Despite encouraging signs, it is impossible to ignore a "democracy deficit" in the Muslim world, especially the Arab part of it. Only one of every four countries with Muslim majorities has a democratically elected government. Worse yet, the gap between Muslim countries and the rest of the world is widening. \nDemocracy and freedom expanded over recent decades into Latin America, Africa, Europe and Asia, but the Muslim world continues to struggle. By the reckoning of Freedom House, a think tank devoted to monitoring democracy worldwide, the number of "free" countries around the world increased by nearly three dozen over the past 20 years. Not one has a Muslim majority. \nThis phenomenon has been noted within the Muslim world. In the summer of 2002, a team of Arab sacademics produced the Arab Human Development Report, written on behalf of the UN Development Program and the Arab Fund for Economic and Social Development. It portrays an Arab world lagging behind other regions in key measures, including individual freedom and women's empowerment, as well as economic and social development. \nDisturbing trends, such as a demographic youth "bulge" combined with high youth unemployment rates -- reaching almost 40 percent in some places -- highlight potentially explosive social conditions. The Arab world faces serious problems that can only be met by more flexible, democratic political systems. \nThe second Arab Human Development Report, issued last year, underscores the close relationship between the Arab world's educational shortcomings and its lack of democracy. \nDemocracy requires a citizenry informed enough to question its government. A well-educated citizenry is also essential if young men and women are to acquire the skills needed to perform the sort of jobs today's global and competitive world demands. \nAlas, instead of progress, what we see is a cycle of inadequate educational opportunity leading to a lack of economic opportunity. Neither freedom nor prosperity can develop in such conditions. \nMuslims cannot blame the US for their lack of democracy. Still, the US does play a large role on the world stage; and in many parts of the Muslim world, particularly in the Arab world, successive US administrations -- Republican and Democratic alike -- have not made democratization a priority. \nAt various times, the US avoided scrutinizing the internal workings of friendly countries in the interest of ensuring a steady flow of oil; containing Soviet, Iraqi and Iranian expansionism; addressing issues related to the Arab-Israeli conflict; resisting communism in East Asia or securing military bases. \nBy failing to foster gradual democratization -- and yielding to a "democratic exception" in parts of the Muslim world -- the US missed an opportunity to help these countries adapt to the stresses of a globalizing world. \nContinuing this policy is not in the US' interest. According to the Bush administration's 2002 National Security Strategy, US policy will be more actively engaged in supporting democratic trends globally, with no exception for the Muslim world. \nThis commitment was made with the full knowledge that democracies are imperfect and terribly complicated. Leaders in some Muslim states contrast democratic systems with their more orderly arrangements and point with satisfaction to the seeming stability that alternatives to democracy provide. But stability based on authority alone is illusory and ultimately impossible to sustain. Iran, Romania and Liberia illustrate that rigid authoritarian systems cannot withstand the shocks of social, political or economic change, especially at the pace that characterizes today's world. \nAny doubt that promoting democracy now receives greater emphasis in US foreign policy was removed by Bush's speech of last November, in which he made clear that the Muslim world's democratic deficit is not tied to religion, but to "failures of political and economic doctrines." \nBush also made clear that Americans had learned from the past: "Sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe -- because, in the long run, stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty. As long as the Middle East remains a place where freedom does not flourish, it will remain a place of stagnation, resentment and violence ready for export." \nSo the US now actively supports the extension of democracy throughout the Arab and Muslim worlds, not simply for humanitarian reasons, or for theoretical reasons, but from self-interest. History shows that societies where opportunity is safeguarded tend to be societies that are good international citizens. \nBut, like medical doctors' Hippocratic oath, the US and others must pledge to do no harm in promoting democracy. Unrestrained zeal to make the world better could make it worse. Promoting democracy must be undertaken with humility, care, and wisdom. \nMany models of democracy exist; and some models cannot be exported. \nMoreover, mere elections should never be confused with democracy. Rather, what distinguishes democracy from other systems is a distribution of power both within government and within society. Until such a balance exists, elections can threaten freedom by concentrating too much authority in one person or body without providing adequate checks and balances, including independent media. Not surprisingly, this takes time, resources, and effort. \nFinally, political reform must go hand in hand with economic and educational reform for all the citizens in a society, including the 50 percent who happen to be women. No country can succeed if it denies itself the talents of half of its people. \nTrue, democracy can only be built and maintained from within, by a country's people and leaders. Outsiders, though, can and should help. \nThere is a role for governments, international organizations, corporations, universities, and journalists -- from the US, but also from Europe and countries in Latin America, Asia and Africa where democracy has taken root. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine a more important task for established democracies than helping other countries join their ranks. \nRichard Haass, formerly the director of policy planning in the US State Department, is president of The Council on Foreign Relations. \nCopyright: Project Syndicate/The Council on Foreign Relations
The US intelligence community’s annual threat assessment for this year certainly cannot be faulted for having a narrow focus or Pollyanna perspective. From a rising China, Russian aggression and Iran’s nuclear ambitions, to climate change, future pandemics and the growing reach of international organized crime, US intelligence analysis is as comprehensive as it is worrying. Inaugurated two decades ago as a gesture of transparency and to inform the public and the US Congress, the annual threat assessment offers the intelligence agencies’ top-line conclusions about the country’s leading national-security threats — although always in ways that do not compromise “sources and methods.”
Let’s begin with the bottom line. The sad truth of the matter is that Beijing has trampled on its solemn pledge to grant Hong Kong a great deal of autonomy for at least fifty years. In so doing, the PRC ignored a promise Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平) made to both Great Britain’s Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and the wider world back in the early 1980s. This was at a time when Beijing, under Deng and his successors, appeared to be seeking an equitable accommodation with the West. I remain puzzled by China’s recent policy shift. Was it because Hong Kong was perceived
The recent meeting in New Delhi between US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Russian Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergey Lavrov — the first such high-level interaction since the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine — suggests that diplomacy might no longer be a dirty word. The 10 minute meeting on the sidelines of the G20 gathering occurred after US National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan reportedly urged Ukraine to show Russia that it is open to negotiating an end to the war. Together, these developments offer a glimmer of hope that a ceasefire is within the realm of the possible. The
French police have confirmed that China’s overseas “police service stations” were behind cyberattacks against a Taiwanese Mandarin Learning Center in the European nation. This is another example of Beijing bullying Taiwanese organizations, as well as a show of contempt for other countries’ sovereignty and for international laws and norms. L’Encrier Chinois, a Chinese-language school that opened in 2005 in Paris, became the second Taiwanese Mandarin Learning Center in France in 2021. The school was targeted by at least three cyberattacks last year, which were reported to French police, who discovered that the attacks originated from China’s overseas police stations. Overseas
RSS