The next US president may give up on Middle East democratisation, but we shouldn't. It's still our best hope
by Timothy Garton Ash
A central claim of the Bush administration's foreign policy is that the spread of democracy in the Middle East is the cure for terrorism. So what do you do when you get a democratically elected terrorist organisation? Ignore the contradiction. Pretend it doesn't exist.
In the past few weeks there has been something utterly surreal about the US continuing to allow the Israeli military to pummel Hizbullah, and kill women and children along the way, while insisting that Washington's purpose is to strengthen the legitimate, democratic government of Lebanon. Meanwhile, the Lebanese prime minister, Fouad Siniora, has been calling desperately for the one thing that the US and Israel have refused: an immediate ceasefire. And Hizbullah, which the US and Britain characterise as a terrorist organisation, is itself an important part of that democratically elected government.
So we must do everything for that democratically elected government except what it asks. We know best what is good for them. Whoever said democracy meant letting the people themselves decide? As Lebanon's special envoy, Tarek Mitri, told PBS, America's publicly funded broadcaster, on Tuesday: "You can't support a government while you're allowing its country to be ruined." Meanwhile, Hamas is not allowed to operate as the democratically elected government of the Palestinians. The Palestinian people spoke. But they got it wrong. They must have been misinformed. They must think again. |