Unhelpful Meddling
The current administration's idea of foreign policy generally involves bombs, but occasionally it also likes to interfere in elections. The results of both approaches have been disasterous, as an article in today's NY Times points out.
The paradox of American policy in the Middle East — promoting democracy on the assumption it will bring countries closer to the West — is that almost everywhere there are free elections, the American-backed side tends to lose.
Lebanon’s voters in the Metn district, in other words, appeared to have joined the Palestinians, who voted for Hamas; the Iraqis, who voted for a government sympathetic to Iran; and the Egyptians, who have voted in growing numbers in recent elections for the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood. “No politician can afford to identify with the West because poll after poll shows people don’t believe in the U.S. agenda,” said Mustafa Hamarneh, until recently the director of the Center for Strategic Studies at the University of Jordan. Mr. Hamarneh is running for a seat in Jordan’s Parliament in November, but he says he has made a point of keeping his campaign focused locally, and on bread-and-butter issues. “If somebody goes after you as pro-American he can hurt you,” he said.
In part, regional analysts say, candidates are tainted by the baggage of American foreign policy — from its backing of Israel to the violence in Iraq. But more important, they say, American support is often applied to one faction instead of to institutions, causing further division rather than bringing stability. [Emphasis added]
As the article suggests, the American meddling in the elections is rarely helpful to the candidate supported by the US, primarily because the American "help" tends to ignore the reality on the ground. Religious affiliation and tribal power are more important markers for a candidate's viability than US dollars, something the current administration still doesn't get. A president who didn't know the difference between Sunni and Shi'a Muslims isn't likely to understand too much about the Middle East.
Further, the US just isn't very popular in the Middle East. The Iraq war and the absolute support of Israel regardless of Israel's atrocious treatment of Palestinians have pretty much ensured the enmity of everyone in the region.
Finally, citizens of other nations just don't take kindly to foreign meddling in their elections, which is understandable. Well, it apparently isn't so understandable with this administration, but for people with at least average intelligence and a modicum of good will it is.
The paradox of American policy in the Middle East — promoting democracy on the assumption it will bring countries closer to the West — is that almost everywhere there are free elections, the American-backed side tends to lose.
Lebanon’s voters in the Metn district, in other words, appeared to have joined the Palestinians, who voted for Hamas; the Iraqis, who voted for a government sympathetic to Iran; and the Egyptians, who have voted in growing numbers in recent elections for the Islamist Muslim Brotherhood. “No politician can afford to identify with the West because poll after poll shows people don’t believe in the U.S. agenda,” said Mustafa Hamarneh, until recently the director of the Center for Strategic Studies at the University of Jordan. Mr. Hamarneh is running for a seat in Jordan’s Parliament in November, but he says he has made a point of keeping his campaign focused locally, and on bread-and-butter issues. “If somebody goes after you as pro-American he can hurt you,” he said.
In part, regional analysts say, candidates are tainted by the baggage of American foreign policy — from its backing of Israel to the violence in Iraq. But more important, they say, American support is often applied to one faction instead of to institutions, causing further division rather than bringing stability. [Emphasis added]
As the article suggests, the American meddling in the elections is rarely helpful to the candidate supported by the US, primarily because the American "help" tends to ignore the reality on the ground. Religious affiliation and tribal power are more important markers for a candidate's viability than US dollars, something the current administration still doesn't get. A president who didn't know the difference between Sunni and Shi'a Muslims isn't likely to understand too much about the Middle East.
Further, the US just isn't very popular in the Middle East. The Iraq war and the absolute support of Israel regardless of Israel's atrocious treatment of Palestinians have pretty much ensured the enmity of everyone in the region.
Finally, citizens of other nations just don't take kindly to foreign meddling in their elections, which is understandable. Well, it apparently isn't so understandable with this administration, but for people with at least average intelligence and a modicum of good will it is.
Labels: Foreign Policy
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home