A general update today.

First of all, I really love the protests going on with the Olympic torch relay. Does it even still count now that they've put the flame out twice? They're even considering stopping it. The IOC, in giving Beijing the 2008 olympics, stated that they hoped it would help open up Chinese society and maybe be a positive influence on Chinese politics, so they cant exactly complain that protesters are politicising the games. Also, China is pretty clearly using the opportunity to show off China to the world as a world power and a successful developing state, so they cant complain when people point out it isn't that nice to live there (assuming you aren't rich anyway). Kevin Rudd has also exposed himself again as a dickhead on the issue, directing away criticism by claiming China is a lot better now than 25 years ago. So what? That doesn't mean its a good place to be. I don't think that sportspeople should boycott the games, but political leaders certainly should, so hopefully Rudd will get in on the act already, rather than avoiding the issue by leaving it up to his suposed 'schedule'. 

Secondly, this report has just been released by USIP, and details the situation and options for the US in Iraq, and manages to put a positive spin on the fact that security levels are back to 2005 standards. It doesn't paint a very attractive picture.

Thirdly, the SIPR arms transfer database has been updated with 2007 information. Apparently arms sales were down on last year, but overall continuing their upward trend since 2000. it shows Australia as one of the 20 biggest arms importers, and Sudan has imported 87% of its conventional weapons from Russia between 2003-07, so we cant accuse China of being that bad. Its a really useful resource, check it out here.

And lastly, to the Age. I admit I can give some leeway, what with it being the opinon pages and all, but to print such zionist propaganda does require a certain suspension of rationality. Danny Lamm's article on the 7th was a blatant piece of Zionist propaganda. And Danny isn't entirely to blame, we can blame editors for the title 'Israel is taking all the right steps along the pathway to peace', and starting from that, it only got worse. He gets off to a good start, ignoring the problems that are inherent in a two state solution, and moves on to the big guns...

"This solution, however, has its opponents, particularly those groups led by Iran and its President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and terrorist movements such as Hamas and Hezbollah which reject the peace process and maintain a fanatical commitment to destroy the state of Israel.

This would deny the Jewish people's right to self-determination..."

Invoking 'self-determination' in the defence of the Israeli state? I dont even know how such hypocrisy can function. Has Lamm completely ignored the fact that Israel is a colonial state? Is he completely blind to the Palestinian population being militarily and economically oppressed? Yes, Israelis should have a right to self determination, but has he considered the reasons why so many people want the Israeli state gone?

Lamm then moves on to defend some of the useful state myths surrounding Israel's beginnings, such as Israel's 'David and Goliath' view of the first Arab-Israeli war.He then attempts to discredit the work of Walt and Mearscheimer thesis, which, if you look at it objectively, would seem to confirm their arguments about the Israel lobby. Lamm is clearly eager to fit into this lobby, and his willful ignorance of the perspective of the oppressed in this situation can only discredit his arguments. 

Why is The Age even publishing this crap?
 

Would US interests be served by democratisation in the Middle East?

American interests in the strategically important Middle East would largely not be served by any real democratization. Many argue that US interests would be assisted, however there is little evidence that terrorism or strategic cooperation in the region would be improved through democratization efforts.

The idea that democratization in the Middle East would help combat terrorism gained in strength after the September 11 attacks in the US. It became a major part of the rationale for the invasion of Iraq after the total lack of weapons of mass destruction became apparent. The idea was that Iraq would become a shining beacon of democracy, which would inspire a wave of democratization over the region.

Undemocratic and repressive regimes can breed terrorism, and political repression can radicalize opponents and create extremists. The argument follows that a democratic system could enable peaceful reconciliation of grievances, allow peaceful channels for dissent, and provide inclusion in policy making for marginalized groups. A democratic system can arguably work better to respond to other causes of terrorism, such as poverty and social divisions.

However there is little real evidence that this theory holds true, as recent democratisation efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq are a testament to. Democratic systems also have not stopped terrorist groups becoming active throughout Western Europe and the US in the past. Terror organizations often do not have much widespread appeal, therefore are unlikely to gain power through democratic processes, so why would they respect the system? Why would a terror organisation hold the ideal of democracy above previous goals? An efficient authoritarian regime is also arguably better able to deal effectively with a terrorist threat than a democracy.

The second and most important problem for US interests in the region is that if Middle Eastern governments were actually representative of public opinion, they would be overwhelmingly against the US. A democratic Middle East would produce governments less likely to cooperate with the US than the current Authoritarian ones. The problem for democracy in the Middle Eastern states is not that the people do not want democracy, but that the USA would not like the results. Some argue that democracy would benefit the US, as authoritarian regimes can have trouble submitting to US wishes because of public opposition, but by definition that would only get worse if those governments had to listen to their people. Democratic systems would also most likely bring Islamic parties to power, which the US has not shown a preference for, as they often form the only organized political force besides the government. A democratic Iraq, with a Shiite majority, would also most likely move for closer ties with Iran, which the US could not allow. If the US were serious about democracy and respecting public opinion within Iraq they would have withdrawn by now.

The limited versions of democracy that exist in the Middle East often result in anti-US victories, and are largely condemned by the US because of their outcomes. Iran has limited political participation and restricted elections, with the anti-American Ahmadinejad elected from a controlled list in 2005. More recently the Palestinian territories experienced democratic elections, with the Anti-US Hamas gaining power, which resulted in US led sanctions.

Democracy promotion for the USA is a strategic tool, and is subsequently focused on enemies such as Iran and Syria, rather than allies such as Saudi Arabia or Egypt. There is little pressure upon America’s autocratic allies to democratize, and they continue to obtain strong US support. Undemocratic US allies such as Musharraf in Pakistan and the Mujahideen in Afghanistan receive strong US support as they assist the US on their democratisation mission in Afghanistan.

Saudi Arabia is an intensely totalitarian state, the main ally of the US in the region, and the linchpin of US regional hegemony. There is massive popular resentment against the Saudi regime, and its main supporter the USA. The US has put some limited pressure on the Saudi monarchs to democratize, and an election was held for local councils. It was restricted to male voters and approved candidates, and only half the council seats were open to election, with the others appointed by the regime. This miniscule step was praised by the US, and business went on as usual.

A similar case exists with Egypt, where Mubarak has ruled for over 25 years, and is a close US ally. Subject to political pressure he ran an election of pre-approved candidates in September 2005. The election was conducted in rounds, meaning if the first few rounds weren’t going his way he could rig it even further or just call it off. Mubarak triumphed in this engineered election and was commended by the US, but the semi-legal anti-US Muslim Brotherhood emerged as his main opposition. This resulted in a considerable cooling down of US pressure to democratize.