Comments

You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name

Your e-mail (optional)

Website (optional)

	My Original Nic Pic-a-Nic Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Foto

Submit your comments on this article

Iraq-Jordan

Saudi and Egyptian machinations derail US moves in ME

2005-01-10

Debka article -liberal use of salt and pepper mandated

Moderate Arab leaders aimed a damaging broadside at key US-sponsored election ventures, the more painful for its timing in the month when ballots were scheduled both in the Palestinian Authority and Iraq. It was fired inconspicuously by 21 Arab interior ministers gathered in Tunis last week and acted as a rude snub to the Bush administration's diplomatic efforts to recruit Arab friends for help in bringing reluctant Iraqi Sunni voters to the January 30 poll. Present at the conference from Sunday to Wednesday, January 2-5, in addition to the ministers, were Middle East and Persian Gulf chiefs of intelligence, police and domestic security in the Middle East and Persian Gulf, as well as outside counter-terror experts, including Americans.

DEBKAfile's Washington sources report that, ahead of the event, Saudi and Egyptian governments promised Washington and Baghdad to initiate motions expressly condemning Iraqi terrorism and throwing a supportive mantle over the two January elections. What happened in Tunis left the Americans astonished and outraged by what they saw as a betrayal by their purported Arab friends. The key resolution said: "Arab interior ministers condemned all terrorist acts in Iraq targeting Iraqi security agents and the Iraqi police, as well as businesses and public, economic, humanitarian and religious institutions." There was not a single cross word for the acts of violence against American troops or coalition allies.

This omission went down with Bush administration officials as not far short of a pan-Arab license to kill non-Iraqis, namely Americans and its allied forces. Sunday, January 9, US embassy officials met with Iraqi's supreme Muslim Council to ask them to revoke the order to Sunnis to boycott the election. The clerics offered to grant this wish on condition that the United States set a date for its departure from Iraq. Adding fuel to the fire, Saudi interior minister Prince Nayef called a news conference after the event to pull out the old chestnut of another intractable conflict: "The Palestinians are not engaged in a war of terror," he said, "but self-defense."

Posted by:Elder of Zion

#17 Well, government by semi-consent, anyway. Sort of like ancient Athens, which was a democracy for all the free, adult, male, Athenian citizens who were wealthy enough to take the time to participate in the debates and the votes. I mean, the Afghani tribal councils never included women or children, area residents not members of the tribe, or anybody the chief citizens disliked enough to kill. But other than that, members could make arguments before the senior members, who would then make a decision for the entire tribe. An modern example would be all the women in the woolier parts of Afghanistan who were required to vote by the headman, with strict instructions on who they were to vote for.

Posted by: trailing wife 2005-01-10 7:53:42 PM

#16 "What is different about Afghanistan? Democracy seems to be working there with the exception of a few warts occasionally?"

I recall reading somewhere that Afghanistan has a long history of government by tribal council. If so, it may be that with the notion of "government by consent" already thus established, the transition to what is emerging there now comes without much difficulty.

I strongly suspect that it will succeed, too, in Iraq; but we shall see.

Posted by: Dave D. 2005-01-10 6:49:01 PM

#15 Ah yes, some days.

Posted by: John Q. Citizen 2005-01-10 6:44:04 PM

#14 Grouchy today. Hmm... where's my mirror lure.

Posted by: Shipman 2005-01-10 6:41:00 PM

#13 Lose the attitude AK.

Posted by: John Q. Citizen 2005-01-10 6:36:39 PM

#12 Lose the stars, AK.

Posted by: rhodesiafever 2005-01-10 5:58:33 PM

#11 What is different about Afghanistan?

Among other things, they don't have Syria on one side to support the Sunni Arabs, and Iran on the other to support the Shias, nor do they have a yet third part of the country that wants to go independent.

In that event we will conclude this little "Muslim Democracy" exercise knowing two things: 1) we did our level best to show them the way, and 2) they, in the end, proved utterly incorrigible.

Yes, unfortunately you will conclude *that*, learning (as always) the wrong lesson.

But if your problem is about convincing *Sunnis* to partake in the democratic elections of a Shia-majority country, then the problem has little to do with the concept of "Muslim democracy" and everything to do with the heterogenity of the populations of Iraq.

And if your problem is about neighbouring nations supporting the insurgency of Iraq, then the concept of "Muslim Democracy" has again nothing to do with it: It's the neighbourhood that's the problem -- namely Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia.

But hey, no need for steenking minds, no need to address the *specific* problems, and ofcourse we can't *ever* admit Bush made a wrong decision, so you can never admit "the choice of Iraq as our target for democratization was bad". You'll just blame it on the Muslim Mind (tm) instead, which will be a good excuse for later as well.

Above all remember: It's never about catastrophic mistakes, because then we'd have the responsibility to think *better* next time. It's always about treating those mooslim savages better than they deserve. Har har.

Here you go as "contributions" go.

Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2005-01-10 5:05:48 PM

#10 Amr Moussa would just prefer Mubarak's turban to rest on his head. He's no believer in democracy, surely.

But that being said, Dubya is giving hope to a lot of reasonable people throughout Moose limb land (KimmiCommiLand too). And all of the caliph wannabes are starting to sweat...

Posted by: Seafarious 2005-01-10 4:47:26 PM

#9 As an interesting sideline to the article, I saw today an news item in YNET (sorry, no link, its in hebrew) that there are now voices among egyptian intelectuals that are demanding real democratic elections (with more than one nominee) and similar constitutional changes in Egyptian law. They actually suggested Amr Mussa (head of the arab league) as a competitor candidate for egyptian presidency.
This is said to be the result of seeing that the Democratic elections for the head of the palestinian authority actually worked (there were 8 candidates there).

Could we be seeing the first sprouting dissidents beginning the fight for true democracy in Egypt ??

Should the Saudi Princes begin to worry ??

who knows, Dubia may have been more successful than we may have hoped.

Posted by: EoZ 2005-01-10 4:37:30 PM

#8 These idiots will go too far. When they do perhaps it will be their own people whom they will fear most. I think at least some of them are smart enough to understand what Dave D. correctly wrote.

Posted by: Remoteman 2005-01-10 1:26:18 PM

#7 GWB is known for holding a grudge. And the government budget needs to get closer to being balanced. How much longer d'you suppose Egypt is going to continue being given that $2bil/year payoff money (for having signed that peace treaty with Israel)?

Posted by: trailing wife 2005-01-10 12:48:15 PM

#6 "Washington sources add that the administration views the performance of its Arab friends at Tunis as one of the most painful contretemps it has suffered in the war on global terror and a grave setback to its aspirations to lead the Middle East to stable democratic government, starting with the Palestinians and moving on to Iraq."

For some reason I cannot dredge up simpathy for the administration.

Posted by: gromgorru 2005-01-10 10:56:11 AM

#5 What is different about Afghanistan? Democracy seems to be working there with the exception of a few warts occasionally?

Well, to their credit, Afghans aren't Arabs...

What happened in Tunis left the Americans astonished and outraged by what they saw as a betrayal by their purported Arab friends.

There is very little that our supposed Arab "friends" could do that would surprise or astonish this American...

Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2005-01-10 10:36:14 AM

#4 The mask comes off. I wouldn't say it's a good thing, but it is a major milestone in the WOT.

I remember in the buildup to the war of Afghanistan and Iraq, a similar even occurred when NPR, BBC and other news networks just chucked most of their pretenses that they cared about the oppressed or the victims of 911 and stripped off the mask of compassion, making it shockingly clear that they would say or do ANYTHING to try to stop the Americans from going to war. Right before the war started, I remember being shocked, like I am in this article, that they were willing to trash the benefits of their long term reputation for the short term gain. But they did.

I think it's a good thing and shows desperation when one side is forced to show their mal intentions. Sort of like when you play Hearts and it becomes clear to the other players that you are going for broke. It instantly changes the strategy of the game.

Posted by: 2b 2005-01-10 9:51:57 AM

#3 Gee - I wonder why the governments of Egypt, Saudi Arabia would be wary of a successful democratic election in Iraq?

Posted by: Carlos 2005-01-10 9:39:42 AM

#2 What happened in Tunis left the Americans astonished and outraged by what they saw as a betrayal by their purported Arab friends. The key resolution said: âArab interior ministers condemned all terrorist acts in Iraq targeting Iraqi security agents and the Iraqi police, as well as businesses and public, economic, humanitarian and religious institutions.â There was not a single cross word for the acts of violence against American troops or coalition allies.

This omission went down with Bush administration officials as not far short of a pan-Arab license to kill non-Iraqis, namely Americans and its allied forces.

What is different about Afghanistan? Democracy seems to be working there with the exception of a few warts occasionally? Our Arab friends(?) better get off the dime. We cannot tolerate the duplicity of these politics. We have put up with duplicitous politics for too long. Arabia and its neighbors are trying to have it both ways--appease--no support the jihadists while at the same time acting like our friends.

Posted by: John Q. Citizen 2005-01-10 9:37:12 AM

#1 "Washington sources add that the administration views the performance of its Arab friends at Tunis as one of the most painful contretemps it has suffered in the war on global terror and a grave setback to its aspirations to lead the Middle East to stable democratic government, starting with the Palestinians and moving on to Iraq."

Having gone to significant trouble to lead the Muslim/Arab horse to the waterhole of democracy, I'm sure we'd like very, very much for it to drink. Very much, indeed.

But either it will drink, or it will not.

And if it chooses not to drink, I don't think we will be losing a trememdous amount of sleep over it. In that event we will conclude this little "Muslim Democracy" exercise knowing two things: 1) we did our level best to show them the way, and 2) they, in the end, proved utterly incorrigible.

And in that case, that knowledge would inform our response to any future Muslim terrorist attack: the resulting war would not be a war of liberation and reform-- it will be a war of extermination.

Posted by: Dave D. 2005-01-10 9:05:57 AM

00:00