Palestinian democracy

Condoleezza Rice, in an interview with the Financial Times this week, was invited to reflect on the dilemmas of promoting democracy in the Middle East. Would the Bush administration continue to push for democratic elections, Rice was asked, even though it was now having to deal with elected militias in Lebanon, Iraq and Palestine? Rice was unequivocal: every time, she said, she would choose “elections and democracy, even if it brings to power people that we don’t like.” She has been consistent on this point: in September 2005, Rice was asked about Hamas’s participation in the forthcoming Palestinian elections. She argued then that while “you cannot have an armed option within the democratic process”, it was also important to recognise that the Palestinian political process was “in transition”: “we have to give the Palestinians some room for the evolution of their political process”.

Since Hamas won, the US has taken a number of measures to influence the Palestinian political situation and to change the government’s policies. The US and its partners in the Quartet issued a statement that in the Quartet’s view, “all members of a future Palestinian government must be committed to non-violence, recogition of Israel, and acceptance of previous agreements and obligations, including the Road Map.” US officials immediately ceased contact with all Palestinian government officials, and terminated funding to all PA government-administered projects. The US Treasury imposed restrictions on private banks dealing with the PA. At the same time, funding and support to the office of President Mahmoud Abbas, to the security services that report to him, and to his Fatah party, continued or increased. (more…)

The sentimentalization of the armed forces

I’m glad the government is finally realizing how badly it has played the Iran hostage crisis. It reacted in a typical New Labour way, just like Tony Blair reacted to Diana’s death – get them out there, talking to the press about how difficult the experience was for the poor fellows. There was no sense that this was a major national embarrassment, that they’d given up without any sort of resistance, that it made us look weak to the rest of the world. There was no sense of the Stoicism once associated with British military strength. Instead it was all touchy-feely sentimentalism. I’m not saying I wouldn’t crumple like a box of corn flakes at the first hint of torture, but if I was a soldier, I wouldn’t then sell the story of how I crumpled to the international media.

This is an example of how the rest of the world sees the episode. It’s an opinion piece by Yulia Latinya, a leading Russian journalist (as well as classicist) who hosts a political talk show on Ekho Moskvy radio:

(more…)