CNN reports that Condi is at it again:
“We are supporting the democratic aspirations of all people,” Rice said. “As President Bush said in his second inaugural address: ‘America will not impose our style of government on the unwilling. Our goal instead is to help others find their own voice, to attain their own freedom, make their own way.'”
“The people of Egypt should be at the forefront of this great journey, just as you have led this region through the great journeys of the past,” she said.
Wouldn’t that be wonderful? I can, in my mind’s eye, imagine Egypt as a shining example of human rights, free speech, vibrant economic activity and innovation…
Yes! I can picture it. So can Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit:
“Who would object to fair, transparent elections?” said Gheit. “Everyone wants free and transparent elections — and it will be so, I assure you.”
Indeed. I am convinced it shall be so. Rice tells us what’s at stake. Per usual, her words carry an unintended truthfulness:
… it is going to be essential that those elections be free and fair, that there be an opportunity for the opposition to have access to media, that there is a sense of competitiveness in the elections.”
Yes, it is essential that there be a ‘sense’ of legitimacy in all our celebrated elections.
has a story on last week about Private Security Details in Iraq and one guy was talking about how “the Iraqis need to work on their upper body strength” and “we are trying to get them to not be so effeminate and to stop holding hands”
No we are not trying to impose our “style” of government on them, just our culture. But that’s not all
I heard a discussion with a couple people recently, two of whom were working with the Iraqi Railroad to rebuild it and another who is a US attorney and was in Iraq working on their judicial system.
The comment was made that one of the goals of the consultants working in the railroad was to get it prepared to split off from being government run and into a private industry. Which led to a discussion about how that was hard because the Iraqis are used to free rail service and a number of other things and that getting them used to capitalism would take a while.
So we are not forcing out “style of government” on them, but we are for sure imposing our style of economics on them. but why? I understand wanting the iraqi people to choose their government and governing style, but how can we then turn around in impose our economic system on them. Why is it ingrained in American psyche that democracy = free market capitalism?
Hopefully this is close enough to on subject for this thread.
to your question is complicated.
Iraq’s economy was broken from 30 years of war, corruption and sanctions. Free-market true believers thought they could simultaneously enrich themselves, and spur investment and economic growth, by creating a regulatory free zone, and by privatizing all the state industries.
Aside from some inherent utopianism in their economic vision, it was a bad time to add economic upheaval to the list of other problems in a post-Saddam Iraq. It threw a lot of people out of work, made other’s businesses non-competitive, and cost countless others their livelihood.
In the long run, Iraq might benefit from a period of free-wheeling robber baron capitalism, followed by a period of reform and oversight. But we should not have added this turmoil to the bubbling brew. Let the Shi’a government do the looting, they’ve earned a chance at the till.
dream as it now stands with a dash of Christian fundamentalism and a sprinkling of general insanity is to impose “our” culture, “our” political system, “our” economic system on “them”. Of course “they” know no better and will have to learn from “master” the errors of their previous culture and system. Oh and I’m sure we can find a few harvard educated ex-pats who havent lived in their own country since birth to become our overlords of the newly free, democratic, and market orientated client states we will create.
Iran has more democratic institutions. Now shouldnt Condivamp be praising Iran on such a competative election with a higher turnout than a US presidential election can manage?
Ah no but I’m sure she’ll be out praising the Hariri anti-Syrian alliance (as labelled by the US) victory in the Lebannon while turning a blind eye to the “quaint tradition” of exactly how the seats are allocated to ensure no majority rule, and the rather well kept secret (in the West) of exactly who Hariri allied with to gain seats in the third round of voting, and I’m sure she’ll be happy that at least one country in the world has a worse turnout than the US.