|
|
Palestine
Different approaches arise from different motives
By Waleed Sadi
Jul 5, 2008, 12:10
|
|
Whereas all western countries, i.e., the US and the EU, are in agreement in principle on the urgent need to promote and protect democracy worldwide including of course in the Middle East, the approaches of the US and those of the EU differ significantly.
For starters, the US views the democratization process in this part of the world--and indeed elsewhere--as a process with a political agenda linked to its strategic global policy. It is obvious that Washington, especially during the term of President George W. Bush, has pursued the issue of democratization as a tool to enhance its political aims and objectives rather than to advance democracy for its own sake. For this reason, the democracy issue has been selectively applied by the Bush administration in order to advance the agenda of the US: it has been raised when it serves US interests and ignored when expedient. Hence at various times the democracy card has been played to ostracize and condemn American enemies, while at other times the Bush administration has staunchly defended its strategic allies even when they were undemocratic or outright despotic.
In other words, the cause of democracy is a political tool the US employs for its own reasons rather than a cause it champions for its own inherent merit. It is no surprise therefore that the US views Israel as the only bona fide democracy in a sea of regional darkness and backwardness. It is also no surprise that Washington absolves undemocratic regimes that toe the US line from blame and even assists them to escape condemnation as dictatorial or authoritarian regimes. And when the practice of democratic pluralism in any part of the Middle East produces what is perceived as a hostile regime--as happened in the occupied Palestinian territories when Hamas was voted into power in free and fair elections more than two years ago--the US refuses to engage the new order in any meaningful dialogue.
Hence, the US profile on democracy is very hazy when it comes to supporting regional non-governmental organizations engaged in promoting and protecting human rights except on rare occasions and with regard to selective issues. US funding for the civil society and NGO sector is negligible in comparison to the material support offered by the EU.
Most observers agree that EU countries` record in championing human rights and the rule of law in the region is on an entirely different wavelength than the US. By choosing to support and fund NGOs engaged in promoting and protecting human rights across the board, the EU has effectively opted for a more operational strategy to engage countries of the region and their societies. The EU style is muted and subtle and shuns confrontation with states that have yet to achieve progress on democratization. The EU has instead chosen to cooperate with those countries concerned to advance the cause of democracy in a gradual manner. NGOs involved in the protection and promotion of the rights of children, women, the elderly and the disabled are heavily funded by the EU, and this is where the EU`s support has made the most notable difference. It is safe to conclude therefore that whereas democracy, human rights and the rule of law are highly politicized issues in both the US and EU, they are pursued in a very different manner by the EU.
This does not mean that the EU has succeeded where the US has failed to promote and ensure democracy in the area. The EU has encouraged a `human rights business` with its generous contributions but has yet to make any real dent in promoting democracy in the political sphere. This is particularly true when it comes to the nitty-gritty of the process. A classic case in point is the EU`s position on Hamas. Contrary to the negative reaction to Hamas` election victory in Washington, the EU seemed more disposed to accept the results of the democratic process in the occupied Palestinian territories and appeared ready to coexist with the new regime. Nevertheless, the EU followed Washington`s lead when it came down to it.
The different approaches to regional democratization are also seen in the differing strategies for dealing with Syria and Iran, Washington`s regional archenemies. The US is openly opposed to the `Syrian dictatorship` and the `authoritarian regime in Tehran`, while the EU has been more subtle in criticizing these countries for fear that open hostility would be counter-productive to the cause of democracy.
It seems that the EU has concluded that democracy cannot be imposed from the outside, but must arise from within through a slow evolutionary process. Democracy needs to be nurtured and cultivated by creating a culture for democracy that does not arise out of nowhere. This conclusion has yet to dawn on the US leadership.- Published 3/6/2008 © bitterlemons-international.org
Waleed Sadi is a former Jordanian ambassador to Turkey and the UN and other international organizations in Geneva. He is currently a columnist for the Jordan Times and Al Rai newspapers.
http://www.kibush.co.il/show_file.asp?num=27797
Top of Page
|
|
 |
| Finding Clarity |
|
|
