US grass can't grow on Arab soil: Commentary

Home>>Opinion

Last updated at: (Beijing Time) Thursday, March 04, 2004

US grass can't grow on Arab soil: Commentary

History has proved US existence dovetails with the Arabs' living environment and their aesthetic taste. American grass is not necessarily bad, only it is not used to the climate when it is planted in the Arab earth.

DISCUSSION

CHINESE

SEND TO FRIEND

Taking advantage of the remaining influence of the capture of Saddam Hussein, US President George W. Bush has planned to send his undersecretary of state Mark Grossman to the Middle East region to promote the sale of his so-called "plan for more democracy to the Middle East".

The plan targets 22 Arab countries in addition to Turkey, Israel, Pakistan and Afghanistan, the contents include a series of diplomatic, cultural and economic measures. The plan calls on the G8 to establish long-term partnerships with the reformers of these countries, so as to join hands to promote democratic reform. The concrete methods include: activate and help free election, support new independent media, cultivate an "educated generation", set up Great Middle East development banks in the postwar European pattern, translate famous Western works into the Arabian language, provide women with loans, etc.

Viewed from reactions in the past few days, the Great Middle East democratic plan seems to be not so well received, on the contrary, it has invited the voice of protests from countries like Saudi Arabia, Syria, Lebanon.

Even Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, an important ally of Bush, said that Bush's proposal made it seem that all Middle East countries were dependencies of the United States. Sources say that Egypt and Saudi Arabia are prepared to resolutely say "No" to the United States at the forthcoming Summit of the Arab League and formulate Arab countries' own political and economic reform strategies to counter the US Great Middle East democratic plan.

There is no need for reticence that as the first domino suddenly crumbles, the collapse of the Saddam regime has triggered a drastic change in the Middle East geopolitical pattern. The anti-US spearheads of Iran, Libya, Syria and some other countries labeled as "axis of evil" and "rogue countries" is much blunted than before, Libya is even getting closer to the United States.

However, another similar unreserved fact is that the Arab people's hatred for America has not weakened in the least. If not because the enemy is already at their city gates, or if not because they have suffered the most from sanctions, perhaps no Arab countries are willing to submit themselves voluntarily to be subjects of Uncle Sam.

From various media reports it can be seen that the Iraqis were dissatisfied with Saddam Hussein's rule, they have mixed feelings toward the American act of "toppling Saddam Hussein", it is not that they don't have the feeling about their country being defeated and their homes lost.

In Arab countries beyond Iraq, such feeling of hating the United States is also widespread, only it is expressed in different ways: Officials are furious but dare not to speak out, the public instinctively give vent to their grievances, the extreme armed elements fight against the United States by suicidal attacks.

Why have the Arab countries and the United States become enemies? It is insufficient to explain it merely with the phrase "civilization conflict". True, there is an irreconcilable point between two kinds of civilizations, however, the crux of the matter perhaps lies not in the "conflict of civilization", but rather in certain people's prejudice in regard to different civilizations.

Bernard Lewis, a consultant on the Middle East policy of whom Bush has high opinion, and also professor with Princeton University, he thinks that Muslims are "warlike", in face of Middle East terrorist threat, one must adopt rigid means of force, and it is imperative to popularize democracy among Arab countries. This professor goes so far as to feel the Arabs' slow rhythm offensive to the eye, he even set Islamism against the Western concept of value and voices support of Bush's war to "overthrow Saddam Hussein" and the subsequent plan to transform the Middle East.

Human civilization is like a colorful kaleidoscope, and so various colors should be allowed to exist. Arab countries have their unique living rhythm, value system and customs and habits, although these are widely different from those of the West, as these continue from generation to generation to this date, they have been accepted by most other nations round the world.

History has proved that their existence dovetails with the Arabs' living environment and their aesthetic taste. American grass is not necessarily bad, only it is not used to the climate when it is planted in the Arab earth. If the Arabs are forced to quicken their living rhythm, reverse their concept of value and change their customs and habits, the result will inevitably be offending the Arabs and will thus be spurned by them.

For a top military power in the world, it is very easy to take a small country by force, but it is very difficult to capture the minds of the people, it is all the more overrating oneself to attempt to assimilate and even eliminate a country's civilization. The case of Iraq is a clear proof. Bush took great pain to create an Iraq and tried to make it an "example" for the Middle East, which will then produce a radiation effect on the region by way of spreading from point to area, it's a pity that the present situation in Iraq is really not good. Let's put other things aside, the explosions heard almost every day alone have given people a headache, the road of handing over power to Iraq is overgrown with thorns and deep-rooted contradictions are hardly bearable to the United States.

It should be pointed out that although the Bush administration euphemistically calls it "giving the Middle East greater democracy, prosperity and freedom", its real motive in making a great noise about this in the Middle East is driven by interests. The region's important geographical strategic position and rich oil/gas resources have made the Middle East always an important link in the US diplomatic strategy, the White House cannot but firmly grasp these resources and not relax its hold of them.

It is said that Bush's "Great Middle East democratic plan" is patterned after the "Helsinki Agreement" that led to the radical change in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe and, with free trade zone as bait, the said administration employed both kindness and severity. The point is that arbitrarily driving a wedge of so-called democracy into Arab countries objectively is bound to open more "Pandora's boxes". Years earlier, Clinton had put no small efforts into the Middle East, and yet he failed in the end. Today, Bush who cannot extricate himself from the quagmire of Iraq goes so far as to plan to cover the Middle East with the grass of American democracy, it is really a too fanciful idea.

The above commentary taken from Global Times is written by Huang Peizhao and translated by People's Daily Online.

Questions?Comments? Click here

Arabs wary of Bush's 'democracy' message

Bush tries to push same old rhetoric

Japanese media follows changes regarding 3 ' most-wanted' things for Chinese families ( 2 Messages)

It is unexpectedly easy to defeat "China Threat" theory: Japanese economist ( 17 Messages)

Scientific concept of development crucial to China's future growth: Premier ( 4 Messages)

China issues human rights record of the US ( 4 Messages)

China to promote "cocktail weight loss therapy" in response to WHO plan ( 2 Messages)