Wednesday, October 31, 2007

"The sad, awful truth is that we fete these people, we fawn on them, we supply them with fighter jets, whisky and whores. No, of course, there will be no visas for this reporter because Saudi Arabia is no democracy. Yet how many times have we been encouraged to think otherwise about a state that will not even allow its women to drive?"

6 comments:

Amre El-Abyad said...

Saudi Arabia is only matched by the terrorist state of Mullahs inQum regarding lack of democracy.

In Iran they beat up women in the streets for not putting up that demonic patch on their heads:)

However, whether a country is democratic in an Anglo-Saxon way or not must not be of anuý concern to the international community. A sovereign stae's governance system can only be classified as internal affairs.

What the international community must care for is, the demeanour of one stae towards others. Hence Iran and Israel would count as the most criminal states. Iran for ethnically cleansing Arabs in Iraq, destabilising the country and arming iraqis against eachother.

Moreover Iran is constant danger to its neighbours, we must not forget th 8 years war the iranian terroists launched gainst Iraq so as to export their fantic ideologis nd hinder the progress of the once most promising Arab state

No need to mention Israel of course whoe history of terror is well known to everybody

Damascene George said...

@Amre:
"A sovereign stae's governance system can only be classified as internal affairs".
This is so 19th century. No offense. Nowadays, I think oppression could no more regarded as "the internal affairs of a sovereign state". Especially when this state's sovereignty is understood to be the economic interests of it's rulers! Human rights is the responsibility of the international community.

Amre El-Abyad said...

Well George, I don't hate the international community, yet I still don't ascribe any value to what that factual entity thinks about Arab world. Simply because we are a different civilsation with a radically different set of norms than those prevailant in the aforementioned entity.

That entity to me is nothing but a normative framework for the economic interets of western world where the dominant western culture is a mere tool to protect the 400 years or something of western dominance.

That community has killed 1 million Iraqis and hindered the progress of any rising Arab nation, whether the Mohamed Ali and Nasser's Egypt or the brilliant Sadam's Iraq. In the mean time it had impolanted a terrorist entity in the middle of my land where it displaced the legitmate owners and drained the resources and energies of my Arab nation.

Democracy and human rights- for us-Arabs in this particular phase of our history and within the current socio-cultural contexts- have meanings and defintions that don't correspond in any way whatsoever with the U.N's and international community's conceptions . Thus far, Sadam Hussien was the most democratic leader inthe world.

Suppose I am in Cairo and a non-Arab tells me that Egypt is not democratic, I will take this as an insult and will react violently. However, I wouldn't react the same way idf Iam in paris, for example.

Damascene George said...

@amre
"we are a different civilsation with a radically different set of norms"
So true.
"That entity to me is nothing but a normative framework for the economic interets of western world"
Also true, currently at least. Economic interests were always, and will always remain, the first factor determining relationships between people. And the "Western" world is way more powerful in terms of economy.

"That community has killed 1 million Iraqis and hindered the progress of any rising Arab nation"
Now this is far from truth. American led forces have invaded Iraq and 1 million Iraqi died. But let's not forget the role of other players, and let's not forget our ( as Arabs ) historical tendency to favor violent (Bab al 7ara)-like ractions against any other political choice. The situation in Iraq cannot be simplified to this extent.
Regarding Saddam's Iraq, the last word I would use to describe it is "brilliant".
As for Abdel Nasser. I can honestly say (as many other Syrians would say): The mass support he gathered was the most unfortunate thing that happened in Syria if not in the middle east in the 20th century. For me he represents a cultural current that's responsible for the destruction of the dream of a modern Syria ( culturally, economically and politically). I also think that the nation's misery is more of his political naivety and miscalculation, than of the "Western evilness".

"Thus far, Sadam Hussien was the most democratic leader inthe world."
No argument in the world would support such a statement, unless you think Iraqis are not humans, or that they deserve the oppression they were undergoing. I Absolutely refuse this idea.

"Suppose I am in Cairo and a non-Arab tells me that Egypt is not democratic, I will take this as an insult and will react violently."

Well this is exactly the problem I was talking about.

Amre El-Abyad said...

Regarding Nasser, many Egyptians consider that his popularity in Syria was the main reason behind his subsequant irrational policies:)

I agree with you to a limited extent he was politically naive- but don't forget that we have been denied access to control over our destiny for centuries. The west is not evil , however geoplitics and oil make it quite impossible for world powers to to allow th Arab world a fair chance to develop along autonomous and independent paths. It took Europe 400 years of military dictaorships, bloody revolutions, devastating world wars and religous massacres to reach its current comparatively balanced state.

Regarding Iraqis, well, so long, as they remained away of poltics nothing was wrong with their lives. An arab way of democracy would have been the inevitable outcome of his grass root modernisation of Iraq which was very successful in econmic, industrial, scientific and social welfare aspects. A comparison with the post 1989 China and Russia would give a clue

Damascene George said...

Of course Saddam did well on industrial and technological modernization. And probably he was doing well in terms of regional and international politics. He became a key player in his region's issues after all.
This is great in a some strategy game, where your are controlling "Units" of people and armed forces. You do your best in using the provided resources to achieve your goals.
But when these "units" are real humans, it's not that simple. Cause each of those individuals have his own goals, and nobody have the right to impose his own point of view on them regarding the "national goals". So I think it's doesn't really matter how well he did on those issues as long as he's people where oppressed!

Another point is: If you think people should better accept the infringement of their political and human rights as long as they get good economic and technological modernization. I totally disagree. In this case, I say they better live in a dependent state which at least would grant them their basic human rights, and good economic conditions! Don't get me wrong, I'm not calling for the occupation of any country. But this is what I would prefer if I had to make the compromise between collective sovereignty and individual dignity.