Mohamed ElBaradei hits out at west's support for repressive regimes

[Moledet]

Exclusive: Ex-nuclear chief says west must rethink Middle East policy as speculation grows he may run for office in Egypt

Western governments risk creating a new generation of Islamist extremists if they continue to support repressive regimes in the Middle East, the former head of the UN nuclear watchdog, Mohamed ElBaradei, has told the Guardian.

In his first English-language interview since returning to Cairo in February, the Nobel peace prize-winner said the strategy of supporting authoritarian rulers in an effort to combat the threat of Islamic extremism had been a failure, with potentially disastrous consequences.

"There is a need for re-evaluation … the idea that the only alternative to authoritarian regimes is [Osama] Bin Laden and co is a fake one, yet continuation of current policies will make that prophecy come true," he said. "I see increasing radicalisation in this area of the world, and I understand the reason. People feel repressed by their own governments, they feel unfairly treated by the outside world, they wake up in the morning and who do they see – they see people being shot and killed, all Muslims from Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, Darfur."

ElBaradei said he felt vindicated in his cautious approach while head of the International Atomic Energy Authority. He revealed that all his reports in the runup to the Iraq war were designed to be "immune from being abused" by governments. "I would hope that the lessons of Iraq, both in London and in the US, have started to sink in," he said.

"Sure, there are dictators, but are you ready every time you want to get rid of a dictator to sacrifice a million innocent civilians? All the indications coming out of [the Chilcot inquiry] are that Iraq was not really about weapons of mass destruction but rather about regime change, and I keep asking the same question – where do you find this regime change in international law? And if it is a violation of international law, who is accountable for that?"

ElBaradei, who has emerged as a potential challenger to the three-decade rule of Egypt's president, Hosni Mubarak, said western governments must withdraw the unstinting support for autocrats who were seen to be a bulwark against extremism.

"Western policy towards this part of the world has been a total failure, in my view. It has not been based on dialogue, understanding, supporting civil society and empowering people, but rather it's been based on supporting authoritarian systems as long as the oil keeps pumping."

The 67-year-old added: "If you bet on individuals, instead of the people, you are going to fail. And western policy so far has been to bet on individuals, individuals who are not supported by their people and who are being discredited every day."

The popularity in the Middle East of Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and the Hezbollah leader, Hassan Nasrallah, he said, should be seen as message to the west that its "policy is not reaching out to the people. The policy should be: 'We care about you, we care about your welfare, we care about your human rights.'"

On his return to Egypt, ElBaradei was greeted at Cairo airport by more than 1,000 supporters, despite a ban on political gatherings. He has not yet announced whether he will stand in next year's elections against Mubarak, a key US ally who has ruled the Arab world's largest country for 28 years.

ElBaradei said western governments needed to open their eyes to the realities of Egypt's "sham" democracy, or risk losing all credibility in the battle against extremism.

"The west talks a lot about elections in Iran, for example, but at least there were elections – yet where are the elections in the Arab world? If the west doesn't talk about that, then how can it have any credibility?

"Only if you empower the liberals, if you empower the moderate socialists, if you empower all factions of society, only then will extremists be marginalised."

George Bush made the spread of democracy in the Middle East the centrepiece of US foreign policy, but the Iraq invasion largely discredited the initiative in the region. In a landmark speech in Cairo last June Barack Obama appeared to back away from his predecessor's aspirations.

"America does not presume to know what is best for everyone," Obama said. "No system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other."

The speech was largely welcomed in the Arab world at the time as a retreat from the neoconservative agenda, but some democracy activistsvoiced concern that it heralded the US backing away from the cause of human rights in the region.

Current Egyptian law effectively prohibits independent candidates from getting their name on the ballot paper, which has fuelled ElBaradei's demands for a "constitutional revolution" to make the poll free and fair. Analysts believe Mubarak, who is 81 and currently recovering from a gall bladder operation, is planning to engineer a succession of power to his youngest son, Gamal.

ElBaradei said he was not afraid of intimidation by Egypt's vast security apparatus, but revealed that several foreign governments had expressed concern about his safety in the country, following recent reports of his followers being arrested and tortured by police.

Speaking at his home, he said: "I hear that from so many different governments, people coming to me and saying 'you should be careful'. But I don't want to go around with bodyguards … people who are extremely poor and deprived are coalescing around me in the streets saying 'we need change', and I want to listen."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/31/mohamed-elbaradei-tyrants-support-militants

I don't like the Guardian or ElBaradei, but he's telling the truth.
Though, don't let it confuse you. It's Israel and the settlements that are to blame for the rise of terrorism in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, Darfur and Yemen.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

I have never trusted the man and I don't trust him now. I like how he's still able to justify the distortions he committed as a UN flunkie - because of course he knew better than the rest of us.

I wonder how he would propose dealing with these repressive regimes. Talking about things is great - as a UN do-nothing it's been his stock-in-trade...but that's not the same as doing something. Life is easy for people who don't have to make real decisions.

[SoSo]

Being an Egyptian, El Bradei presumably knows his people much better than I do; he has more eductaion as well, and I don't want to sound presumptuous. Yet I can't bring myself to agree with him. It seems to me that in a genuinely democratic election most votes would be cast by members of Egypt's large underclass, who are more likely to vote for the candidates of the Muslim Brotherhood (running as independents, as religiously-based parties are banned in Egypt) than for the liberal reformers El Baradei champions. The probable outcome? Increased civil liberties, respect for human rights, an end to harsh government crackdowns? More likely, the increased Islamicization (or should it be Islamization?) of Egyptian society, even stricter laws and more severe restrictions on personal behavior, the repression of ethnic and religious minority groups, and the deterioration of Egypt's relationship with Israel and the West. Sounds like a losing proposition.

[West Texican]

"George Bush made the spread of democracy in the Middle East the centrepiece of US foreign policy................ In a landmark speech in Cairo last June Barack Obama appeared to back away from his predecessor's aspirations.................."America does not presume to know what is best for everyone," Obama said. "No system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other."

In the middle east when it comes to the actions of the western nations it's damned if we do, damned if don't. Blaming the west doesn't solve anything. There will be no change in the middle east until the middle easterners change.

[S.P]

"George Bush made the spread of democracy in the Middle East the centrepiece of US foreign policy................ In a landmark speech in Cairo last June Barack Obama appeared to back away from his predecessor's aspirations.................."America does not presume to know what is best for everyone," Obama said. "No system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other."

In the middle east when it comes to the actions of the western nations it's damned if we do, damned if don't. Blaming the west doesn't solve anything. There will be no change in the middle east until the middle easterners change.
There will be no change in the Middle East until the west stops backing dictators like the Saudi Royalty, Jordanian Royalty, Gulf Royalties and the Egyptian dictator. Oil is king here my friend.

What i find funny is that you wish to preach democracy, well i'll bet that those in Washington are dreaming that Mubarak pass power to his son without elections. El Baradei may be popular but the Muslim Brotherhood is more popular. Frankly the west cannot accept a democraticaly elected Muslim Brotherhood In egypt or a democraticaly elected Hamas in Palestine as they would be against it's interests.

[Kilgor]

There will be no change in the Middle East until the west stops backing dictators like the Saudi Royalty, Jordanian Royalty, Gulf Royalties and the Egyptian dictator. Oil is king here my friend.
.

If the Saudi monarchy was overthrown, you'd see a collapse of the economy in days from skyrocking oil prices.

[S.P]

If the Saudi monarchy was overthrown, you'd see a collapse of the economy in days from skyrocking oil prices.
so there is a need for the west to keep them in power? If you agree then you are agreeing that it is the west behind all the other **** such governments do also since without them such things would not exist. Sadly you seem to think Saudi Arabia wouldnt export oil once Al Saud is overthrown.

[Rictor]

I have never trusted the man and I don't trust him now. I like how he's still able to justify the distortions he committed as a UN flunkie - because of course he knew better than the rest of us.

I wonder how he would propose dealing with these repressive regimes. Talking about things is great - as a UN do-nothing it's been his stock-in-trade...but that's not the same as doing something. Life is easy for people who don't have to make real decisions.

How about this for a start: stop sending billions in aid to an unelected tyrant who has been in power for a quarter of a century, who crushes any dissent and who's sole claim to legitimacy is that he makes the Israelis feel nice and secure. I seem to remember "democracy" being kind of a big deal in US government rhetoric, though clearly not in policy as well. And after that, how about maybe putting some pressure on the various oil sheiks to start treating migrant workers like people, not like cattle, or to update their medieval legal codes and so forth. Y'know, baby steps.

And out of curiosity, what "distortions" are we talking about exactly?


Being an Egyptian, El Bradei presumably knows his people much better than I do; he has more eductaion as well, and I don't want to sound presumptuous. Yet I can't bring myself to agree with him. It seems to me that in a genuinely democratic election most votes would be cast by members of Egypt's large underclass, who are more likely to vote for the candidates of the Muslim Brotherhood (running as independents, as religiously-based parties are banned in Egypt) than for the liberal reformers El Baradei champions. The probable outcome? Increased civil liberties, respect for human rights, an end to harsh government crackdowns? More likely, the increased Islamicization (or should it be Islamization?) of Egyptian society, even stricter laws and more severe restrictions on personal behavior, the repression of ethnic and religious minority groups, and the deterioration of Egypt's relationship with Israel and the West. Sounds like a losing proposition.


So people should only be given a vote if we can be fairly certain that they will vote the "right way"? Nice!

Am I the only one who's head is spinning from all the cognitive dissonance?

[Beholder]

Am I the only one who's head is spinning from all the cognitive dissonance?

Basic of democracy(current,not ancient greek) is human rights.Election is a process of peaceful transfer of power,nothing more nothing less.
If human rights is not respected,you can make free and fair elections and it still will not be democracy.
Before you start play with other peoples lives i suggest you make experiment.Go to some tribe who eat people and make there free and fair elections.Ofcource you have to live there in the process,including after elections.:)
So push for more human rights is good,elections can be bad,can be good,but you cant know without actualy visiting country.

[Kilgor]

so there is a need for the west to keep them in power? If you agree then you are agreeing that it is the west behind all the other **** such governments do also since without them such things would not exist. Sadly you seem to think Saudi Arabia wouldnt export oil once Al Saud is overthrown.

You dont understand the stockmarket. It wasnt stability and its based on predictions and herd mentality. Of course they will still export, but the scare will shock the system viciously.

[HellToupee]

Human rights has nothing to do with democracy, its generally just a natural result of allowing people to choose who leads, what human rights are is defined by those people.

The US would rather have a dictator in power that serves their interests with human rights abuses than a democracy with no abuses that does not, that is realpolitik

[Moledet]

There will be no change in the Middle East until the west stops backing dictators like the Saudi Royalty, Jordanian Royalty, Gulf Royalties and the Egyptian dictator. Oil is king here my friend.

What i find funny is that you wish to preach democracy, well i'll bet that those in Washington are dreaming that Mubarak pass power to his son without elections. El Baradei may be popular but the Muslim Brotherhood is more popular. Frankly the west cannot accept a democraticaly elected Muslim Brotherhood In egypt or a democraticaly elected Hamas in Palestine as they would be against it's interests.
Naturally, voting for a non-Democratic party in a democratic elections should be forbidden. If a party's wish is to abolish human rights and replace it with religious law and/or create a caliphate than naturally it should be illegal since it's against the very foundations of democracy. The point here is not having a single democratic elections that after it comes another tyrant, but a long lasting democratic process.

You can clearly see that with Hamas in Gaza, as they act against all human right laws and control through intimidation.

[Moledet]

Human rights has nothing to do with democracy, its generally just a natural result of allowing people to choose who leads, what human rights are is defined by those people.

The US would rather have a dictator in power that serves their interests with human rights abuses than a democracy with no abuses that does not, that is realpolitik
No, human rights are one of the foundations of a democracy.
You can't have a democratic elections if people aren't allowed freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of information, freedom of traveling, privacy or if they don't live in security, have the right to create political parties, are all equal or enjoy the right for a fair trial and process.

[Boxed_Wine]

The funny thing is, during the whole period of Iranian protests after the elections, less people died than in Egypt.

The article is absolutely right, the people that are against their government also become against America because they see that they are backed by America. Luckily for the west, they're arabs and are unable to overthrow their governments.

[Boxed_Wine]

You dont understand the stockmarket. It wasnt stability and its based on predictions and herd mentality. Of course they will still export, but the scare will shock the system viciously.


There is a difference between a short term rise in oil prices caused through speculation and a long term one caused by demand. The stock market might increase the price of oil, but after the new government came in place, it'd quickly go back down again

[HellToupee]

No, human rights are one of the foundations of a democracy.
You can't have a democratic elections if people aren't allowed freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of information, freedom of traveling, privacy or if they don't live in security, have the right to create political parties, are all equal or enjoy the right for a fair trial and process.

Those are just a few of many of what we regard as human rights, and of all those there are limits that we have defined, freedom of speech has its limits eg no hate speech, with information we still keep many things secret. With democracy what those freedoms are, are defined by the majority latest examples being the burka,minaret bans etc.

[Moledet]

Those are just a few of many of what we regard as human rights, and of all those there are limits that we have defined, freedom of speech has its limits eg no hate speech, with information we still keep many things secret. With democracy what those freedoms are, are defined by the majority latest examples being the burka,minaret bans etc.
These are some of the main human rights that are part of the universal declaration of human rights.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights#Human_rights_set_out_in_the_Declaration

All these rights ensure a democratic elections in the modern era, without them the democratic elections can be easily interfered by the ruling party.

[Beholder]

That is what West want in muslim states,elections just small part of package IMO:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_democracy

Also there is some problems on the road,forexample:

"One of the key aspects of democratic culture is the concept of a "loyal opposition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loyal_opposition)". This is an especially difficult cultural shift to achieve in nations where transitions of power have historically taken place through violence. The term means, in essence, that all sides in a democracy share a common commitment to its basic values. Political competitors may disagree, but they must tolerate one another and acknowledge the legitimate and important roles that each play. The ground rules of the society must encourage tolerance and civility in public debate. In such a society, the losers accept the judgment of the voters when the election is over, and allow for the peaceful transfer of power. The losers are safe in the knowledge that they will neither lose their lives nor their liberty, and will continue to participate in public life. They are loyal not to the specific policies of the government, but to the fundamental legitimacy of the state and to the democratic process itself."

And ofcource that must be made as peacefull as possible.
As for "if there is better methods to achieve this goal?",everyone can think for him/herself.;)

[West Texican]

There will be no change in the Middle East until the west stops backing dictators like the Saudi Royalty, Jordanian Royalty, Gulf Royalties and the Egyptian dictator. Oil is king here my friend.

What i find funny is that you wish to preach democracy, well i'll bet that those in Washington are dreaming that Mubarak pass power to his son without elections. El Baradei may be popular but the Muslim Brotherhood is more popular. Frankly the west cannot accept a democraticaly elected Muslim Brotherhood In egypt or a democraticaly elected Hamas in Palestine as they would be against it's interests.

I'm not preaching democracy at all. I'm saying the people of the middle east will complain mightily no matter what the west does. The problems of the middle east were created by it's residents, not the west. Blaming the west is the excuse the people of that region use to avoid confronting their own hypocrisy.

[Boxed_Wine]

I'm not preaching democracy at all. I'm saying the people of the middle east will complain mightily no matter what the west does. The problems of the middle east were created by it's residents, not the west. Blaming the west is the excuse the people of that region use to avoid confronting their own hypocrisy.


What gives you that idea? The west has done a lot and the people complaining have a reason to complain 9/10 times.

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

Though, don't let it confuse you. It's Israel and the settlements that are to blame for the rise of terrorism in Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Sudan, Darfur and Yemen.I have just read article written by by some pro Israel group on the attempts by European governments to ban Kosher and Halal killing, it started with Kosher killing and went round in a circle roping in the European Muslims, Hitler and the Intifada. Where Islam and the Intifada fit into the banning of Halal and Kosher slaughter I will never know but there seems to be an uncanny notion that the misfortunes of an Islamic country are tied directly to Israel and that the Intifada is linked to the banning of Kosher and Halal slaughter. :)

[Rictor]

Naturally, voting for a non-Democratic party in a democratic elections should be forbidden. If a party's wish is to abolish human rights and replace it with religious law and/or create a caliphate than naturally it should be illegal since it's against the very foundations of democracy. The point here is not having a single democratic elections that after it comes another tyrant, but a long lasting democratic process.

You can clearly see that with Hamas in Gaza, as they act against all human right laws and control through intimidation.

Demo = people
cracy = rule

The particular set of human rights that you personally hold dear are particular to liberal, secular Wastern democracy. It is by no means the only valid form of government, nor the only valid form of democracy, nor the only acceptable set of rights and freedoms. I don't know where people got the idea that their way is the only way, or that their sh*t is universal. Besides which, you only suppose that the Muslim Brotherhood would turn Egypt into Taliban-era Afghanistan, with no real evidence shown.

I'm sorry, but from where I'm standing your arguement is something like this: "The Arabs are savages, and can not be trusted to make their own decisions, so we will continue to support their tyranical government because a truely representative government might be less pliable to our demands".

[Moledet]

Demo = people
cracy = rule

The particular set of human rights that you personally hold dear are particular to liberal, secular Wastern democracy. It is by no means the only valid form of government, nor the only valid form of democracy, nor the only acceptable set of rights and freedoms. I don't know where people got the idea that their way is the only way, or that their sh*t is universal. Besides which, you only suppose that the Muslim Brotherhood would turn Egypt into Taliban-era Afghanistan, with no real evidence shown.

I'm sorry, but from where I'm standing your arguement is something like this: "The Arabs are savages, and can not be trusted to make their own decisions, so we will continue to support their tyranical government because a truely representative government might be less pliable to our demands".
The UDHR is what it is, universal.
You naturally need more than that for democratic elections, they must be:
A. Private (vote is secret)
B. Equal (all have equal vote)
C. Plural (more than one contender)
D. Cyclical (every X time there are elections)
F. General (all citizens can vote)

I don't like this, "Arabs are savages" thing, I think it allows them far too much that otherwise wouldn't be allowed to them. If they were held to the same standards as western countries do, I believe we would benefit greatly from it.
Yet, voting for a non democratic player in a democratic elections should be outlawed. Even if the current Muslim Brotherhood is loved by the Egyptians and they would like Muhammad Badia to be their ruler for the next decades, it doesn't mean that they would love his successor. As the king of Bhutan put it before the democratic reform, "I know I am a good king, I know my son will be a good king and I know his son will be a good king. But what about his son? And the next one?" (not a direct quote). You can't simply throw away the democratic values after the elections even if it seems like in the short term it's the people's will. If they want the Muslim Brotherhood so much, they'd vote for them again on the next free and democratic elections that will be held in the exact same standard as the last ones.

[Beholder]

Demo = people
cracy = rule

The particular set of human rights that you personally hold dear are particular to liberal, secular Wastern democracy. It is by no means the only valid form of government, nor the only valid form of democracy, nor the only acceptable set of rights and freedoms. I don't know where people got the idea that their way is the only way, or that their sh*t is universal. Besides which, you only suppose that the Muslim Brotherhood would turn Egypt into Taliban-era Afghanistan, with no real evidence shown.

I'm sorry, but from where I'm standing your arguement is something like this: "The Arabs are savages, and can not be trusted to make their own decisions, so we will continue to support their tyranical government because a truely representative government might be less pliable to our demands".


Aside from "liberal, secular Western democracy",just direct democracy,that no one knows how to implement in working state is acceptable to West.All other forms of "democracy" is not something West want to push for.
And it have little to do with "West demands",in general its better to have hostile liberal democracy to talk with,then friendly tyranical government.Sometimes there is short term benefit of the tyran,but medium/long term goes to liberal democracy.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

How about this for a start: stop sending billions in aid to an unelected tyrant who has been in power for a quarter of a century, who crushes any dissent and who's sole claim to legitimacy is that he makes the Israelis feel nice and secure. I seem to remember "democracy" being kind of a big deal in US government rhetoric, though clearly not in policy as well. And after that, how about maybe putting some pressure on the various oil sheiks to start treating migrant workers like people, not like cattle, or to update their medieval legal codes and so forth. Y'know, baby steps.

heheh- our country (i.e. the US) is a democracy, and our actions are those of a democracy, and so by what right can you criticize it? It's the will of the people. We do what's best for us, while doing what we can to effect change elsewhere. Is it not enough? How much is enough? If we destabilize a nation by withdrawing aid - are we then obligated to send in troops to maintain order? Are we then obligated to pick sides and begin killing to enforce what our democracy thinks is right? How much of our taxpayer's money and how many of our lives are we required to spend to shore up the problems we'd cause?



And out of curiosity, what "distortions" are we talking about exactly?
He said himself (in the article);
He revealed that all his reports in the runup to the Iraq war were designed to be "immune from being abused" by governments. ...so as many of us suspected - instead of simple findings of fact presented as unvarnished truth - which was his job - he was writing his reports and spinning his conclusions with a particular objective in mind. Maybe if he'd told the truth, consensus could have been achieved at the UN, and Saddam's hand could have been forced into capitulation without using any of those expensive pointy things. We're going through the same nonsense with Iran, because of the same lack of truthiness at the UN.



So people should only be given a vote if we can be fairly certain that they will vote the "right way"? Nice!



Well, I'd say that they must get to vote. But then there's a next step. What do you do when a free people enact exactly the same policies as a tyrant? We're not talking about the West, where democracies share the same basic values - get from A to B to C connecting the same unconscious dots. These democracies would go from A to 6 to banana, and we'd have to do something - without being able to play the usual get-out-of-war-free card of pretending it's a case of a single bad man forcing his will on his poor people so let's just embargo them instead. My point being that ultimately we'd better be careful what we ask for because war may become even more likely.

[Rictor]

The UDHR is what it is, universal.
You naturally need more than that for democratic elections, they must be:
A. Private (vote is secret)
B. Equal (all have equal vote)
C. Plural (more than one contender)
D. Cyclical (every X time there are elections)
F. General (all citizens can vote)

I don't like this, "Arabs are savages" thing, I think it allows them far too much that otherwise wouldn't be allowed to them. If they were held to the same standards as western countries do, I believe we would benefit greatly from it.
Yet, voting for a non democratic player in a democratic elections should be outlawed. Even if the current Muslim Brotherhood is loved by the Egyptians and they would like Muhammad Badia to be their ruler for the next decades, it doesn't mean that they would love his successor. As the king of Bhutan put it before the democratic reform, "I know I am a good king, I know my son will be a good king and I know his son will be a good king. But what about his son? And the next one?" (not a direct quote). You can't simply throw away the democratic values after the elections even if it seems like in the short term it's the people's will. If they want the Muslim Brotherhood so much, they'd vote for them again on the next free and democratic elections that will be held in the exact same standard as the last ones.

You just countered your own arguement. Mubarak may be a friendly, relatively sane ruler, and his son may be too, but what about whoever is next? If you want a stable Egypt in the long term democracy seems like a no-brainer.

I don't pretend to be intimately familiar with the Muslim Brotherhood's platform. But if other soft-Islamic parties are any indication (AKP in Turkey etc) the it is entirely possible that they would govern with moderation and restraint. From what I can recall, they have not proclaimed their opposition to, but rather their support of, democracy. That some few social laws might be passed (prayer, veils etc) is none of anyone's concern. I find it highly unlikely that a Muslim Brotherhood-ruled Egypt would go nuts and launch a war against Israel. I mean, Saudi Arabia's official state religion is a puritan, fundamentalist form of Islam, and they're practically best buddies with Israel!


Aside from "liberal, secular Western democracy",just direct democracy,that no one knows how to implement in working state is acceptable to West.All other forms of "democracy" is not something West want to push for.

Acceptability to the West is not, or rather should not, be a factor. The world is not obliged to elect governments which you approve of, just as you are not obliged to elect governments which Hungary or New Zealand approve of.

[Beholder]

Acceptability to the West is not, or rather should not, be a factor. The world is not obliged to elect governments which you approve of, just as you are not obliged to elect governments which Hungary or New Zealand approve of.

Then you dont understand what i'm saying.West dont want to dictate whom to elect.West want liberal democracy,one of the reasons is we believe it is currently the best way to govern people,any people in the first place.
The other reason is like i said,its generaly better to talk with liberal democracy.

And its not about burka either.Think about it,the moment you put islamic law above some human right there is problem.Extreme case is stoning for changing religion for example.
Or sending people in prison for saying something in private.You can ground some islamic traditions in human rights(burka:)),but there are traditions supported by majority population that dont go with human rights.Turkey not so bad example,or Israel for that matter(we have many muslims) that you can have islam in democracy.Or judaism,or christianity.
But you cant have democracy in islam.Or judaism,or christianity.;)

[HellToupee]

No west wants friendly governments much more than liberal democracies, where the people do not like western countries or support differing ideologies west wants friendly dictators instead, just look to the history of many African, South American countries, even Iran.

[Rictor]

heheh- our country (i.e. the US) is a democracy, and our actions are those of a democracy, and so by what right can you criticize it? It's the will of the people. We do what's best for us, while doing what we can to effect change elsewhere. Is it not enough? How much is enough? If we destabilize a nation by withdrawing aid - are we then obligated to send in troops to maintain order? Are we then obligated to pick sides and begin killing to enforce what our democracy thinks is right? How much of our taxpayer's money and how many of our lives are we required to spend to shore up the problems we'd cause?

You are not obligated to fix their problems. You are obligated, however, to not contribute to them by shoring up a despotic government. What happens afterward is not your fault, just like the excesses of the Islamic Revolution can not reasonably be laid at America's door. You let the Shah fall because he was despised, which is the right thing to do. The fact that Iranians then let a theocratic junta get into power is no one's fault but their own.

I'm one of those wacko anti-interventionist who thinks that America should cut all aid, to good and bad governments alike. Then your hands are clean, and the chips fall where they may. In 99% of cases, those chips will fall along known, predictable, manageable lines


He said himself (in the article); ...so as many of us suspected - instead of simple findings of fact presented as unvarnished truth - which was his job - he was writing his reports and spinning his conclusions with a particular objective in mind. Maybe if he'd told the truth, consensus could have been achieved at the UN, and Saddam's hand could have been forced into capitulation without using any of those expensive pointy things. We're going through the same nonsense with Iran, because of the same lack of truthiness at the UN.

Blix & Company are the one who said that they found no trace of a nuclear weapons program in Iraq. Bush & Company said that they were sure, cross-my-heart-and-hope-to-die, that Saddam did indeed have active weapons program. As you may remember, history showed that one of these parties was grossly misrepresenting the truth, though I'm not sure you remember which one.

The point of the exercise was not for Saddam to resign - that was only America's objective. The point was to get him to give up his WMDs, which he did because he didn't have any. So saying that if the IAEA had done it's job, war wouldn't have been necessary makes no sense. They did do their job. They were the ones trying to avert a war.


Well, I'd say that they must get to vote. But then there's a next step. What do you do when a free people enact exactly the same policies as a tyrant? We're not talking about the West, where democracies share the same basic values - get from A to B to C connecting the same unconscious dots. These democracies would go from A to 6 to banana, and we'd have to do something - without being able to play the usual get-out-of-war-free card of pretending it's a case of a single bad man forcing his will on his poor people so let's just embargo them instead. My point being that ultimately we'd better be careful what we ask for because war may become even more likely.

In other words: they're not grown up enough. What's wrong with Egypt specifically? Plenty of places have transitioned from dictatorship to democracy and have maintained a lawful, stable, generally competent government. This has happened often enough, in varied enough locales, (from Taiwan to Chile, Romania to Indonesia) that I see no special reason why Egypt is incapable to handling it. You make it seem as if the day that Mubarak falls is that day Cairo goes all Mad Max.

[West Texican]

What gives you that idea? The west has done a lot and the people complaining have a reason to complain 9/10 times.

What gives me that idea? The actions of the people in the middle east do. At least you've admitted some blame goes to the middle easterners. That's a start.

[SoSo]

1234567890