Thoughts on "Breaking the Real Axis of Evil"

I recently read “Breaking the Real Axis of Evil: How to Oust the World’s Last Dictator’s by 2025” by former ambassador Mark Palmer. It’s an interesting book, and I more or less agree with its basic premise that the world would be a better place without dictatorships, and I thought that many ideas for bring about such a world are interesting. I do have some quibbles with the book however.

Misrepresentation (or, more charitably, misinterpretation)

-Palmer inexplicably claims that “more women have led Islamic countries than have led non-Islamic democracies….” Honestly, I have no idea what math Palmer is using. By 2003, the year the book was written, there had been one female head of state and six female heads of government of Islamic states. What Palmer means by female leaders of non-Islamic democracies could be tricky, since he may mean women who were elected rather than appointed. I personally don’t think that there should be a difference given the fact that either way the transfer of power would be based upon a rule of law. However, to rattle off just a few of the female heads of government who were elected before 2003: Indira Gandhi, Golda Meir, Margaret Thatcher, Corazon Aquino, Helen Clark, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, Mireya Moscoso, Violeta Chamorro, and Eugenia Charles.

-In his afterword, written in 2005, Palmer writes about Russia backsliding into Not Free status. He claims that Putin’s popularity in Russia is in decline as a result. I think this is blatantly wishful thinking on Palmer’s part. While there has been a steady opposition to Putin in Russia, a vast majority of Russians support him and have supported him throughout his presidency and premiership.

Over-simplifications

-Palmer writes only a couple of paragraphs on Palestine, which (justifiably) criticize Yasser Arafat, as well as call for elections in Palestine. While the government of the Palestinian Authority has some responsibility for the poor lot of Palestinians, I would argue that the Israeli occupation of Palestine is more to blame. Additionally, Palmer failed to even mention Hamas, let alone anticipate its victory in the 2006 parliamentary elections.

-In what was essentially a throwaway sentence, Palmer writes that the issue of Kashmir will only be resolved when Pakistan is democratic. This may, in essence, be true, as a dictatorship would be likely to use the conflict to shore up support among Pakistanis. Considering, however, that there have been periods of democratic rule in Pakistan which did not resolve the conflict, it appears that merely hoping that democracy will end the problem is dangerously simplistic.

-Palmer pays little attention to the problem of democratization in multi-ethnic or multi-sectarian states. As we have seen in Iraq and Lebanon, democratic government can result in inter-group clashes, where differences are used for political advantage, or even result in merciless violence.

-Dictatorship is typically considered to be the absolute rule by one individual. Palmer reinforces this conceptualization by frequently referring to the forty-five individuals who are the world’s “least wanted.” A few of these dictatorships, however, are hardly run by individuals. Some, while they may have individual figures who represent the government, are in fact run by groups of people, such as some single-party governments and military juntas. Palmer seems to recognize this by dividing the dictatorships into typologies, including military dictatorships and one-party dictatorships, but he persists in identifying the regimes with single individuals.

Random acts of bizarreness

-Palmer arbitrarily picks a single warlord as Somalia’s “dictator” to be ousted. Google "Somalia" if you don't understand how ridiculous this is.

-Palmer criticizes Bhutan’s then-king for cracking down on pro-democracy activists. This may be true, and I’m not an expert on Bhutan, but I find this behavior to be rather odd since a few years later the king abdicated in favor of his son, and, at the same time, made Bhutan a constitutional monarchy with an elected parliament. From what I’ve gathered, throughout the ’90s and ’00s, Bhutan actually was preparing for the transition into democracy despite the apathy that the Bhutanese had for self-government.

-Palmer lumps the central Asian –stans in with the Middle East, as well as North African states, and calls them all the Greater Middle East. I’ll admit that the term “Middle East” is pretty arbitrary, as well as the group of countries that are included in it, but creating a “Greater Middle East” makes even less sense. The countries involved are hardly all that similar, especially the central Asian states when compared to the Arab states.

Honest disagreement

-Palmer, in his prescription for ousting Iran’s dictator, argues that the United States has taken the wrong lesson from the American-backed 1953 coup: that Iranians don’t appreciate our involvement in Iranian domestic affairs. Instead, Palmer argues, the lesson should be that the US has influence in Iran; it just needs to use it to support Iranian democrats. I disagree. Pretty much all of the literature I have read on Iran states that, in general Iranians love Americans, as well as many of the ideals of America, but have a deep distrust, even dislike, for the American government. Openly aligning ourselves with Iranian democrats is probably the best way to ensure that they are viewed with skepticism by the Iranian population as a whole.

The Flyer editorial: Former President Jimmy Carter under criticism for Hamas meeting (backdated)

Looking back on this editorial, I'm a little surprised that I didn't receive any negative feedback. I feel like it was a topic that should have instigated some sort of debate, if not the labeling of my person with derogatory words.
Originally published in The Flyer on April 22nd, 2008.
------------------------------------------
Last week, former President Jimmy Carter met with the leaders of the Palestinian organization Hamas. This meeting has been met with much criticism because Hamas is considered to be a terrorist organization by many countries, including the United States. This designation is the result of Hamas’ refusal to recognize Israel’s right to exist and its sponsoring of attacks against the country.... (Link to article on The Flyer's website.)

The Flyer editorial: America's forced democracy: Right or wrong? (backdated)

This is the first editorial I wrote for The Flyer. I personally think the headline is unfortunate. I would have preferred something like "America's support for dictators: Is it necessary?" But that's what I get for not suggesting a headline....

Originally printed on Sept. 12, 2007
_____________________________________________________________________________________

In a matter of weeks, two former prime ministers of Pakistan will have emerged from planes that will have brought them back to their homeland after years of exile. The impending return of these two expatriate politicians, Benazir Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif, coincides with a resurgence of democratic sympathies within their nation. Pakistanis, frustrated by years of the military wielding excessive influence in their government, are beginning to demand the end of General Pervez Musharraf’s rule. Until recently, Musharraf, a U.S. ally in the “War on Terror,” had received dogged support from America despite his attempts to consolidate power and suppress dissent.

During his second inaugural address, President Bush declared, “[I]t is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements… in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.” His administration would also “encourage reform [in other nations] by making clear that success in our relations will require the decent treatment of their own people.” Today, after two and a half years have passed, the U.S. government has apparently decided to fulfill its promise to democracy.

Last month, it was reported that, because of widespread opposition to his government, Musharraf considered proclaiming a state of emergency, which would have been tantamount to declaring martial law. According to reports from Pakistani officials, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called General Musharraf and convinced him not to take such a drastic step. It appears that the United States has decided that Musharraf needs to refrain from heavy-handed tactics and permit some level of dissent in his country or support for his regime would be jeopardized. This is a direct contrast to U.S. policies towards other states. For example, the United States touts its reasonably good relations with non-democratic Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the People’s Republic of China, and until recently, Russia.

There have been doubts expressed about the ability of democracy to flourish in certain regions of the world, especially in the Middle East. Many critics believe that aspects of the region’s culture, particularly the prevalence of Islam, hinder the growth of the democratic process and view human rights as less important than other issues. Others believe that democracy in the area risks stability and peace more than the autocratic governments already in place. The victories of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Iranian elections in 2005 and Hamas in Palestine in 2006 would suggest that the underlying trend is towards fundamental Islamic government. However, there are other factors involved.

In 1979, when the Islamic revolution overcame Iran, the movement had the support of the population because of the simple fact that it had actually succeeded where other movements had failed. For decades, the royal family of Iran had enjoyed strong American support in exchange for access to resources, such as oil, and cooperation during the Cold War. Among the acts of support the U.S. provided was the overthrow of a democratically elected government and any reform movements that threatened the status quo. As a result, when the shah was overthrown, the populace backed the revolutionaries. This revolutionary movement became the backbone of the Iranian political authority, and still has considerable influence in Iranian politics today.

Fears that the Palestinians have become supportive of violent extremists are unfounded and simplistic. The little-known truth behind Hamas’ surprising victory in 2006 was the result of a poorly organized campaign by the ruling party, Fatah. Hamas’ campaign centered on the need for reform in the Palestinian Authority and strategically chose their candidates. Fatah, on the other hand, was unable to decide on sole nominees, which split Fatah votes and allowed Hamas to emerge victorious. It is an accepted truth that poorly organized parties will have a smaller probability of winning than organized parties. It has little to do with fundamentalism.

Perhaps the best argument that there can be Islamic democracies is the fact that there are some in existence today. Indonesia, the world’s most populous Muslim nation, has a thriving and stable democracy, as does Turkey, a state that values secularism highly. Both of these nations have issues, and are not perfect, but then again, is there such a thing as a perfect government?

Democracy and Islam are not incompatible. Secretary Rice’s phone call to General Musharraf needs to be the first step in a change of U.S. policy. The world does not need strongmen presiding over shallow democracies in order to be safe. Let Pakistanis choose their own government. Let freedom ring.