Spreading democracy

Spreading democracy

: Robert Mayer, the man behind the wonderful Publius Pundit blog on freedom, reports that the Community of Democracies just ended a meeting in Chile and we’re both amazed how little this organization — which should be the real United Nations, the collection of free nations and peoples — gets coverage in media. He quotes Condi Rice in her speech and I’ll do likewise:

Today, all the members of the Community of Democracies declare our deep conviction that freedom is the universal longing of every soul and democracy is the ideal path for every nation.

The past year has brought forth a dramatic shift in the world’s political landscape. Since our last meeting in Seoul, we have seen free elections in Afghanistan and in Iraq and in the Palestinian territories. We have witnessed tremendous developments in places like Georgia and Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan and Lebanon.

There comes a time when the spark of freedom flashes in the minds of all oppressed people, and they raise their voices against tyranny. The Community of Democracies must match the bravery of these men and women with the courage of our own convictions. We on the right side of freedomís divide have an obligation to help those on the wrong side of that divide….

Democratization is, after all, not an event; it is a process. It takes many years, even decades, to realize the full promise of democratic reform. For nearly a century after the founding of the United States, millions of black Americans like me were still condemned to the status below that of full citizenship. When the founding fathers of America said, “we the people,” they did not mean me. Many of my ancestors were thought to be only three-fifths of a man. And it is only within my lifetime that the United States has begun to guarantee the right to vote for all of our citizens. And so we know in the United States that this is a long and difficult process. And every nation in this room has experienced moments of tyranny in its history — some not too long ago.

Today, our citizens share the common bond of having overcome tyranny through all our commitment to freedom and democracy. Now, it is our historic duty to tell the world that tyranny is a crime of man, not a fact of nature. Our goal must always be the elimination of tyranny in our world.

We at the Community of Democracies must use the power of our shared ideals to accelerate democracyís movement to ever more places around the globe. We must usher in an era of democracy that thinks of tyranny as we thought of slavery today: a moral abomination that could not withstand the natural desire of every human being for a life of liberty and of dignity.

Well said and bravo.

(But by the way, Condi, I can’t leave this without adding that this is exactly why it was wrong for your boss to go hand-holding with an oily tyrant.)

22 responses to “Spreading democracy”

  1. paul_lukasiak Avatar

    My question is how does this group deal with anti-democratic actions among its members? Mexico is apparently part of the group, but the recent efforts to keep the mayor of Mexico City from running for President by Vincente Fox and his allies shows us just how little “democracy” can really mean.

  2. Kat Avatar

    Yes, in Canada, they stole hundreds of millions from the taxpayers, to prop up the totalitarian leftists, and call that a democracy.

  3. Ptolemy Avatar

    If the other nations of the world spent even half the time on their own problems as they do dissecting ours just think of the progress that would have already been made.
    Franky, why aren’t journalists covering this event? Why won’t they create interest in this process as they do the darker issues in the world? As a journalist, are you able to create any buzz for such things where you work?

  4. Ptolemy Avatar

    In Canada, some provinces don’t even have a fair share of representation compared to other provinces and their Senate is completely out of the people’s reach. A “democratic” House of Lords.

  5. tim wg Avatar

    Give the hand holding a break.
    Some people are arguing that if Saudi Arabia has free elections, Al Qaeda and the Bin Laden family may win elections there.
    I think we should proceed carefully with Saudi Arabia.
    We have already accomplished a lot in the Middle East. I still can’t believe the complaining about Bush.

  6. mary Avatar

    Saudi oil wealth pays Osama bin Ladenís salary, and the salaries of most Islamist terror organizations around the world. They also pay Sheik Saleh Al Luhaidanís salary. Sheik Saleh Al Luhaidan encouraged young Saudis to go to Iraq to kill American soldiers.
    They donít really need much encouragement. Saudis have been killing American soldiers and destroying the Iraqi oil fields since the ëendí of the Iraq war. As we can see from oil prices, terrorism has been very profitable for them.
    The Saudi royalty and bin Laden agree on most issues, and they call each other ëbrothersí. Although 90% of the Saudi population supports bin Ladenís ëidealsí, they appreciate the cradle-to-grave security that the government offers them. Under the current system, they have foreign slave/employees to do their work and no one needs to get a job that they feel is beneath them. Approximately 500,000 Saudi nationals are employed. Five and a half million foreign workers do the rest of the work.
    The Saudi royals and al Qaeda agree on most issues, and thatís why the Saudi government funds terrorism and ëextremistí preachers. All want to destroy the un-Islamic west, but the royals would prefer to take all of the wealth and legitimacy that weíre willing to give them beforehand.
    Bush & our government (Democrat & Republican) have had a long-standing policy of helping the Royals in any way they can. When it comes to appeasing these fascists, we make Neville Chamberlain look like a warmonger.
    The hand holding incident was proof that we are not fighting a war against terrorism or tyranny. The KSA is the terrorism and the tyranny weíre supposed to be fighting. They’re at war with us, whether we want to admit it or not.

  7. lk Avatar

    Well said, Mary!

  8. mary Avatar

    Thanks, Ik

  9. Mr. B Avatar

    Jeff, Condi’s boss is holding hands with the oily tyrant cause you need cheap gas for your SUV. A variety of presidents have held hands with a variety of oily tyrants for many years now when it’s in your country’s interest, which is why Condi’s words from Chile are just that, words.
    Jeff, remember the oily tyrant called Augusto Pinochet?
    I didn’t think so.

  10. Jersey Exile Avatar

    Kudos to Mary for hitting the nail on the head. The order of battle for the War on Terror should have been: 1. Afghanistan, 2. Pakistan, 3. Saudi Arabia.
    Bush did exactly the right thing when he drove the Taliban out of Kabul–only the looniest of the Left fault him for doing what he did in Afghanistan–but it should bear repeating that he only did so because Tony Blair strongarmed him into it.
    Everything after the Afghan war has been a terrible, costly mistake, and has distracted us from prosecuting the war against our real enemy, who is laughing at us as our Fearless Leader holds hands with their leaders and calls them “friends.”

  11. Walter Guest Avatar

    Shouldn’t we be in some kind of state of war? That was their Chief Justice who made the ruling to kill Americans. Doesn’t that make it some kind of law? Is it OK to kill Saudis now wherever we find them, or does that only work one way?
    I’m so confused.

  12. Howard Avatar
    Howard

    I’m not sure what is funnier: The same people who were whining about Afghanistan, to say nothing of Iraq, are now saying we should have gone after Pakistan (nukes and all) but Saudi Arabia as well (oh i can just hear the “No blood for OIL” crowd chirping now).
    Funny how the anti Bush crowd has nothing to say about Syria pulling out of Lebanon, Libya turning over their WMD materials or the PA very tentatively (with the help of Yassir being in hell)attempting to get a hold, somewhat, of their terrorist yearnings. Nor any mention of how Bush and company has made their feelings about Iran very plain (say maybe someone should ask the Zeropeans to, you know, help us as opposed to selling nuclear technology to every oil tick with an itch for fusion).
    But by all means Mary tell us what we should do with SA? I mean the MSM keeps on warning us about the “Arab Street” doncha know, and we all know (wink, wink) that any attack on an Arab country is merely the dog doing the bidding of her Zionist master, so, please, enlighten me…

  13. mary Avatar

    Howard – if you’re going to launch an ad hominem attack against someone, you could at least take the trouble to learn something about the attackee. I just posted this on Michael Totten’s site, celebrating the elections in Lebanon and the end of the stupid “Arab street” myth.
    If you didn’t know, Michael Totten was in Lebanon promoting the efforts of the pro-independence Lebanese.
    I voted for Bush, but I’m not right or left, just anti-totalitarian. The Bush administration has been pretty consistently pro-freedom, but their alliance with the Saudis is a huge glaring zit on their foreign policy. He can’t hold hands with one of the most oppressive, destructive regimes on the planet and then say he was only kidding.

  14. kat Avatar

    An alliance with any muslim state is a zit on our foreign policy. They all support an islamic worldwide caliphate and if they have to lie and pretend to be anti-terrorist, they will do that for allah. Even Qatar is bought by al queda.
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-1592472,00.html
    There is no friendly muslim state. We’d have to wipe them all off the face of the earth to stop breeding and funding of terrorists. I would like nothing better than a total ban on immigration of muslims to America and for us to have no business dealings with them. No churches in muslimville, no mosques in the west. I agree that we are too stupid to demand accountability and transparency from the ‘arab street.” We are too PC and keep finding excuses for the crap they are guilty of. If there are moderate muslims then it is high time they took off the hijabs and headrags and opened their mouths against terrorism instead of finding excuses for terrorists by blaming everyone else. Hillary even donned a stinking burka, Clinton placed a wet one on that terrrorist, Arafat, and the dumb pope kissed the terror manual, the koran. We appease muslims because we’re afraid to hurt their widdle feelings and we treat them like infants. We don’t even call a terrorist a terrorist–we are engaged in a politically correct war on terror where you don’t dare call a terrorist a terrorist. We hold hands, coddle and coo and chant islam is peace. Meanwhile we allow genocides of Copts, Armenians, and now Sudanese because we are afraid to offend the murderers.

  15. Howard Avatar
    Howard

    An ad hominem attack intimates that i insulted you. Please point out where i did so.
    So instead of accusing me of attacking you, please, your second paragraph: Support it with facts.
    Then tell me how AQ and the Saudi royal family agree on most issues. Really.

  16. marie Avatar

    Men holding hands is a cultural practice in Saudi Arabia, with that said I do have a problem with our relationship with Saudi Royals. It seems to me that we have had more problems with Saudi terrorists then any other Muslim group. It’s difficult for me to accept this kind of friendship…….although I must.
    What is the gas price in your neck of the woods?
    In Indiana it is about 2.26 and in a nearby farming community in Ohio it’s 2.15.

  17. mary Avatar

    But by all means Mary tell us what we should do with SA? I mean the MSM keeps on warning us about the “Arab Street” doncha know, and we all know (wink, wink) that any attack on an Arab country is merely the dog doing the bidding of her Zionist master, so, please, enlighten me…
    You implied that my opinions were based on a certain type of moonbattery. Since I just wrote a long post about the idiocies of the MSM’s obsession with the “Arab street”, I consider that to be an insult.
    How do the Saudi leadership and al Qaeda agree on most issues? Islamist terrorist groups like al Qaeda hope to establish a government based on fundamentalist Shariah laws (like the laws that the Taliban enforced – these are basically the apartheid laws that allow slavery, promote genocide and have the death penalty for apostasy, practicing another religion, selling liquor, etc. ) Saudi Arabia has always followed these laws. Saudis are Wahhabis, al Qaeda is a Wahhabi organization.
    The Saudi government, like the Muslim brotherhood, hope to use their wealth, influence and their terrorist paramilitaries to conquer the West. The terrorists are less patient than the royals, but that seems to be the only difference between them.
    What should we do with the KSA? If we’re fighting a war agains terrorism, we could try to win the war against them.

  18. mary Avatar

    marie – our friendship with Saudi Arabia, and our tolerance of their attacks against us and against Iraq has caused the higher gas prices. Terrorism is very profitable to them.
    If we added the cost of Saudi-sponsored terrorism to the cost of gas, even wind power would be more efficient. In 2001, our Saudi allies’ gift to us, 9/11, cost New York City alone more than $95 billion dollars.
    According to the World Travel and Tourism summit “The impact of the tsunami disaster on tourism in 2005 will be about 40 times less than that of the September 11 attacks on the United States”
    The tsunami was estimated to cost the tourism industry about three billion dollars in losses. The existence of the current leadership in Saudi Arabia is a financial black hole for us and for the rest of the world.

  19. kevinP Avatar
    kevinP

    Jeff:
    Is our relationship with the House of Saud(basically unchanged since Roosevelt) ugly? Yes.Have they been playing a double game by buying off terrorists to save their ass and by spreading a foul wahhabism form of Islam? Absolutely.But for the critics of the Bush Middle East policy, some of it justified, they must answer some tough questions themselves.Before 9-11 there was no one predicting even the remotest possibilities of any democracy flourishing in the region.And before anyone has a heart attack I am not claiming that Iraq had anything to do with the Saudi hijackers who attacked us. I am just using it to point out the obvious historical event that changed Bush’s stated non interventionist policy. Like it or not, they basic attitude of both Republican and Democratic administrations of the last 60 years of trading the Human Rights of the Arabs for the economic stability of OPEC oil. There would be occasional UN resolutions and some self rightous wails by individual Presidents but the dictators of the region knew it was strictly for domestic consumption and there was no chance of any actions taking place.And the UN was even less succesfull and more cynical.
    Much of the left loved to use the downtrodden arabs to point out the bankruptcy of the stability swap but never presented any concrete plans for changing the region.For those who thought that internal revolutions would take place without some form of US intervention in the area just look at what happened to the Iraqi’s who rose up after the first gulf war. One of the reasons we let it happen was because the only way Bush 1 could get the vaunted UN coalition was to promise to leave Saddam alone. The embargo was never going to be kept in place because of the corruption and the civilian deaths and half of the Security Council was making post embargo reconstruction deals with the Saddam government. After the embargo Saddam would have access to billions of Oil dollars and a score to settle. Anyone who thinks he wouldn’t send some of it to Al Queda to strike back at us is naive.
    Invade Sausi Arabia? Yes, I am sure that the Islamic world would have no problem with a US controll of Mecca. Their pissed enough at us when we took out that scumbag and his sons, the reaction to an invasion of Mecca would be beyond imagination. Plus the thought of the economic depression that might happen if Saudi oil was removed for a time from the worlds supply is a happy dream too.
    Bush’s policy flawed? Yes. Ham handed at times? You bet. Support of the Sauds the height of hypocrisy? Unfortunetly yes. But there has been more progress towards non tyranical governments in the area under Bush then under any other US government since the British reworked the Turkish empire. There is no way that we could invade the whole area at once to make the purists happen. There was no way that the UN resolutions have or would have made a bit of difference. For his critics they must answer these questions. Would you have anon interventionist policy and let the governments remain. If you claim the UN could have done it, point to one plan or any idea that had the remotest chance of being implemented or had a chance to succeed. And if you would boycott middle east oil so you could get rid of those governmmets how would you handle the massive economic dislocation. For all his faults Bush, with the fledling Democracies( and yes fragile) in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Lebanon has seen the most improvement in that area in decades. If there is a chance of change in Saudi Arabia the hope of multiple Democratic governmmets in the area pressing the pampered princes into change.

  20. Faramin Avatar
    Faramin

    Looks like US is finding another “new ally” in its “war against terror”. The new friend of the US is Sudan.
    Oh wait a minute; it was accused of genocide in Darfur not long ago. But to the Washington hypocrites, it seesm to be a thing of the past.

  21. paul_lukasiak Avatar

    Before 9-11 there was no one predicting even the remotest possibilities of any democracy flourishing in the region.
    This is simply not true. before 9-11, Iran’s democracy was progressing quite nicely; the Iranian people were clearly tired of rule by the Ayatollahs, and parliametary election in 2000 were a smashing success….
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/middle_east/2000/iran_elections/iran_election_news/627344.stm

  22. kevinP Avatar
    kevinP

    Paul:
    Yes, the elections were great. How has the attempt to implement the reforms that 70% of the Iranian public voted for gone? Horrid. The small handfull of Mullahs have veto power over the Iranian politicians and they have legally,not morally, crushed all the hopes of the Iranian voters. There have been inspired speechs in the world press pointing out the suppression that the Mullahs have practiced but as far as doing anything about it, nothing. And because the Mullahs have wisely,as far as keeping their stranglehold on power is concerned, developed their nuclear capacity they are going to get every economic and diplomatic reward the west can give them. And when they announce in the next 3 to 10 years that they have the Mullah bomb Europe will throw up their hands and say “Oh Well” and keep the status quo alive by their cynical acceptance of the situation. And they know this is going to happen.You can tell by the ridiculouse inspection regime being set up and the fact that if the Iranians violate the agreement their are no specified penalties to inspire them to honor the agreement.
    The situation in Iraq was worse. There was no way that the fascist bathist regime was going to hand over power. 20 per cent of the population who had total power over every aspect of Iraqi life , especially the tyrant who ran this filth, could never be expected to hand over controll.Mainly because they knew if they did the chances of being found at the wrong end of a noose was almost 100%.And with the dependance of the world economy on their oil precluded a economic and moral boycott like the one that ended apartheid. I would like to hear the plan that was going to topple Saddam without milatary intervention. The UN had shown that they were going to do nothing but write meaningless scolding notes that they had no intention of enforcing. Before 9-11 the push to end the embargo and go back to buisness as usual and restore Saddam’s government place in the world community was already beginning. If you want to argue that it would be better to leave things as they were, that the Bush war in Iraq was worse then leaving Saddam in power and letting him eventually restore his controll over the billions of oil dollars ok. But this myth of a desire for Regime change that the American government put forth in the 90’s combined with half measures that had no possibility of achieving this goal is laughable. How was regime change going to be achieved without intervention and how many decades would it have taken to do that? So far I have seen no one explain that key question to me.