l****z
发帖数: 29846 | 1 by Rachel Marsden
02/20/2011
A new article in Der Spiegel magazine—the German equivalent of Time or
Newsweek—applauds George W. Bush for his vision of democracy in the Middle
East, and credits him for the fact that authoritarian regimes in the region
are being kicked to the curb.
"Painful as it may be to admit, it was the despised former U.S. President
George W. Bush who believed in the democratization of the Muslim world and
incurred the scorn and mockery of the Left for his conviction," says the
piece by Jan Fleischhauer.
Hear that? That's the sound of bowls full of Whole Foods organic granola
smashing to the ground. Before we get carried away and cause people to dive
off bridges as a result of having to think of George W. Bush as a Nobel
Peace Prize candidate, let's consider some reasons presented by various
sources so far as to why Bush may not, in fact, be responsible for the
tsunami of change we're currently witnessing in Islamic nations.
1. The wave of change started in Africa, with the people of the Ivory Coast
elections in December 2010 refusing to allow permanent fixture President
Laurent Gbagbo to stay in power after losing democratic elections to rival
Alassane Ouattara. The people rioted until he left, during which the UN
reported hundreds of arrests, dozens of murders, and significant torture by
Gbagbo's men. This was arguably the spark that ignited the whole region:
Just a democratic election in which someone refused to rightfully vacate his
seat. Days later, the people of nearby Tunisia seem to have decided that
their guy, Ben Ali, had been in power long enough (23 years) and wasn't
likely to leave of his own volition. So they gave him a bit of a shove.
2. George W. Bush may have said he had a vision of Islamic democracy, but
what he really meant was that it was a side-effect of avenging his dad in
the wake of the Gulf War. Kind of like when so-called do-gooders volunteer
to be candy stripers in hospitals, not because they enjoy giving of
themselves to people suffering, but rather because they like that sweet
discount they get on the cafeteria food.
3. Bush didn't "show a man how to fish." He reached into the swamp, pulled
out the shark with his bare hands, and hanged it in a secure facility north
of Baghdad. You're not supposed to do that. You're supposed to wait until
the locals figure it out. But would the other Islamic countries living
under authoritarianism have figured it out on their own—or was Iraq an
icebreaker?
4. Bush didn't invade Saudia Arabia. Or Iran. Or strap himself onto the
back of a rocket and take care of business himself like in Dr. Strangelove.
So he clearly didn't do enough!
5. War doesn't create peace. Naive kids in floppy blue hats traipsing
around in conflict zones create peace and change. Through joy and smiles,
silly.
6. The Internet did it. (LOLZ!) Keyboard warriors making FaceBook pages/
groups and Twittering viciously caused real-world dictators with guns,
weapons, and armies to capitulate. (LMAO!)
Theories abound, but there was only one man in recent memory who actively
leveled the field, in the legitimate opening provided by the September 11
attacks, to give the seed of democracy a chance in both the Islamic nations
of Afghanistan and Iraq. And he did it for one very clear reason from Day 1
, and which he still repeats: To provide a beacon of democracy in the
Middle East, an example for others to follow. Maybe that hope is indeed
playing a factor in the collapse of the regimes we're currently witnessing.
Or maybe it's just a total coincidence that the interests of the average
person in the region are now directly aligned with Bush's vision and actions
, for which he has been—and is still—horribly maligned. If people are
willing to credit silly Internet entries of 140 characters each for such
massive change, then perhaps we can agree that it would be reasonable to
acknowledge the efforts of a President whose entire mandate was focused in
part on this phenomenon coming to fruition.
One thing that Bush can no longer be criticized for is "making things worse"
in the region—unless one believes that people overthrowing authoritarian
regimes on their own is a bad development. What ends up replacing these
governments is another issue—but the opportunity is now there for them to
not blow. Nor do I care to hear a peep from current or former EU leaders
who profited from exclusive trade relationships with these dictatorial
regimes (Chirac—good luck in your corruption trial this year), while either
sitting on their hands during Bush's active efforts or criticizing his
vision outright.
Then there are those who take it a step further and accept flights and
vacations provided by this same type of paper tiger dictator in Egypt (
former French Prime Minister Francois Fillon) and Tunisia (French Foreign
Affairs Minister Michele Alliot-Marie and her junior government minister
husband, Who F. Cares), apparently not noticing or caring that crawling into
the dumpster might in fact result in being taken out to the dump along with
the trash.
Much like George W. Bush, I suppose I can still dream. |
|
