|
The problem with democracy
And now, horror of horrors, the Palestinians have elected the
wrong party to power
By Robert Fisk
01/28/06 "The
Independent" -- -- Oh no, not more democracy
again! Didn't we award this to those Algerians in 1990? And
didn't they reward us with that nice gift of an Islamist
government - and then they so benevolently cancelled the second
round of elections? Thank goodness for that!
True, the Afghans elected a round of representatives, albeit
that they included some warlords and murderers. But then the
Iraqis last year elected the Dawa party to power in Baghdad,
which was responsible - let us not speak this in Washington -
for most of the kidnappings of Westerners in Beirut in the
1980s, the car bombing of the (late) Emir and the US and French
embassies in Kuwait.
And now, horror of horrors, the Palestinians have elected the
wrong party to power. They were supposed to have given their
support to the friendly, pro-Western, corrupt, absolutely
pro-American Fatah, which had promised to "control" them, rather
than to Hamas, which said they would represent them. And, bingo,
they have chosen the wrong party again.
Result: 76 out of 132 seats. That just about does it. God damn
that democracy. What are we to do with people who don't vote the
way they should?
Way back in the 1930s, the British would lock up the Egyptians
who turned against the government of King Farouk. Thus they
began to set the structure of anti-democratic governance that
was to follow. The French imprisoned the Lebanese government
which demanded the same. Then the French left Lebanon. But we
have always expected the Arab governments to do what they were
told.
So today, we are expecting the Syrians to behave, the Iranians
to kowtow to our nuclear desires (though they have done nothing
illegal), and the North Koreans to surrender their weapons
(though they actually do have them, and therefore cannot be
attacked).
Now let the burdens of power lie heavy on the shoulders of the
party. Now let the responsibilities of people lie upon them. We
British would never talk to the IRA, or to Eoka, or to the Mao
Mao. But in due course, Gerry Adams, Archbishop Makarios and
Jomo Kenyatta came to take tea with the Queen. The Americans
would never speak to their enemies in North Vietnam. But they
did. In Paris.
No, al-Qa'ida will not do that. But the Iraqi leaders of the
insurgency in Mesopotamia will. They talked to the British in
1920, and they will talk to the Americans in 2006.
Back in 1983, Hamas talked to the Israelis. They spoke directly
to them about the spread of mosques and religious teaching. The
Israeli army boasted about this on the front page of the
Jerusalem Post. At that time, it looked like the PLO was not
going to abide by the Oslo resolutions. There seemed nothing
wrong, therefore, with continuing talks with Hamas. So how come
talks with Hamas now seem so impossible?
Not long after the Hamas leadership had been hurled into
southern Lebanon, a leading member of its organisation heard me
say that I was en route to Israel.
"You'd better call Shimon Peres," he told me. "Here's his home
number."
The phone number was correct. Here was proof that members of the
hierarchy of the most extremist movements among the Palestinians
were talking to senior Israeli politicians.
The Israelis know well the Hamas leadership. And the Hamas
leadership know well the Israelis. There is no point in
journalists like us suggesting otherwise. Our enemies invariably
turn out to be our greatest friends, and our friends turn out,
sadly, to be our enemies.
A terrible equation - except that we must understand our
fathers' history. My father, who was a soldier in the First
World War, bequeathed to me a map in which the British and
French ruled the Middle East. The Americans have tried, vainly,
to rule that map since the Second World War. They have all
failed. And it remains our curse to rule it since.
How terrible it is to speak with those who have killed our sons.
How unspeakable it is to converse with those who have our
brothers' blood on their hands. No doubt that is how Americans
who believed in independence felt about the Englishmen who fired
upon them.
It will be for the Iraqis to deal with al-Qa'ida. This is their
burden. Not ours. Yet throughout history, we have ended up
talking to our enemies. We talked to the representatives of the
Emperor of Japan. In the end, we had to accept the surrender of
the German Reich from the successor to Adolf Hitler. And today,
we trade happily with the Japanese, the Germans and the
Italians.
The Middle East was never a successor to Nazi Germany or Fascist
Italy, despite the rubbish talked by Messrs Bush and Blair. How
long will it be before we can throw away the burden of this most
titanic of wars and see our future, not as our past, but as a
reality?
Surely, in an age when our governments no longer contain men or
women who have experienced war, we must now lead a people with
the understanding of what war means. Not Hollywood. Not
documentary films. Democracy means real freedom, not just for
the people we choose to have voted into power.
And that is the problem in the Middle East.
Translate
this page
(In accordance with Title 17
U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to
those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information for research and educational purposes.
Information Clearing House has no affiliation whatsoever with the
originator of this article nor is Information Clearing House
endorsed or sponsored by the originator.) |
