Via
NYT:
Bush Defends His Goal of Spreading Democracy to the MideastPresident Bush seems to be taking a "middle road" in dealing with the Hamas victory in Palestine. Bush can't exactly criticize the Palestinian people for electing Hamas to a majority in Parliment for a few reasons.
First, the President's stated goal to spread democracy, particularly to the Middle East. What's ironic about this, is the first true terrorist-led state came to power in a free, democratic election.
"There was a peaceful process as people went to the polls, and that's positive," Mr. Bush said.
Second, President Bush also has to admit that Fatah has been inept in their rule over Palestine. Over a decade of Fatah rule had led to corruption within the Palestinian Authority.
"But what's also positive is that it's a wake-up call to the leadership. Obviously people were not happy with the status quo. The people are demanding honest government. The people want services."
However, President Bush's problem is, obviously, a terrorist organization in control of a legally elected government that we not only recognize, but contribute roughly one-third of their foreign aid. This is, of course, a problem.
How do you combat this problem? Play nice.
Mr. Bush joined a chorus of world leaders — including the so-called quartet of principal parties in the moribund peace process — in calling on Hamas to renounce terrorism, disarm its militias and recognize the legitimacy of Israel now that it has won the elections. But his tone was less confrontational than invitational — in effect, inviting Hamas to embrace reconciliation.
Put away your guns. Please.
As for the Europeans, the
Times claims that they will propose a similar approach to that done towards the IRA in the 1990s.
As for dealing with Hamas, the Europeans are considered likely to see the problem differently, many diplomats say. Regarding both Hamas and Hezbollah, the Europeans have called for the West to use the template of Sinn Fein, the political wing of the Irish Republican Army, when dealing with them.
In other words, they say, talking to Hamas may help coax it toward eventual partnership in a peace negotiation. The problem, many diplomats and experts say, is that no one even pretends that there are truly separate wings of Hamas. Its armed forces and its political leaders are married to each other inextricably.
A problem indeed.
A final piece of interest in this same article, but a bit off topic from the rest of the post. Some foreign policy experts are now beginning to question President Bush's push for democratizing the Middle East as naively optimistic.
The Hamas victory was the fifth case recently of militants' winning significant gains through elections. They included the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, Hezbollah in Lebanon, a radical president in Iran, and Shiites backed by militias in Iraq.
As these elections unfolded, there has been increasing criticism in some quarters — notably among the self-described "realists" in foreign policy, many of them veterans of past Republican administrations — that President Bush has naively pushed for democracy in countries without the civil society components to support it.
"The Hamas victory is a disillusioning result showing that democracy and American interests don't always coincide," said Nikolas K. Gvosdev, a Russia expert who is editor of The National Interest, a publication that echoes with debate about this subject.
