From: Mike Linksvayer (ml@gondwanaland.com)
Date: Sat Apr 06 2002 - 22:06:31 MST
On Sat, 2002-04-06 at 18:55, Mike Lorrey wrote:
> Mike Linksvayer wrote:
> > Strongly agree with all of the above apart from the monarchy->democracy
> > suggestion. The countries in the Arab world friendliest to the West are
> > all monarchies. Pushing them towards democracy only gives
> > fundamentalists a tool to [ab]use and discard. Their societies will
> > _slowly_ become more democratic as they become more liberal and
> > wealthy. You see slow moves in this direction in some of the gulf
> > states or Tunisia for example.
>
> On the contrary, The Kingdom of Jordan and the Emirate of Kuwait both
> are as democratic as Britain, with elected parliaments, prime ministers,
> and cabinets. It's the countries that are allegedly 'democracies', i.e.
> Syria, Egypt, Yemen, etc where presidents are essentially elected for
> life, that are the problem with political repression. Kuwait and Jordan
> maintain stability the same way Britain does: the monarch has the
> emergency ability to dissolve the Parliament (though Britain's is highly
> restrained).
Contrary? I think you're agreeing with me. Several states where
monarchies remain have become more democratic, while those that have
deposed monarchs are controlled by presidents-for-life or
fundamentalists.
> > See the Robert Kaplan article
> > <http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/97dec/democ.htm>. Also see
> > <http://mises.org/fullarticle.asp?control=818&month=38&title=A+History+of+Folly+&id=38
> > Note that some of the instability in the Middle East can be traced back
> > to overthrows of Arab monarchies instigated by the US (opposing
> > British(!) influence). This is how Saddam's Baathist party came to
> > power.
>
> Iraq was influenced far more by Russia for far longer than the British
> Mandate, and the Baathist Party was itself far more influenced by Soviet
> aid than anything else.. as the Baathists were in Syria, a French
What specifically do you dispute from the following paragraph taken from
the 'A History Of Folly' article I cited above?
In opposition to the British-client Iraqi regime, and in opposition
also to Nasser's growing influence in Iraq, the bloodthirsty Colonel
Kassem spearheads the American-supported military coup to overthrow
the Iraqi royal family. The king and crown prince and most of the
royal family are executed, and the prime minister is murdered by a
mob. Years later, after Kassem has alienated all his allies except
the Soviet Union and is overthrown and executed in 1963, United
States support swings to a small group called the Ba'th Socialist
Party. After many twists and turns, coups and elections, coups and
revolutions, Saddam Hussein emerges as president of Iraq in 1976
after leading the coup that, with American insistence, installed
that regime in 1968.
> mandate. If your theory held, the US would have ousted the Saudis for
> being British puppets.
I believe the US managed to oust British oil interests from Saudi Arabia
without resorting to revolution.
Mike Linksvayer
http://gondwanaland.com/ml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:13:17 MST