Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Revolution in an Unpronounceable Land
Yet another regime in the formerly Soviet sphere has fallen to a popular revolt. This time it's in Kyrgyzstan -- and this time the revolution's a little rowdier:
The police appeared disorganized and unwilling to take action as the protesters invaded [the presidential compound]. Dozens of mostly young opposition supporters rampaged inside, some smashing furniture and looting supplies, ignoring protest organizers urging them to stop. Broken glass littered the floors and a drugstore in the building was ransacked.
"It's the victory of the people. But now we don't know how to stop these young guys," said Noman Akabayev, who ran unsuccessfully in the parliamentary elections.
The Village Voice's Ward Harkavy has a roundup of stories here, including the inevitable comparisons between ousted autocrat Askar Akayev and Voice favorite George W. Bush. And here's an intriguing report on the war in Kyrgyz cyberspace.
|3.24.05 @ 1:10PM|#
I'd say that the election in Afghanistan (a neighbor of Kyrg...um, that country) and the revolution in Ukraine (another former Soviet Republic) are bearing fruit. Democratic Domino Theory works!
Matt Welch|3.24.05 @ 1:17PM|#
When I lived in Prague 15 years ago, a friend sent me a postcard
saying "So how are things in Turkshittystan, or wherever you
live?"
I'da never thought at the time that we see a democracy revolt in
the Turkshittystans....
|3.24.05 @ 1:50PM|#
Like thoreau, I'm sure this thirst for Democracy is a direct
result of the American invasion of Iraq; I guess I'm just not clear
on the method of delivery. How did the occupation of Iraq make
Democracy travel so?
...But then again, I don't know much about music tastes in
Kyrgyzstan. Do they broadcast Lebanese music videos in Kyrgyzstan?
...'Cause other than that, I don't see why the people there would
want Democracy.
R C Dean|3.24.05 @ 1:56PM|#
Cause other than that, I don't see why the people there
would want Democracy.
Because they are sick of getting kicked around by unaccountable
governments?
How hard is that?
|3.24.05 @ 2:00PM|#
"Because they are sick of getting kicked around by
unaccountable governments?"
Okay, but then how do you explain positive developments in Lebanon?
Huh?
...Couldn't be the occupation, could it? Naw...it's gotta be the
invasion of Iraq. ...and music videos.
|3.24.05 @ 2:14PM|#
Actually, Ken, I was more trying to point out that if there is such a thing as a Democratic Domino Effect, who's to say that Iraq was the relevant domino here? Ukraine and Afghanistan are just as plausible candidates. (And yes, I recognize that Democratic Domino Effects from Afghanistan would be the result of US action.)
gaius marius|3.24.05 @ 2:42PM|#
"It's the victory of the people. But now we don't know how
to stop these young guys," said Noman Akabayev, who ran
unsuccessfully in the parliamentary elections.
one of these days, people are going to remember that all these
"revolutions" are prone to radicalism, spiralling out of control
and the murders of millions.
Because they are sick of getting kicked around by unaccountable
governments?
phhhhhht. people have been getting kicked around by unaccountable
governments since the beginning of time. people rarely give a fuck
enough to revolt, as long as peace and a modicum of prosperity is
kept.
i'm afraid that pig doesn't fly. something is agitating. maybe its
american pro-democracy ngos working with the government for global
democratic revolution. maybe its simply idea contagion. probably
its both.
|3.24.05 @ 2:43PM|#
"It's the victory of the people. But now we don't know how
to stop these young guys," said Noman Akabayev, who ran
unsuccessfully in the parliamentary elections.
one of these days, people are going to remember that all these
"revolutions" are prone to radicalism, spiralling out of control
and the murders of millions.
Because they are sick of getting kicked around by unaccountable
governments?
phhhhhht. people have been getting kicked around by unaccountable
governments since the beginning of time. people rarely give a fuck
enough to revolt, as long as peace and a modicum of prosperity is
kept.
i'm afraid that pig doesn't fly. something is agitating. maybe its
american pro-democracy ngos working with the government for global
democratic revolution. maybe its simply idea contagion. probably
its both.
|3.24.05 @ 2:44PM|#
What tends to be neglected here is that Kyrgyzstan for many years was hailed as by far the most democratic country in ex-Soviet Central Asia. It is only in the past few years it began to regress. So if one can praise Bush for helping to start a democratization domino effect, one can also argue he was partly responsible for the regression in Kyrgyzstan in the first place, becuse his tolerance of the dictators in the rest of ex-Soviet Central Asia ("after all, they're our allies in the War on Terror; if they're overthrown, the Islamists might take over" etc.) led Akayev to feel that it was safe for him to follow their example...
Jesse Walker|3.24.05 @ 2:57PM|#
David: Is anyone seriously trying to give Bush credit for this? The obvious antecedents here are Georgia and Ukraine, not Iraq.
|3.24.05 @ 3:21PM|#
Democratic Domino Theory
That's the one that goes "but a man a pizza and he will vote for
you?" right?
|3.24.05 @ 3:56PM|#
Kyrgyzstan is similar to Lebanon in that the driving force
behind a lot of the protests is ethnic self-determination not
necessarily democracy. Like the other Central Asian states
Kyrgyzstan inherited from the USSR arbitrary borders that
deliberately threw together different ethnic groups. Most of the
protesters are Uzbeks, who are the majority population of southern
Kyrgyzstan and the city of Osh. The country is ruled by a Kyrgyz
clique, the Kyrgyz being the dominant ethnic group in the north of
the country. The languages are similar but the cultural traditions
are very different. Uzbeks are farmers and heirs to the ancient
traditions of the Fergana valley. They also tend to be "real"
muslims. Kyrgyz are traditionally nomads. They are nominally
muslims but until very recently preserved a lot of animist folklore
and customs. Historically the farmers and the nomads have been
enemies for 1000s of years.
It's hard to see how the US can take much credit for change in
Kyrgyzstan when Askar Akayev was our golden boy in Central Asia for
all of the 1990s, and has been a staunch US ally in the war against
Bin Laden. This is probably the last country in CA where the US
would like to see turmoil. Uzbekistan is ruled by a very nasty
dictator and Turkmenistan has reached North-Korean like
insanity.
As far as Central Asian despots go, Akayev is by a long stretch the
most democratic of the bunch. So, while Akayev long ago wore out
his welcome with the people of Kyrgyzstan and clearly deserves the
boot, this development is not 100% encouraging.
|3.24.05 @ 4:01PM|#
Joe,
You are probably thinking of the Mongols. Kyrgyz also claim Genghis
Khan as an ancestor.
|3.24.05 @ 4:07PM|#
Vanya,
No, a minority group in the former Soviet 'stans. They allied
themselves with the Germans, ended up getting shipped to Siberia,
and the survivors returned a decade later.
|3.24.05 @ 4:24PM|#
Joe: You're probbly thinking of the Kalmucks (a Buddhist Mongol people who were exiled by Stalin but subsequently allowed to return to their autonomous republic on the Astrakhan plains west of themouth of the Volga. Incidentally, Lenin was part-Kalmuck.
|3.24.05 @ 4:59PM|#
"Actually, Ken, I was more trying to point out that if there
is such a thing as a Democratic Domino Effect, who's to say that
Iraq was the relevant domino here?"
Gotcha thoreau--didn't mean to put words in your mouth. ...and, as
you probably remember, I've always been skeptical of Reverse Domino
Theory.
...but that was before I found out about the overwhelming power of
Lebanese music videos.
TWC|3.24.05 @ 5:21PM|#
"The police appeared disorganized and unwilling to take action
as the protesters invaded.."
Sorry, that was LAPD at Florence & Normandy
|3.24.05 @ 6:40PM|#
This one is being referred to as the Tulip or Lemon Revolution,
after the Rose Revolution in Georgia and the Orange Revolution in
Ukraine. (Source: Wikipedia).
That tells you pretty much where the inspiration comes from:
flowers and citrus fruits.
|3.24.05 @ 7:46PM|#
Well...
I will play the Devil's advocate, and say that I believe the world
is in the grips of a Democratic Revolution, and the the commitment
President Bush made on behalf of the US has turned SOME movement
into an avalanche. His rhetoric in the Innagural and the SOTUS
really does matter, backed by two conspicuous successes in
Afghanistan and Iraq, plus the nearly daily reminders by the new
Sec. of State.
It really does matter, to people around the world, what the US is
about...and I don't believe they doubt, at this point, what Bush is
about.
The War on Terror, and Islamic Fundamentalism, is as good as
over...and we won. The more vexing problem facing the world is
China. The best chance for humanity to avoid tragedy around China,
is to fill the world with democracies. Even a civilization as
arrogant and insular as China will not retain authoritarian
government against the precedent of the rest of mankind.
Did the preconditions for this Democratic Revolution exist before
9/11? Yes
Would this Democratic Revolution have fared as well despite the
indifference or hostility of the US? Perhaps, but probably
not.
Will this Democratic Revolution fare better with the support of the
US? Certainly
Was the Chimp a visionary, who deserves all credit for promptly
placing the US on the right side of history? Yes
Were the Chimp's decisions concerning both Afghanistan and Iraq
correct, in context? Definitely
Was the Chimp right, where essentially his critis have been wrong?
This will certainly be the judgment of posterity (and soon)
Will joe and Ken cop to all this? Nah - not any time soon...it goes
against human nature - even guys like joe and Ken, obviously rather
decent and outstandingly informed and intellegent, are as apt to be
small-minded and petty as the next guy, when they flat-footedly get
it wrong.
Jesse Walker|3.24.05 @ 8:08PM|#
Andrew, there's a pretty clear chain that leads from Serbia to
Georgia to Ukraine to Kyrgyzstan. The Serbian revolution took place
before the Iraq war (and before the Bush presidency), and Georgia's
uprising happened at a time when the Iraqi occupation had
essentially no democratic component.
Also, I'm not sure the people of Uzbekistan are as certain as you
are as to what Bush is "about." This administration's commitment to
democracy abroad is conditional, not absolute.
Finally -- do you really believe that "The War on Terror,
and Islamic Fundamentalism, is as good as over...and we won"?
|3.24.05 @ 8:24PM|#
"It really does matter, to people around the world, what the
US is about...and I don't believe they doubt, at this point, what
Bush is about."
I don't either. I think most of them think that Bush went to Iraq
to help himself to its oil. I don't have any poll to cite to
substantiate that, do you have some evidence to show that people
around the world think that Bush's intentions are pure?
"Will joe and Ken cop to all this? Nah - not any time soon...it
goes against human nature - even guys like joe and Ken, obviously
rather decent and outstandingly informed and intellegent, are as
apt to be small-minded and petty as the next guy, when they
flat-footedly get it wrong."
Wow, you must not have been around when I went from Bush supporter
to the other side all in one giant leap. You can persuade me of
just about anything, but I need to see a lot more evidence before I
buy the line that the War on Terror is a mission accomplished.
|3.24.05 @ 8:35PM|#
In keeping with my tradition while adapting it to regional
politics, I will just observe the following:
The important thing to remember is that Karamov would be much
worse.
|3.24.05 @ 8:53PM|#
You know, I've been tryin' to keep it cool as of late, but for
cryin' out loud!
"The War on Terror, and Islamic Fundamentalism, is as good as
over...and we won."
It's one thing to say the War on Terror is over, but to claim that
Islamic Fundamentalism is over? What a silly statement! ...On what,
pray tell, do you base that ridiculous claim?
Have people stopped throwing acid on the streets of Tehran? Are
women now driving with impunity in Riyadh? Can the women of Yemen
claim an equal opportunity for an education? Have all the turbaned
set in Pakistan shaven their beards? May Zoroastrians practice
freely in Medina? ...and what, may I ask, can a successful
democracy in Iraq do to change any of this?
Devil's advocate phooey! You believe it still, don't you?
|3.24.05 @ 8:57PM|#
Andrew-
In order for people around the world to be emboldened by Bush's
talk they have to believe that he is truly committed to democracy
around the globe. Anybody living in Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Egypt, or
Jordan (to name a few places) might doubt that.
I know what your reply will be: Absolute consistency is neither
possible nor desirable. Fair enough. But I didn't just select
dictatorships at random. I selected dictatorships that receive
money from the US.
And I know what your reply to that will be: We need support from
Uzbekistan and Pakistan. And I agree on that. But money always
comes with strings, and it wouldn't hurt to tack on one or two
additional strings to that money as long as we're sending it.
And while the support of Uzbekistan and Pakistan may indeed be
necessary in our efforts against the people who attacked us on
9/11, I have no clue why we continue to send checks to Egypt and
Jordan.
Finally, our outsourcing of torture (um, I mean, frat initiation
pranks) to foreign governments might lead citizens of those
countries to wonder just how committed Bush is to democracy.
I'm not demanding that Bush invade every dictatorship on earth or
refuse to ever engage in realpolitik with shady but regretably
useful people. I'm just wondering if we could send fewer checks to
bad guys, and attach a few domestic strings to the checks that we
have to send.
|3.24.05 @ 9:02PM|#
Oh, and I agree with Jesse: There's a very clear chain of inspiration that starts in Serbia and continues to Georgia, Ukraine, and Kyrgyzstan. And there's reason to believe that this same chain of inspiration has played at least some part in the events in Lebanon.
|3.25.05 @ 1:25AM|#
Regardless of where the Kyrgyz found their political muse, right now the situation is resembling the fall of Baghdad two years ago, only without the US Army around.
|3.25.05 @ 1:43AM|#
thoreau and Ken
I SAID that conditions were ripe for this push on democracy, and I
don't think the same push in the 50's or 60's would have made a big
impression on the world of N'Krumahs and Nassers. Part of being a
visionary in the real world, is knowing what the times will
support. THESE times will support the most sanguine of
expectations, I believe.
I think the WAR on Islamic fundamentalism has passed the tipping
point. The mullahs are doomed. I probably would have said better
"militant" Islam. I believe the idea has been discredited
throughout the Islamic world. The head-hunters and car-bombers
don't have a constituency any more.
Egyptians certainly know we aren't kidding, thoreau. Thanks to
Condi, they are getting multi-party elections this year. You can
just about hold your breath on Uzbekistan - they're due. I forsee a
game where, with every despotism that falls, you will have to drag
out the atlas to find another to cry about!
If I were a dissident, anywhere in the world, I would wish Bush
"good hunting"...even if I got passed over on this round - every
victory ANYWHERE improves MY chances, right? Talking up the
dictatorships the US is entangled with, is a talking point for
those who DON'T wish to see progress around this - it makes NO
sense to those who actually suffer.
In Pakistan or Uzbekstan, who would want to see democracy FAIL in
Iraq, or Lebanon? Who wouldn't rather see us push it SOMEWHERE, as
opposed to NOWHERE? Anyone on the list of remaining despotisms has
a better hand to play, when a dictator falls somewhere - and that
is how you would feel about it thoreau, if it was your life, and
your children's.
|3.25.05 @ 2:01AM|#
"there's a pretty clear chain that leads from Serbia to Georgia
to Ukraine to Kyrgyzstan"
Yeah, and there's a direct line of descent between democracy in
Geece, and the uprising in K-stan...with a three-thousand year
interval! It would have surprised no one, if the "stans had
remained under strong-men for another generation or more. And what
do you suppose the impact on China and Russia would be?
The Democratic Domino Theory does NOT posit that we create a
democratic trend DE NOVO, but help along a trend that ALREADY
exists; to ensure it; to enjoy the benefit in a timely fashion; to
off-set trends like Islamic culture-shock, Chinese brinsmanship,
etc. that could bring the world tragedy if ignored, or met in a
less enlightened way.
You can reject the hypothesis, but it needs to be re-butted on its
own terms.
|3.25.05 @ 3:29AM|#
...and Eric II
It is precisely because a NEW democracy, anywhere - and I can all
too easily picture things falling through in K-stan - is SO
fragile, that there is no such thing as too much redundancy: we
want to swarm the despots. That's why I was delighted to note that
the military in Togo appears to be backing down, after a swift word
fron the NEW US State Department.
Is Togo an important country? No - but a failure there won't work
well for Africa. Who doesn't want to see a dozen functioning
democracies in Africa?
You can just hear the Caucasian strong-man - "My people are not
ready to rule themselves - like the niggers in Africa"
How will a middle-class Chinese feel, in 2015, when a guy selling
peanuts on the streets of Lagoomba can spout off about the PM, and
the parliament all day long...saying things out loud, no member of
the Politburo dares to THINK?
|3.25.05 @ 4:23AM|#
Andrew-
First, I still wonder just how meaningful the current string of
democratic successes around the world will turn out to be
(especially the ones in Iraq and Afghanistan). I honestly hope
you're right and that these apparent success stand the test of
time. I really do. But history shows that the success of any
democratic experiment can only be determined when the winner of the
first free and fair election (or somebody else from that same
party) loses in a subsequent free and fair election and steps down
peacefully.
For instance, I would say that the US experiment with democracy
didn't really mark its first meaningful success until 1800.
Washington stepping down in 1796 was good, but he was replaced by
his VP. It wasn't until Adams lost a sharply contested race in 1800
that our experiment chalked up its first significant and
indisputable success. (And I know that somebody will undoubtedly
remind me that our system is a republic, not a democracy, but I'm
only using the word "democracy" because Andrew prefers it and I try
to use the same terminology of the people that I'm conversing
with.)
If this attitude makes me unreasonable and behind the times, well,
so be it. You goshdarn neocon kids better get off my lawn! I won't
stand for this new-fangled euphoria! I remember when we had to walk
uphill to the polling place through 10 feet of snow--both ways!
;)
Second, even if Iraq and Afghanistan continue to make progress,
does it really follow that, in your words:
Egyptians certainly know we aren't kidding, thoreau. Thanks to
Condi, they are getting multi-party elections this year.
I will be very interested to see whether these elections are free,
fair, and competitive. And how exactly did Condi bring this about?
Did she actually leverage the aid money? Or did she give a speech
around the same time that Mubarak decided to hold mock
elections?
I'm really not convinced that we have as much power as you'd like
to think. Yes, I know, I lambasted our policies in an earlier post,
but I was only asking that we scale back our support for
dictators.
Don't get me wrong, inspirational examples of democracy are always
good. But it's arguable that the most influential models in recent
years have been Serbia, Georgia, and Ukraine. Events in Kyrgyzstan
and Lebanon seem to be inspired by these "people power" events more
than Iraq and Afghanistan.
Maybe it's impractical to ask whether Bush just joined the
bandwagon or whether he actually got it moving a lot faster. Trends
are trends, and it's never easy to dissect cause and effect. But
that caveat cuts both ways. I'm trying to treat your claims of
vindication with skepticism but not dismissal. I'll grant that Bush
probably didn't slow the bandwagon down ("first do no harm"), but I
remain skeptical about how much credit he deserves.
How about this: It takes a while to truly evaluate the health of a
democracy. If in 10 years Iraq and Afghanistan are surrounded by a
sea of democracies, and if Iraq and Afghanistan are freer and more
democratic than their neighbors (as one would expect under your
hypothesis, since those countries have benefited from more direct
US influence rather than indirect domino effects) then I'll be
happy to endorse the invasion of Cuba, Zimbabwe, Belarus, and Saudi
Arabia in 2015.
|3.25.05 @ 6:34AM|#
thoreau
I don't know how much "power" we have, in the sense that a
pseudo-cynical (actually, quite naive) college student - who thinks
he knows the world, becuse he plays a lot of Risk with his
dorm-mates - would assess such things...
...but I think we have a lot MORE latitude thanks to some crucial
decisions made by the unilateralist Chimp.
You aren't old enough to remember how decisions got made in the
Cold War. The most viscious dictator in the non-communist world may
have been Mobotu in the Congo...and he was a master at playing off
the US, the Soviet Union, AND China, AND the Europeans. Another
good example is Nasser, who tyrannised one of the largest and most
important non-communist societies (you know, Mubarak's
daddy).
These guys thrived in a world of "nuanced" diplomacies. The
Chomskyite revision pictures some anti-communist jefe in a
banana-Republic...sorta like Franco eg. But the reality was more
like Nasser or Mobutu...if not express anti-Americans like Peron
(like the Burmese, Chavez and the Mullahs, now).
And things didn't get better right away with 9/11. Because we HAD
to get 60 countries to "help" us (to the tune of maybe a 100 troops
each) topple the Taliban...and what dictator didn't get a tip from
both sides during that grotesque bidding war the French provoked
over a pointless UN resolution?
Fuck multilateralism! The policy of having terrorists tortured by
3rd World thugs began under Clinton. The Chimp sends them to
Gitmo...remember? The "law enforcement" approach is ALL ABOUT
useful tools doing the dirty-work. Anyone who doesn't think it
would involve a lot more of that sort of thing, doesn't mean to do
ANYTHING about militant Islam. Otherwise, they want to hunker down
to another generational Cold War, and turn a blind eye on the
Mubaraks, Musharifs and Assads.
I know you're tired of me saying "Kerry would have been
worse"...let me make it clear: ANYONE besides a NEO-CON would have
been "worse"...that is to say, anyone besides a neo-con would have
fucked this up before now - in any number of ways, most of which
have been advocated at some time in these threads.
You, and joe and the others have punted just about every dumb idea
imaginable, as an alternative to the policies that are working.
|3.25.05 @ 10:07AM|#
"Thanks to Condi, they are getting multi-party elections this
year."
I hope they're sufficiently grateful.
Andrew is starting to sound like Jack Van Impe reading the
headlines: "Earthquake in Turkey, Revelations 20:45 says there will
be earthquakes during the End Times...Folks, this is all part of
The Plan."
Now, the fact that there were earthquakes for millions of years
before this, and the fact that there were popular uprisings in
former Soviet republics before Bush's presidency, or the fact that
the most prominent popular uprising in the Muslim world - that in
Iran - has been pretty much squashed for years since Bush took
office, just don't enter into the fanatic's mind. Nor does the fact
that Bush singled out Pakistan's Pervez Musharrif as an example of
how democracy should proceed seem to register. Or the military
support for the tyrants in Turkmenistan and Usbekistan.
But hey, how much insight can you expect from someone who lumps
Hugo Chavez in with the regime in Burma?
While the inspiration for Kyrgyzstan was clearly the other
revolutions in former Soviet republics, the most useful model for
examining its relationship to US politics is the popular uprising
that replaced American client Ferdinand Marcos with Corazon Aquino.
Yes, Reagan spent a lot of time talking about democracy, but in
practice, he pursued a policy of propping up friendly dicators, and
the overthrow of one of his puppets was a rejection of American
policies, not an outgrowth of them.
|3.25.05 @ 11:24AM|#
It is precisely because a NEW democracy, anywhere - and I
can all too easily picture things falling through in K-stan - is SO
fragile
What makes you so sure that a new democracy is emerging? I'd like
to see it happen, but the country could just as easily descend into
tribalized chaos.
Who doesn't want to see a dozen functioning democracies in
Africa?...How will a middle-class Chinese feel, in 2015, when a guy
selling peanuts on the streets of Lagoomba can spout off about the
PM, and the parliament all day long.
There are plenty of democracies in Africa, and some of them are
decades old. But with a few exceptions, they just haven't
accomplished much of anything.
Do you actually bother to study the subjects that you post on, or
do you just spout off whatever facts you hope will be true, on the
grounds that they would prop up your worldview? Your entire posting
style seems to be a faith-based initiative.
|3.25.05 @ 11:38AM|#
I don't know how much "power" we have, in the sense that a
pseudo-cynical (actually, quite naive) college student - who thinks
he knows the world, becuse he plays a lot of Risk with his
dorm-mates - would assess such things...
...but I think we have a lot MORE latitude thanks to some
crucial decisions made by the unilateralist Chimp.
I can buy the notion that we no longer give as much support to as
many dictators as we used to. Seems plausible enough now that the
Cold War is over. (Anybody have numbers to support or refute
that?)
But how exactly does that give us more clout to speed up
democratization by giving speeches?
And that still doesn't change the fact that not all of the
dictators on our payroll can be considered crucial in the way that
Musharaff might arguably be. I might buy the notion, at least for
the sake of argument, that we have no choice but to support
Musharaff unconditionally but I still don't see exactly
why we support Egypt and Jordan.
Also, you haven't addressed my skepticism about whether the
upcoming elections in Egypt will be free, fair, and
competitive.
Fuck multilateralism!
No arguments here. My views on foreign policy can be summed up by
"MYOB as much as is practical." An unnecessary war is an
unnecessary war, no matter how many countries join the
coalition.
The policy of having terrorists tortured by 3rd World thugs
began under Clinton. The Chimp sends them to
Gitmo...remember?
The chimp? Oh, you mean George Bush. It's been a while since I've
read anything from DU. You're more up on that lingo than I am, I
guess. (And even what I read a long time ago was only forwarded to
me by a friend, and I only read it for the articles, honest!
;)
Anyway, the first thing to note is that "Clinton did it!" is not a
valid excuse. The second thing to note is that the policy is still
going on.
You, and joe and the others have punted just about every dumb
idea imaginable, as an alternative to the policies that are
working.
I said in an earlier post that I'll believe the policies are
working after I've seen them play out over a longer time
horizon.
|3.25.05 @ 11:50AM|#
Eric
There have been African countries which have had elections...but
the standards in many cases have been less than stringent. Hell -
the Ukraine AND Kyrgistan hade elctions immediately preceding their
democratic revolutions...remember? It was those flawed elections
that provoked the uprisings. With the exception (notably) of South
Africa, black Africa is in pretty tough shape right now, from a
freedom point of view - ask Freedom House.
joe The guys squashing the opposition in Iran are the Mullahs - and
every oppositionist seems to blame the EU. Aside from your psychic
abilities, and a wooden Chomskyite "analysis" do you have ONE piece
of evidence - even anecdotal will do - to back up the talking point
you cut-n-pasted of Atrios, or somesuch?
I don't "lump in" Chavez with the Burmese, except in the sense of
being anti-American - and if that is as attentively as you have
read the posts here, you had better slow down. I liken your pal,
Chavez, more to a Peron...working on being Sukarno.
|3.25.05 @ 11:57AM|#
thoreau
Didn't you know. We send a billion apiece per annum to Egypt and
Jordan, because they signed a Peace Treaty with Israel? It really
doesn't seem like a big deal - I hardly think it is critical to the
regimes in either country...I would guess Abdul and Mubarak could
fend off the opposition without it - or not: I doubt it has the
kind of significance you attribute to it. It is mostly fodder for
the "moral equivalence" jerks, like joe amd GG.
|3.25.05 @ 12:04PM|#
joe
If we were propping up the regime in K-stan, we were doing a
piss-poor job of it - sounds like the cops there couldn't handle an
unruly mob at a Friday night stadium. If our "support" for regimes
in T-stan and U-stan is similarly potent, we will be having a
similar discussion next week, when the irresistable tide of the
Serbian Revolution reaches them.
|3.25.05 @ 12:06PM|#
"MY pal, Chavez?" Huh? I oppose the overthrow of a
democratically elected leader, state that I want him to be voted
out of office, and that gets me counted as one of his supporters?
Man, you've got a long way to go to get your head around this
"democracy" thing.
As for the evidence tieing the the squashing of Iran's opposition
movement to Bush's foreign policy, I have only as much evidence as
those who attribute the democracy movement in Lebanon to him - that
is, none at all, other than the fact that one occured after the
other. Funny, your shifting standards.
|3.25.05 @ 12:13PM|#
Andrew-
I know the history behind our aid to Egypt, but it makes no sense
to me.
The significance of that money is not the extent to which Mubarak
relies on it. Rather, it's that sending a big fat check to a
dictator who serves no realpolitik purpose makes it much
easier to call into question our government's support for democracy
and freedom in the Middle East. If liberalization movements in
country X can be significantly emboldened by our actions in country
Y (where Y is not the same as X), then symbolism matters. And the
symbolism of sending a billion dollars a year to Mubarak is totally
ass backwards.
|3.25.05 @ 3:05PM|#
As for the evidence tieing the the squashing of Iran's
opposition movement to Bush's foreign policy, I have only as much
evidence as those who attribute the democracy movement in Lebanon
to him - that is, none at all, other than the fact that one occured
after the other. Funny, your shifting standards.
Certainly, we have a number of people in Lebanon (not all
of whom appear to be Bush dupes) who are saying that what has
happened in Iraq is pushing the democracy movement there. It ain't
proof, but it counts for a lot more than the Iran
arguments that you pulled out of your ass (I'm assuming, based upon
the smell).
|3.25.05 @ 3:50PM|#
thoreau
I can almost agree with you. The whole Camp David initiative was
stupid, and I would wish it undone. But I can't see how, except in
the way the Administration is trying to ease around it.
Jordan is actually well-behaved, for an Arab "front-line" state.
Wiped out the PLO, back in the real-politik days...and modest gains
on democracy since - how picky you wanna be?
The billion to Egypt might make a high-profile signal to Mubarak,
if he flakes on elections.
In all, I'm so sick of this "supporting dictators" crap.
We supported Marcos, in the sense that we didn't spend all our time
scolding him. I guess he tried to hold the phoney election that
proved to be his undoing, because he thought everything was cool in
Washington, but he was worried about the Pope, or something? That
make sense to you, joe?
Subic Bay was there, and the Phillipines was a friendly nation
under Marcos...and a bunch of liberal geeks in congress spent the
70's flaying the CIA for trying to kill Duvalier...remember?
Don't be so touchy about Chavez. In the blur of events over the
years, who knows where his popular support is now? He definitely
stopped playing by the rules, as quick as the first "native leader"
after the Union Jack gets hauled down...
...and we don't want to "support" him joe - or it all becomes OUR
fault right, because we buy the oil that makes him a player.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245