And just as in the Cold War, they appear to prefer authoritarian to democratic regimes if the latter risks empowering Islamic radicals, as they make clear in yet another directive: "In the Middle East, democratization does not mean calling immediate elections and then living with whatever happens next," they write.
"That was tried in Algeria in 1995 [sic], and it would have brought the Islamic extremists to power as the only available alternative to the corrupt status quo. Democratization means opening political spaces in which Middle Eastern people can express concrete grievances in ways that bring action to improve their lives."
While the authors stress that democratization also requires protecting minorities and women, the message that comes through is that democracy is not their highest priority, the neo-conservatives' frequent protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.
The Monitor even provides a link to some excerpts from and commentary on the book at a Web site called Infoshop News, which bills itself as a source for "anarchist, activist and alternative news" (!).
And there is a link to a review in the Economist [UK] of 01/08/04, which expresses surprise that Frum and Perle advocate that the US should encourage Britain to support America against Europe. Hello, haven't they been listening to the anti-European polemics in the Republican Party even before 9/11?
This link isn't in the Monitor blog, but Frum and Perle did an appearance on NPR last week, which FDTate313 was kind enough to point out to me.
1 comment:
There's democracy, then there's democracy.
I've wondered how far the Bushies would allow democracy to go in Iraq. Would they allow the people to vote in an Islamic government? Would they allow an anti-American government? Guess that answers those questions.
Post a Comment