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.

Today is the sixth anniversary of the Septemebr 11 attacks. I think what is important to remember is not only the victims of this attack, but the fact that the only thing special about this attack was who the victims were. Mass murder like that happens all over the world every day, its just that the US isnt often the target.  If we are really serious about stopping terrorism, we should stop supporting the governments who commit the vast majority of it. 

Theres a good article at Counterpunch on Osama Bin Laden's new video (read the transcript here). Considering how Osama is portayed and what most of us would have seen in the media coverage of it (wow, he dyed his beard), he had some interesting things to say.

For anyone living under a rock, in a cave, on mars, with earmuffs on, and with their eyes closed, the story goes like this… It all came about after the airport bombings in the UK. Haneef was linked to the attacks because he is related to some of the people allegedly involved (his cousins) and he lived with them sometime last year. A sim card belonging to Haneef was supposedly found in the burning jeep, but it later emerged it was found in the house of one of the terror suspects.

Haneef was arrested because of his sim card connection to these supposed terrorists. That sounds relatively insane in itself, because there was never any charge that the sim card was important to the attack, or that Haneef even knew about the attack prior to it occurring. Even more insane was the way Team Howard followed it up.

The idea of ‘security’ has (somehow?) been a strong suit of Howard, so they were understandably excited to hear this going on close to an election. But when the case started to look shaky and the Brisbane magistrate presiding over the case granted bail, the government stepped in and cancelled Haneef’s visa. Deeming him a threat to security, his visa was cancelled only hours after the bail decision (Effectively imprisonment through executive order, Lettre de Cachet anyone?). Bail can only be granted under the terror legislation for exceptional circumstances, so its not as if the magistrate took the decision lightly. This also meant that granting bail had a negative impact, as the conditions of Australian prisons are comparably better than that of immigration detention centers.

The remarkable intrusion into the case by the Howard government was a little scary to behold. First of all it is a direct interference with the independence of the judiciary. Clearly, if Haneef was really considered a security threat, then his visa should have been cancelled as soon as he was arrested, rather than as soon as he was granted bail. This would have had the added effect of separating him from his legal team, and severely weakening his case. This also had international ramifications, as Haneef’s ‘terrorist links’(the basis for cancelling his visa), are not actually guilty of anything. The government is passing judgment on a case currently before the UK courts, and labeling Haneef a terrorist because he knows his cousins. (When does family become a terrorist organisation?)

The case eventually collapsed completely on Friday 27^th, as the DPP said there was not enough evidence to prosecute, and even revealed that some evidence presented before court was false. After this news was revealed, the Immigration Minister let Haneef into residential detention, and sought legal advise on his decision to revoke the visa in the first place. Why was Haneef now so little of a threat to the community that he could be in residential detention rather than in a detention center? Clearly the evidence Andrews had seen had not changed, only the political circumstances in which he made the decision.

Haneef left Australia on Sunday, and apparently arrives in India early today. He will continue to fight his visa cancellation.

The political issue that Team Howard probably saw as so hopeful turned into a complete shemozzle. The public opinion that allowed the illegal detention of David Hicks for numerous years has hopefully (finally!) turned against the arbitrary detentions and misuse of executive power that allowed it. It seems that Andrews, the AFP and the DPP are taking the heat for it too. Where was Howard in all of this? Clearly a decision to revoke a visa in such a high profile case would not take place without extensive consultation with the PM. Yet apparently, Howard knew nothing…