Monologues are no fun
I tried 10 days ago to get some other perspectives about a topic that has been troubling me, but only Cileia wanted to join in :o(
As much as I value Cileia's opinion, i can't help thinking there are other people out there (student/graduates of Political Science, for example...) who would also have views to share.
I found another very interesting article on Friday evening to add to this little debate.
And today i had another, more worrying thought. I can remember during several history & politics lessons at School being taught the 'Axiom' that democracies don't go to war with one another. Given that both Gaza & Lebanon are countries that have democratically elected their own governments, the current fighting between these 2 countries and Israel seems to suggest that this faith in the democratic 'solution' was misplaced.
Does the mistake lie rather in the whole logic, or just in the speed of implementation / transition?
What has interested me for several weeks is how the US has been forced to temporarily 'forget' its stance on democracy, now that it is faced with the prospect of these 2 countries having democratically elected governments that it simply doesn't like (or at least some members of them) It seems the US Administration is prepared to accept democracy, as long as it agrees with the choice made by the electorate in the country concerned - i.e as long as they elect a US-friendly government. When this is not the case, the democratic credentials seem to be quickly forgotten. Does anyone else find this a little hard to swallow, coming from a man who has so vehemently argued for the further spread of democracy?
Incidentally, i wonder what would have happened if the rest of the world had adopted the US attitude to democracy towards the US itself. Could Jacques Chirac get away with saying that the US is undemocratic because he doesn't agree with the choice its people made in 2 successive elections? That would spice up the Security Council meetings, wouldn't it? :o)
As much as I value Cileia's opinion, i can't help thinking there are other people out there (student/graduates of Political Science, for example...) who would also have views to share.
I found another very interesting article on Friday evening to add to this little debate.
And today i had another, more worrying thought. I can remember during several history & politics lessons at School being taught the 'Axiom' that democracies don't go to war with one another. Given that both Gaza & Lebanon are countries that have democratically elected their own governments, the current fighting between these 2 countries and Israel seems to suggest that this faith in the democratic 'solution' was misplaced.
Does the mistake lie rather in the whole logic, or just in the speed of implementation / transition?
What has interested me for several weeks is how the US has been forced to temporarily 'forget' its stance on democracy, now that it is faced with the prospect of these 2 countries having democratically elected governments that it simply doesn't like (or at least some members of them) It seems the US Administration is prepared to accept democracy, as long as it agrees with the choice made by the electorate in the country concerned - i.e as long as they elect a US-friendly government. When this is not the case, the democratic credentials seem to be quickly forgotten. Does anyone else find this a little hard to swallow, coming from a man who has so vehemently argued for the further spread of democracy?
Incidentally, i wonder what would have happened if the rest of the world had adopted the US attitude to democracy towards the US itself. Could Jacques Chirac get away with saying that the US is undemocratic because he doesn't agree with the choice its people made in 2 successive elections? That would spice up the Security Council meetings, wouldn't it? :o)
posted by Rob at
5:46 PM
1 Comments:
I have to point out, that the lebanese government stated, that they consider the current war as a war between israel and the Hisbollah. Not as one might suppose as a war between lebanon and Isreal. For this reason lebanese soldiers are not actively involved in the fighting. The USA on the other hand stated that they want a free and democratically elected government in the Lebanon. BUT the crucial point is that they want a government with the ability to crush any paramilitary groups such as the hisbollah. The plans in the white house are to let Israel crush the hisbollah and then to develop Lebanon so far that it can independently (without involvement of Iran and Syria) control the country. This is supposed to curb the influence of Iran and reduce the pressure exerted by terroristic groups on Israel. Crucial in this process will be that Israel gives up the Shebaa farms it occupied. Syria and Lebanon both claim ownership of this small strip of land. The Hisbollah used it as a legitimation for its existence. A good approach would be to return the Shebaa farms to Syria in exchange for a Peace Treaty. This would help to Isolate the Hisbollah and it would loose its legitimacy.
Post a Comment
<< Home