Important Middle East News

Why not avail of Western democracy in the Middle East?

Mon Aug 18 2014 07:49 | (Voice of Iraq) - Add Comment - By Sir Andrew Green, a former American ambassador in
During this writing, it appears that the crisis Mount Sinjar has found the solution, but the horrific scenes which dominated the television screens in recent weeks, and press reports have extolled the public opinion. People are asking us to do everything we can to help Christians and Yazidis, who are exposed to fierce persecution, and they have the right to do so, that is a problem that should not go unnoticed. Million people have been displaced since gunmen seized control of an Islamic state on the areas in northern Iraq. Yesterday warned the governor of Dohuk, "a campaign of genocide" with asylum hundreds of thousands of displaced people there. So, what can we do? This requires us a realistic assessment on the ground and our ability to change it. It is certain that the situation in the Middle East is a mess and now more dangerous than it was half a century ago.

We have demonstrated the enthusiasm of yesteryear toward the Arab Spring it completely misleading, since led to chaos in Egypt and Libya. Those who said they were determined to be on the "right side of history" now find themselves on the wrong side of the conflict. Democracy is not the solution to a very complex societies, and that the intervention of the West further complicates matters. The main reason for our failure is that those of democracy, as we understand it, does not work in the countries of the Middle East, where family and clan and community and personal friendships excel on the state apparatus. These communities are not governed by the law, but on the contrary, the best description of it is that it is communities' service in return for service. " When faced with a problem of some sort, you are looking for someone close to the family or clan or region to help you get out and are rarely refused to do so because of the strength of these relationships.
In countries that lack effective social security, the security of one's future lies only in the big family WAN. Beyond this lies the chaotic structure of the secret police and the armed forces, they are unfamiliar with the state-sponsored reunification president or king or any leader was. So the commander maintains the various elements in the society through the manipulation of concessions for each group, but has an iron fist used when necessary, and the citizens know it well. We can find those models in President Mubarak in Egypt, and al-Assad in Syria, and Saddam Hussein in Iraq, and not unlike Jordan, Bahrain and Saudi Arabia in it, but less severely, but the iron fist ready when necessary. With this, Valmugodon in the latter three countries believe today that the republic is the best option.

The West's failure to understand what is going on inside these countries have disastrous effects. Iraq is a classic case. I was opposed to the invasion of this country, not because I like Saddam, but rather because I believe that the alternative would be worse. I was worried that Ajtiahana destroy the stability of the Gulf, which was - since the fall of the Shah in 1979 - depends on the trio of Iran, Iraq and Saudi Arabia (the recent Western-backed). This is exactly what happened, we find today that the Iranians are in a position to dominate the Gulf region.

Internally, the result was even worse, where the army was dissolved (although some say that the same solution), then the prohibition of Americans Baath Party - the only political organization in the country. The party was definitely one of the means of Saddam's rule but it was not entirely bad, as was every official in the Soviet Union was forced to be a member of the Communist Party, as well as Iraqi officials were forced to belong to the Baath Party. The result was the fragmentation of the social structure and the country's political fully. After the sweep stop rule "service versus service" and stop ruling the country. After a short period, elections were praised by Washington. There was wide participation of the Shiites, who they must have Anzhluwa naivety of the occupiers. As it turns out, has proved Nuri al-Maliki - the Iraqi prime minister, who finally forced to step down this week - that a copy of a Shiite Saddam, at least as he sees the year. In fact, the strong indignation of the Sunni tribes in the north of the country which is allowed for the Islamic state to obtain quick gains surprised the governments of the West and the region.

We in the West do not have a lot of perception about the mutual hatred between these two communities Alaslametin.

It's like the hatred between Protestants and Catholics in the past, and even increase them, then add them to the regional power struggle. Today, we have the leading Sunni power, Saudi Arabia, which feels threatened by the growing power of Iran, the standard bearer for the Shiites with the spread of its influence in Syria and Lebanon - Shiite arc that Saudi Arabia plans to oppose it.

Where our interests lie now? We have a humanitarian interest in providing effective aid to hundreds of thousands of displaced people fleeing the bloody violence of Islamist fighters. That protection requires the consolidation of stability on the front line dominated Iraqi Kurds, they alone who are able to so also acknowledged the foreign ministers of the United States and the European Union - during their session emergency in Brussels yesterday, the first - and too primed ammunition and equipment and information they need. And is very likely to be necessary air support, at least for a few months, but any post that ground forces would be a serious mistake. With the necessary presence of a small number of special forces at the site directing air strikes him, it can not allow that, "crawling task", not long ago, causing the presence of Western forces in stirring resentment and hostility.

After confronting the immediate crisis, we need to prevent the development of the Islamic state, and this will require a functioning government in Baghdad must take steps to gain the loyalty of Sunni tribes that can contain the Islamic extremists if they wanted it. After that we review our current systems in Tehran and Damascus and this is the least we can do. Islamic State pose a significant threat to stability in the entire Middle East. Moreover, it establishes an area under the control of Islamic extremists pose a threat to Britain itself, Valdoa├║r security was clear in pointing to the dangers of "rebound" - and is that young Britons out of Britain to fight and then come back and they have aggressive intentions. These risks will be exacerbated by any success achieved by the Islamic state belonging to them because they will look up to him as proof of God's favor and grace in favor of their cause.

To be active in the region and to ensure our own security, we must - and if for once - to learn from the past and make sure that our policy to take into account the internal dynamics of the countries in the region. Can not afford more mistakes. The growing chaos in the Middle East pose a real threat to our economy and peace in our society, but on the whole world peace.
Comments