Arab world has started on the road to democracy, perhaps inspired by Iran's struggles against the barbaric rule of Islamic Republic. At first glance one expects to see massive support for democracy from the west. But EU holds its calculating silence and it seems that US is starting to advocate Muslim Brotherhood.The CNN news on Egypt this morning featured Peter Burgman who states that Muslim Brotherhood is a fundamentalist group but some how it is not dangerous. Of course both Mr. Bergman and the anchor failed to recall that it was this very "non dangerous" group that assassinated the last president Anwar El Sadat on live TV broadcast one of his visit! Mr. Bergman then went on to say the most important thing he had , "Alzavaheri (second in command in Al Quida) wrote a book about how much he hates the Akhvan Almuslmin". As if hatered of Akhvan Almuslmin automatically means something good for the west forgetting Saddam Hossain's famous feud with the same! How quickly we do forget!!
Of course, international politics is a game of who's whose friend and very major power will try to get their man in BUT the surprise is that US, despite its failed history with Islam, i.e Iran and Mojahedin AKA Al Quida would still feel that its best bet is another fundamentalist Muslim group.
Israel has already came out against democracy for Egypt with Netanyahu's pearl of wisdom, "I don't think Arab world is ready for the democratic process".
So the question is why does the west fear democracy for Egypt? Or is it that the fear of Al Quida is so high that it has blinded the west?
I can't say that I have an answer for this question. It seems counter intuitive that the west should stand against the democratic wishes of so many people. The only answer would be the deep and hidden racism that does still exist in US and EU. It is evident, at least in EU's approach to Middle East," that they do not understand or can handle their own affairs and must be shepherded through history by the west". Of course if the elected Sheppard of the grate unwashed is indebted to the west, well so much the better.
Laughable as it seems, that looks like the west's attitude these days. From Ashton's cold hearted approach to human rights in Iran to the laughable attempt of US to bring in the Akhvan Almuslmin into the Egyptian democratic movement.
Whatever the answer may be, the burden of responsibility is now put on the already burdened shoulders of citizens of Iran and the Arab World. There would be no help from Democratic governments of the world to us on the road of democracy! What ever needs doing, we must do it ourselves.
The Americans are scared stiff of the Ikhwan. I don't know what the reporter Bergman said on CNN. Frankly, I've never heard of him. And I don't think he makes administration policy or speaks for the administration. The fact is, the Ikhwan, no matter how reactionary they are, are not the same as Khomeini. They are not, in fact, a violent group. The group that assassinated Sadat had no relationship with the Ikhwan. Here is one good article from and American military review:
ReplyDeletehttp://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0PBZ/is_4_84/ai_n6175932/?tag=content;col1
Sadat was himself close to the Ikhwan and its leaders were released when he took over from Nasser.
But the point is: The idea that the American government's intentions can be surmised from a comment by a journalist is ridiculous.