Democracy: Path to Peace?

VN:F [1.9.12_1141]
Please rate this article (No need to sign up)
Rating: 0.0/7 (0 votes cast)

Democracy Path To Peace
Philosopher Immanuel Kant once wrote that the majority of people would never go to war, except in self-defense. If so, an increase in democracy should lead to a more peaceful world. President Woodrow Wilson made this principle a key goal in World War I.

The history of the past century would appear to confirm this view. The nations that provoked the great wars of that century were either empires (Austria-Hungary, Wilhelmine Germany and Japan) or fascist dictatorships (Nazi Germany and Italy). Moreover, since World War II the dictatorial regimes that started the War were replaced by democracies, and all have kept the peace. Russia today, although not fully democratic, does not pose the threat to Europe that its Communist predecessor did. Similarly, the new democracy in Iraq is no threat to peace, in sharp contrast to the tyrannical regime of Sadam Hussein.

A drive to replace dictatorship with democracy has swept the Middle East in 2011; but will that mean a more peaceful region in the future?

Egypt, the largest and most powerful Arab state, has been under military rule since the overthrow of King Farouk in 1952 by Col. Gamal Abdul Nasser. Nasser embarked upon an aggressive policy: seizing the Suez canal in 1956, sending troops to Yemen in the early 1960′s, and deliberately provoking two wars with Israel (1956 and 1967), both of which Egypt lost. After his death in 1970, his successor, Anwar Sadat, launched another war against Israel in 1973, but made a peace treaty with the Jewish state in 1977, for which he was assassinated in 1981. The assassins were aligned with the miitant Muslim Brotherhood, which had been ruthlessly suppressed by both Nasser and Sadat.

Hosni Mubarak, who succeeded the slain Sadat, maintained Sadat’s policies of peace with Israel and suppression of the Islamists. But the overthrow of Mubarak earlier this year has given the Brotherhood and allied Islamic parties the opportunity to run for seats in the parliament, and perhaps the presidency. The first round of parliamentary elections last week was won by these parties.

If Kant and Wilson were right, the majority of Egyptians will opt for peace, so democracy in Egypt will be good for Israel and other nations in the region. But polls have shown that most Egyptians hate Israel with a passion, and only the repressive rule of the military has maintained the peace. It is significant that since Mubarak was forced out, the military junta now in power has opened the border with Gaza in response to popular sympathy with the Palestinians. In Egyptian politics, hostility to Israel is a major theme, like anti-communism was in the US in the early 1950′s.

In the western democracies the role of religion in setting national policies has declined over the past century, but in the Middle East the power of militant Islam is rising. At first it was the overthrow of the Shah of Iran by the ayatollahs in 1979, then the rise of the Taliban in Afghanistan, now the victories by militant Muslim parties in Libya, Tunisia and Egypt. Unlike Christianity, which espouses “Peace on Earth”, the branch of Islam embraced by Al Qaida, Hamas, and the Muslim Brotherhood extols jihad (holy war) against the infidels (non-Muslims). That is why the conclusions of Christians like Kant and Wilson do not apply to Muslim countries: democracy may well empower jihadists, who will use the powers of government to provoke wars.

The best hope for peace in the Middle East is that the Arab masses will recognize that peace is in their interest, and they will curb the jihadists among them.

Gerald S Glazer

————————————————————————————-
DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in this guest post do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of Publictrough.com, its staff, its advertisers, and/or its partners, agents/assigns. Any guest post content appearing on Publictrough.com has not been checked for factual accuracy, and any photos/videos uploaded have not been verified to be copyright-free. It is the user’s/guest poster’s responsibility to post text and/or photos that belong to that user/guest poster and do not violate any copyright or intellectual property laws.

VN:F [1.9.12_1141]
Please rate this article (No need to sign up)
Rating: 0.0/7 (0 votes cast)

Why Do Republicans Keep Supporting War?

VN:F [1.9.12_1141]
Please rate this article (No need to sign up)
Rating: 0.0/7 (0 votes cast)

As the country continues to accumulate unprecedented and unsustainable debt levels, some Republicans are beginning to question why we’re still fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.

While largely supportive of President George Bush’s objectives for invading both countries after 9/11, our expensive and confusingly-defined presence a decade later confounds many on the right. Should we continue expending American lives and spending billions of dollars on nation-building exercises in Muslim countries which are culturally incompatible to democracy?

Some Republicans are even joining the harsh war critics on the left in questioning the initial justification for attacking Iraq. While Saddam Hussein’s possession, use and ongoing efforts to procure weapons of mass destruction (WMD) is the 80′s was well known, large quantities of chemical weapons had been located and destroyed after the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

Despite UN Inspector Hans Blix’s report that he had found no stockpiles of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons, the US invaded Iraq in 2003, citing the WMD threat as a primary justification. When no WMD were found, Bush admitted to lapses in military intelligence but maintained that his decision was sound, stating:

“But what wasn’t wrong was Saddam Hussein had invaded a country, he had used weapons of mass destruction, he had the capability of making weapons of mass destruction, he was firing at our pilots. He was a state sponsor of terror. Removing Saddam Hussein was the right thing for world peace and the security of our country.”

Many liberals and some conservatives aren’t convinced that the intelligence was flawed, and suspect the WMD threat was deliberately overstated to solidify support for the war. Similar to President Lyndon Johnson’s use of the alleged second attack on the USS Maddox in the Gulf of Tonkin as a pretext for initiating war with North Vietnam, many question Bush’s honesty.

The question of whether the US should invade a foreign country and dictate how that country governs itself is extremely controversial, regardless of your politics. Especially now, when we’re drowning in debt and need all available resources to ensure that our democracy remains intact.

It’s informative to recall the 60′s when the US was embroiled in the civil rights struggle, with race riots regularly erupting on the streets. Did any foreign power invade in order to install a fair and just society?

No. We resolved our differences ourselves.

There’s a lesson there somewhere.

VN:F [1.9.12_1141]
Please rate this article (No need to sign up)
Rating: 0.0/7 (0 votes cast)