoming clear that the Bush administration cant decide firmly what to do, or even modern Pakistan which is a US ally in the region? I know Ive raised them already, but hey, dont let that stop you.



As for the specific section where you said the US has one rule for people it needs and another for those it doesnt.....welcome to cold war realpolitick. *Everybody* plays by those rules to a greater or lesser extent.

Is the US somehow morally responsible above and beyond all other countries for dictatorships in the world? I mean, 3 of those countries are European. Did other states in Europe not deal with them? Did France which will remind everyone how theyre the home of true democracy not support a whole swathe of scumbags in their (former) colonial possessions? As I recall, the worst US misadventure of the Cold War was rooted in French oppression of Indo-China. Or how about Algeria, ring any bells? On a broader note the European Union is currently - right now - trying to arm and equip the same government that turned tanks on student demonstrators looking for freedom in China. Maybe with European technical know how the regime will be able to finish the job next time anyone gets uppity.

The French are eager to talk themselves and their commitment to democracy up at every possible opportunity. Given their support for Saddams regime, which the Americans overthrew, then the US are in good company when it comes to national ideals not quite reaching the reality. Lets not even talk about Ireland.

dathi1

I don't buy the neocon freedom versus stability bull especially when it comes to Iraq. Gulf war part one gave ample opportunity to daddy Bush for the Iraqis themselves to overthrow the regime but it would have caused major problems for US interests in the area as the Iraqi people themselves would have been the authors of their own faith. (what's known as freedom)
Iraq today is a botched attempt by the same slime to control Iraq and its not going their way. Condi Rice??? At least the Nixon admin had some semblance of the real world about them this dunder head seems to live in cloud cuckoo land.

murphaph

dathi1 wrote:

I don't buy the neocon freedom versus stability bull especially when it comes to Iraq. Gulf war part one gave ample opportunity to daddy Bush for the Iraqis themselves to overthrow the regime but it would have caused major problems for US interests in the area as the Iraqi people themselves would have been the authors of their own faith. (what's known as freedom)
Iraq today is a botched attempt by the same slime to control Iraq and its not going their way. Condi Rice??? At least the Nixon admin had some semblance of the real world about them this dunder head seems to live in cloud cuckoo land.

She's an interesting read if nothing else....

Condoleeza of the Oil Tanker

Orizio

It all depends on the country in case.In Egypt,Pakistan and Saudi Arabia the status quo is wanted by the US.In Iraq and Afghanistan the US is bringing elections and some kind of democracy before the country is stabilised.Such a policy is doomed to failure.Both Karzai's government and the Shia led Iraqi government came into power in chaos,both are shown to be heavily dependent on foreign invaders and both are struggling to lower unemployment and inflation.

Both governments are attempting to govern ungovernable lands.The authority in the Sunni lands in Iraq is the barrel of a US rifle not the local member of government or the state local police.The authority in Afghanistan are the local unforgiving tribal leaders and the NATO and US planes.Whatever you may say the Iraqi governments power dwindles severly out east and north.Karzai has no power outside of Kabul,instead he is subjected to the whim of local tribal leaders,whose loyalty will change at a second with the right kind of bribe.

How can the Shia rulers get the nationalist Sunni to co-operate and join the democracy when the government is held together by violence and curfews and foreign guns?When this new democracy is creating rabid inflation,a poor quality of life,high unemployment and a complete breakdown of authority?How are the Shia in Baghdad and the south supposed to be enthusiastic about a weak government,poor electricity,poor drinking water and no end to daily destruction?What made the US think that a native democracy in Iraq was going to be supported when it needs foreigners that were behind the bombings of Baghdad and the cruel and horrible sanctions to keep it in power?The US was despised in Iraq because of ther sanctions,sanctions that killed 500,000 Iraqi kids and strenghtened Saddams grip on the country. Most importantly what made the US think a country united only by a firm hand,a country divided heavily by both tribal and religious,a country with a horrible infastructure,a country with one of the most bloody histories ever could be created into a pioneering democracy?The Iraqi and Arabic people don't see a great and blossoming democracy like those in the west but a weak and disastrous government that is failing to provide its people with the necessities of life.How can democracy spread under such circumstances like the neo-cons said it would?Without stability,extremist Islam and violence is growing.

Afghanistan is the same.Resurgent nationalists are growing and fighting.Poppy growth is getting higher.The government lacks power outside of Kabul,unless you count NATO/US guns and traitorous war criminals.Even in Kabul Karzai needs to be flanked by dozens of bodyguards before he adresses a crowd.Its the same story as in Iraq.Poverty,unemployment,weak government,extremism,violence,foreigners holding the authority etc.

If this was the plan for Afghanistan and Iraq,democracy before stability,then it has failed woefully and instead promoted extreme islam and a hate for the US and mistrust for democracy.Iraq was the wrong place to start and stabilty is needed before democracy.Thats obvious now.Not only has democracy proven itself oppressive and weak in Iraq and Afghanistan,it has failed to spread anywhere in the ME.So the neo-cons experiment has failed terribly.Stabilty before democracy.

The policy has now imo changed.Instead of attempting to embrace deomcracy wholesale the US is going back to its pragmatic cold war stance.Pay lip service to democracy and keep the strong men in power.Better the devil you know.The pushes for democracy by the US in Egypt and Saudi Arabia have been half hearted;the replies from those governments a mockery of democracy like Mubarak choosing who runs against him in the upcoming elections.Besides who in the US wants Wahhabists and Islamists in power in Egypt,Saudi Araibia and Pakistan?The US will change from embracing democracy to its realist cold war policy as described above,short term solutions for long term problems in the ME like in the past.And there right not to listen to the simplistic trash coming from the neo-cons.Democracy has so far shown itself incompatible and weak in the ME and extereme Islam is the entity most likely to benefit from a increased push for democracy.

Any questions?

AngelofFire

Is the US somehow morally responsible above and beyond all other countries for dictatorships in the world? I mean, 3 of those countries are European. Did other states in Europe not deal with them? Did France which will remind everyone how theyre the home of true democracy not support a whole swathe of scumbags in their (former) colonial possessions? As I recall, the worst US misadventure of the Cold War was rooted in French oppression of Indo-China

I agree France have an appauling record with regars to foreign policy, however many of this dictatorships that i have mentioned have gotten into power with the support of the US, Mobuto Sese Soko was put into power in Zaire in order to keep the commies out, and the overthrow of Salvadore Allende in Chile was plotted by the CIA.