Democracies of the World Unite!
I was reading this op-ed piece this morning and several thoughts occurred. First, for a former diplomat Mr. Sterling displays a startling naivety (more on that later.) What really caught my eye though was this idea that repudiating democracy is hyprocrisy and unbecoming of “free” states.
Ironically, the same President Bush who says he wants to promote democracy in the Middle East and elsewhere has declined to hold some of Washington’s closest allies, including Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, to the same high standard.
In the final analysis, it appears that while democracy and free elections are viewed as laudable goals in principle, they shouldn’t get in the way of anyone’s vested interests.
As a diplomat surely Mr. Sterling understands that all foreign policy is a blend of altruistic and self-serving behaviour; so I pretty much ignore any suggestions to the contrary. What does seem galling is this suggestion that “Hamas” (the grist if not the grind of the article) is a democratically elected government, and then should be treated (by the West) as any other… with the implication being that Hamas is not because of a stance which is anti-Israel.
Mr. Sterling is ignoring the obvious reality of democracy; that without stable public institutions and a functioning civil society a “democracy” is just a Jacobin-esque farce. Nations have (and will continue to) relate to each other based on the substance of their policies and values, and while democracy is an important one, liberty, the rule of law and recognition of the inalienable rights of others are no less important. Hamas pays lip service to these, and is treated as a Pariah accordingly.
Lip service goes both ways. I’m not sure peace is a realistic expectation if the one side has the ability to stifle another by taking land or withhold movement, goods or money. I’m not sure what the mental ritual one must evoke in order to isolate their own awareness of living next to an occupied territory and somehow expect everything to be all right. This truely baffles the mind.
The lip service remark degenerates further when one side can maintain absolute primacy over all electoral candidates by offering aid to one and sanctimony to the other.
What is hypocritical is the Hamas entity originally was funded as an Israeli alternative to Fatah. Oh the irony of today…
What is being lost in all the demonization is the issue of occupation. This issue has lingered through both parties tenor.
I’ll quote Johann Hari here, “the Palestinian Centre for Policy and Survey Research, 63 per cent supported full recognition of Israel in return for a proper Palestinian state. These supporters of a negotiated peace include, crucially, a majority of Hamas supporters.”
http://comment.independent.co.uk/columnists_a_l/johann_hari/article2669878.ece
I cannot agree blaming one side as a reasonable solution here because neither side participated in the financial blockade, restricted movement or withheld aid and they were not responsible for having their views misrepresented. We are where we are because the media failed to properly communicate the true state of affairs plain and simple.
I’ll be blunt. Blaming Hamas for everybody else’s actions not only sounds stupid, it sounds juvenile. I know I know. You strongly disagree.
Where I really part ways with Mr. Sterling’s argument is to enact a complete boycott of a territory which was never self sufficient at any point in the last 50 years - and basing it on political preference is criminal. I don’t care who is at the wheel of the Gaza strip. Occupation is a serious violation of international law and legitimizes the use of force to resist. This essentially is the problem is it not?
This line of thought merely obfuscates the basic structural needs which Israel held as a carrot stick to encourage a preferred political behaviour. Does this sound like healthy statism to you? We can prove this tactic was used judiciously against previous governments. So again holding this one to account for failing to deliver seems unwarranted.
Here is wonderfully succinct description of occupation.
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/forum/forumnew120.php#1
“Classic international law defines occupied territory as the sovereign territory of a State that is under the military occupation of another State at a time when a state of war exists between them. A required condition is that the “belligerent occupation” prevents the sovereign state from exercising its authorities in said territory. International law forbids the occupying state from annexing the occupied territory, and requires the occupier to set up a military government in the territory. This military government is subject to the restrictions imposed by the laws of occupation of international law. No distinction is made between legal and illegal occupation; international humanitarian law applies equally to the godly and to the sinners.”
The right to resist occupation and the right to recognize a society are blurred and thus we argue in two separate directions.
On Sterling’s other points I agree that if democracy is encouraged, it must be pursued even if the result is not what people hoped for. That is the point of democracy. To voice alternative opinions in a way that excludes violence, especially to groups which have used force in the past because the alternative is suppression. There has been far too much of that in M.E. history. I would much rather work with Hamas as an adminstration than as a militant group. At least they are pursuing the process and that alone counts for something. You know, keep your friend close and your enermies closer sort of thing?
Comment by Trouble — July 5, 2007 @ 12:43 am
Pt. II
There is a dysfunctional element on insisting who your talking partners are and to me suggests a lack of faith in the process. There is a juxtapostion on violently overthrowing a regime to export peace and then manipulate the outcome in your favour. There are no democratic values in such actions.
Arrogance to me is limiting the options that are brought to the table, which coincidentally is practiced with a dysfunctional ballot system by our neighbours to the south.
After sleeping on it the notion of repudiation becomes caustic because what we have here is a tyranny of the majority. Democracy and peace on our terms is better known as empire.
The point is democratic values and self rule are joined at the hip and to expect a nation to regulate itself internally while promoting external self interests makes a mockery of the process. The “do as I say and not as I do” approach is doomed to failure. That is not democracy, it is empire through immitation.
Comment by Trouble — July 5, 2007 @ 9:52 am