In an article published April 2, 2008, Omran Salman, editor-in-chief of the Arab liberal website Aafaq, wrote that the U.S. administration has given up on the push for democracy in the Middle East and is hiding behind the excuse that the Arab regimes are "in transition."
The following are excerpts:[1]
"George Bush's Calls for the Spread of Democracy… Deprived the Political Class in Washington of Sleep"
"As is well known, most Arab regimes are undemocratic, at least by American standards. Consequently, the king, prince or president remains in office as long as God wills it – and [then] perhaps passes his title to his son after him...
"Some of the Arab regimes are allied with Washington, and some are [even] close allies, while others display varying positions ranging from apathy to hostility.
"Since democracy was not a decisive and defining element of the U.S.'s relations with Arab regimes in the past, President George Bush's calls for the spread of democracy, and his talk of previous American errors, deprived the political class in Washington of their sleep – particularly State Department circles, since, by dint of their role, they were the most friendly and closest to the Arab governments."
The New Magic Word: 'Transition'
"How could the U.S. protect its interests in the region, and at the same time work to transform its ally Arab regimes and encourage them to swallow the bitter pill of democracy?"
"[The U.S. also asked itself] a practical question: To what extent can we pressure this or that regime to commit to democratic change, and at the same time ask this regime to cooperate on issues ranging from counterterrorism to stabilizing Iraq?'..."
"But the confusion in official circles did not last very long. The American administration decided to retreat to safe positions in the back rows of the theater.
"However, the administration could not do so without making certain linguistic and diplomatic adjustments, meant to convince whoever needed convincing that the previous policy had been unrealistic, and that it was necessary to adopt a new policy.
"It is the U.S. Department of State which is usually entrusted with [the task of] developing interpretations and choosing appropriate terms to describe the form and nature of dealings with various states and governments. Apparently, some officials there applied their minds [to the problem] and came up with new term, which has [since] become something of a watchword... This word is 'transition.'"
"The Problem Is that the Term "Transition" Has Nothing to Do with the Transition of the Arab Regimes from Arbitrary Rule to Democracy"
"The [State Department's] explanation went something like this: 'Yes, some of our allies in the Arab region are not democratic, but in contrast to the hostile regimes, they are in a phase of 'transition' towards democracy. This requires us to encourage them to move forward on this path, instead of exerting pressure on them!'
"And because they are in a 'phase of transition,' they know better than anyone else what their circumstances and needs are, and whether they should adopt this measure or that… The Arab regimes know best what the interests of their societies are, and what is to the benefit or to the detriment of their people. [They know best] whether it is sufficient at this time to have elections for municipalities, or for advisory councils, or for assemblies that are half elected and half appointed!...
"But the problem is that this use of the term 'transition' has nothing to do with the transition of the Arab regimes from arbitrary rule to democracy. It is [merely] meant to justify the American [decision] to back down from its commitment to promoting democracy in the region. [It is meant to] allow [the U.S.] it to refrain from exerting direct pressure on these regimes to accelerate reforms towards the building of a democratic system.
"Since this is the aim of the American administration, this 'transitional stage' is of unspecified duration – it could last a few years, or a decade, or a century – whatever [happens] to be convenient.
"[The claim that these regimes are in 'transition'] is a major buffer against any criticism [that might be leveled] at Washington over its laxity in putting pressure on repressive regimes. The reply is now ready at hand: 'They are in a phase of transition.'
"Furthermore, these regimes themselves will use it to repel domestic criticism. Here, too, the answer will be: 'You must wait, for we are in a phase of transition. The greatest democratic power in the world, America, has acknowledged this'!..."
[1] www.aafaq.org, April 2, 2008.
