Suspicious motives

By Salama A Salama

---

Does the West really want to see democratic regimes in the Arab world capable of releasing the potential of their peoples, of bringing an end to extremism and engendering the respect for human rights? Does it really want regimes based on the principle of the rotation of power, or popular participation in decisions affecting the fate of their citizens? Or is the West seeking other goals, searching for a democratic facade that would not threaten Western interests or allow radical movements to assume power?

Debate in 2004 focussed on just this point, underlining the suspicion with which Arabs regard American and European reform initiatives.

After all, it is not that long ago that a great many dictatorships, including Saddam Hussein's, were on friendly terms with the West. Saddam was perfectly acceptable to Washington as long as he was serving America.

Following 9/11 the West became more enamoured of regimes along the Tunisian model. Dressed in flimsy democratic garb their democracy goes no further than liberalising markets, giving women a few rights and offering limited support to civil society. Yet these developments take place in a police state the primary concern of which is the protection of Western democracies.

The majority of arguments put forward by Arab countries in their various discussions with the West focus on prioritising economic development on the grounds that the levels of poverty in most of these countries do not allow people to understand -- let alone practice -- democracy.

Low standards of education have left citizens vulnerable to exploitation by extremists and terrorist propagandists. They then follow this with the killer argument -- that democratic reform cannot work without first resolving the Palestinian issue... never mind the occupation of Iraq. Arab leaders advance such arguments in different guises but they all amount to the same thing: there is a clear choice, either leave leaders and their hangers- on in power or else face the possibility that extremist forces will seize control. This is what they mean when they say reform should come from within, i.e. that it must come whenever and however these leaders see fit.

Could this be the reason for the delays in publishing the third Arab Human Development Report. Washington continues to prevent the report -- which calls for freedoms and just governance -- from being published and has asked paragraphs critical of the US to be removed. These paragraphs identify Washington's support of the Israeli occupation and the "security wall" as being in part responsible for obstructing Palestinian development and stability. And the US occupation of Iraq is denounced as a violation of the right to life and freedom.

Sadly Egypt has joined in opposing the report, unhappy with those sections that portray the inheritance of power as a violation of democratic principles and with others that touch on freedom of assembly and the freedom to form parties.

The fuss Cairo has made over the report won't help it in the slightest. The same accusations directed against the US will be directed at Cairo, and a question mark will hang over Egyptian calls for reform. It would have been far better if Egypt had welcomed the document as chance to debate and get at the truth, rather than demanding it be censored.