Democarcy, YEAH!

President Bush has been rather unambiguous (and by this I mean rabid and terrifying, in the eyes of some) about his calling (some have called it more a quest, some have likened it to a crusade) to spread democracy throughout the world. Indeed, he used to spread his references out, but sometimes he goes right ahead and links the following: (1) We are at war with Terror. (2) This war is indefinite. (3) The criterion for ending this war is to root out tyranny across the globe, including any and all regimes that would aid or abet terrorists. (4) The only way to achieve (3) is to spread democracy to all peoples.

So what happens when good democratic citizens in a good democratic election vote for an organization declared by the US to be terrorists? Answer: do everything in your power to subvert and remove them.

The New York Times revealed yesterday that, “according to Israeli officials and Western diplomats,” The US and Israel are “discussing ways to destabilize the Palestinian government so that newly elected Hamas officials will fail and elections will be called again. The intention is to starve the Palestinian Authority of money and international connections to the point where, some months from now, its president, Mahmoud Abbas, is compelled to call a new election. The hope is that Palestinians will be so unhappy with life under Hamas that they will return to office a reformed and chastened Fatah movement. The officials also argue that a close look at the election results shows that Hamas won a smaller mandate than previously understood. The officials and diplomats, who said this approach was being discussed at the highest levels of the State Department and the Israeli government, spoke on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to speak publicly on the issue. Today, Israeli and American officials said there was no ‘plan’ or ‘plot’ to destabilize a Hamas government.”

On the one hand, this is consistent with standing law: it is illegal for the US or Israel to provide any material assistance (including funds) to a declared terrorist organization. On the other hand, the Bush administration must either completely rewrite its foreign policy, or it must admit that it is based on a thinly veiled hypocrisy. In either case, the result is the same: stated quite simply, the United States is not interested in spreading democracy, or in its claim that this is an inalienable universal right. The United States is interested in like-minded governments. What makes this so sad is that the moral high ground has been pulled from underneath the administration. That is, they have been praised by most of their critics in their decision to promote democracy around the world, rather than using the Cold War strategy of directly and indirectly installing strongmen in places of turmoil and anti-American sentiment. Unfortunately for them, even in an election that offered several viable candidates and almost no voting irregularities, the people might just vote for a party that hates America almost as much as Israel.

For or against the president, everyone will admit that American credibility has greatly receded in the international community over the last few years. Nevertheless, even our critics laud our position on democracy (cf. the cover of the last Economist). But what happens if, after using our influence to get the Palestinians voting in legitimate elections, we use our influence to remove a legitimately established democratic government?

(Incidentally, choice of wording is always very important when officials speak. For example, everyone from McClellan down has categorically denied that the US or Israel have a “plan, project, plot, conspiracy” to undermine or destabilize the Palestinian government. OK. No body said that you did. Rather, the NYT reported that the US and Israel are “discussing ways” to do these things. Thus, anybody could testify that they don’t have a “plan” (etc.), because as of yet they apparently don’t.)

-W.