Madeleine Albright interesting theory

Madeleine Albright on Newsweek

NEWSWEEK: Is there a conflict between key democratic rights—particularly in the area of women’s rights—and the cultural dictates of Islam?
Madeleine Albright: Islam itself and the Qur’an are not actually antiwoman. [The Prophet] Mohammed was married to a businesswoman. It is more the culture of particular Arab countries and not Islam. And I think that what we all have to do is make clear that women’s rights do not undermine anybody’s system. It’s a matter of empowering women, so that societies are actually more stable, not less stable.

Hmm, yes of course. That is why, even in democratic societies, there are imams that have condemned women who use parfum, that says that women who do not use hijab are asking to be raped, or have written books telling husbands thow to hit a women without leaving sings., (that was condemned to prison but afterwards conmutted to ¡¡¡taking lessons on Spanish Constitution!!!). People who says this thing, for example. This article is also useful. And of course this is to see what are the women’s due rights in Koram verses (note: it does not says “the equal rights)..

How does the Abu Ghraib abuse scandal, as well as recent allegations that top military leadership sanctioned the use of torture in interrogations, affect the United States’ credibility on human rights issues in Arab countries?
It’s hurt U.S. credibility beyond measure. It has lost us the moral high ground, and I am very troubled by it. The only way to restore our credibility is for there to be accountability of those who had something to do with it—not just lower-level military. I was at an event recently where somebody said, “Isn’t it great that the Senate voted 99-0 against torture?” and I said, “Isn’t it amazing that we actually have to have a vote like that?”

Mmm, the difference is that in Saddam’s regime the torture was so normal and not illegal. And in USA is not normal and illegal really.

The report states that “democracy cannot be imposed from the outside,” and that “sudden, traumatic change is neither necessary nor desirable.” How does this apply to Iraq?
Imposing democracy is an oxymoron. You have to be there in order to assist the process, but not at the point of a gun. I think it has misrepresented to a lot of people about how democracy comes about. I’m chairman of the board of the National Democratic Institute, and we work very hard on what I call the nuts and bolts of helping people with democracy. That’s very different from invading a country. And I think it has hurt the process immeasurably, because it’s now equating democracy with occupation.

What will it take for Iraq to make the next step from holding basic elections to a full-fledged independent democratic state?
It’s very hard for people to exercise their democratic rights anywhere when they are terrified and there are suicide bombings and a general sense of chaos. Also, when the economic situation is so dire. So everything goes together. There has to be an improvement in the security situation, the reconstruction efforts have to be such that they provide people with jobs and [a] sense of the future and then democracy can flourish. While people did turn out to vote, which I think is quite remarkable, it’s very difficult when the situation in the security arena is so tenuous.

Hmm, amazing. My fellow readers: if you read this study, one of the things that Spaniards do not forget about USA (and in which they base their antiamericanism) is the support that USA gave Franco. Afterwards the so-called peaceful guys, just critizise America for doing in Iraq what they think USA should have make in Spain. The question is: Will some people be at least, coherent for once?

One of the key components of a democracy is a free press, but some Arabic-language media outlets have spread corrosive propaganda against the United States. What can be done here without limiting the free press?

It’s hard for us to censor them if we’re talking about the need for free press. There has to be the development of other avenues that would allow the people in those countries to get alternative views. Also, Al-Jazeera is opening up in the United States, and I think it doesn’t hurt if Americans go on Al-Jazeera so that we can tell our story. We have to make clear that a great deal of it is distortion.

Of course, they are going to hear it and are going to say “What do the Koram says? puaggg, this is just “World of Arrogance’s propaganda”. I hope they will, but really I can not believe it. If a country like Turkey that has being for over one century a laic country, nowadays does not respect even the press (i.e.: this and this and this), it is going to be something difficult for people in countries like Yemen to be pro-American.

Democracy seems impossible if the majority of a given population does not possess at least basic literacy. What did the task force recommend to improve education in Arab countries?
We have said that the Arab educational systems have generally done an inadequate job of preparing students for life in a global economy. Washington can’t all of a sudden start teaching Arabs. On the other hand, the U.S. government could have partnerships with Arab, American, European and Asian educational institutions and foundations and help in terms of expanding English-language instruction and promoting scholarships.

Yes, of course. But what about the benefits from the oil industry? How are they used? Why Muslim millionaires, instead of focusing in giving their citizens culture, education and a good life quality are more interested in jihad (this i.e or this) or in a luxurious way of life (this or this) ? And what to say about the fundings and the way they are invested? Now, we can let them alone with their own fundings to invest in jihad, also.

The report indicated that democracy can “diminish the appeal of extremism and terrorism.” But isn’t it possible that many Arab voters would choose a theocracy with strict limits on what we would classify as “personal freedoms.”
We don’t know, that’s part of the issue. If you believe that people want to choose the government that will represent them the best, you have to give them that opportunity. But that’s the red herring that’s put out there. We do not think the status quo in the Arab world is working. So do we think that democracy is worth supporting? Clearly there are issues, and potentially short-term dislocations, but the way that the situation has evolved now, it’s not stable at all. Therefore, we came out with the idea that being in support of democracy was something that was in our interest, and obviously in theirs.

MMM, what about Turkey?

The report says that “the U.S. has done a poor job of explaining its policies in the region and spreading its message about democracy and reform.” In September, President Bush sent Karen Hughes, the recently appointed under secretary of State for public diplomacy, on a listening tour of several Muslim countries. What was she able to accomplish, and what do you think should be the next step?
It was clearly a very first voyage of hers into this arena, but it didn’t strike me as a particularly great success. I think it’s very important that this post has been filled with somebody of such high rank and visibility, but it’s a hard job, and you have to go into societies and have some sensitivity for the various issues.

No, Clinton and your Administration did it better, did you? (i.e. this and this and this and this and this and this and this and this, to name some of your really good manners treating the “islamic-peaceful-guys”.

What steps can Washington take toward establishing a peace in the region that both the Israelis and Palestinians can live with?
First of all, the Israeli-Palestinian issue cannot be blamed for everything. What can be done is exactly what Secretary [of State Condoleezza] Rice has finally done, which is to be in the region and spend time with both sides in order to hammer out agreements. The U.S. has to be actively involved in this. But I think it is wrong for anybody to blame everything on the Israeli-Palestinian issue. It’s not at the base of every problem throughout the whole region.

Well, that is true. I admit that.

What is the task force recommendation for U.S. policy regarding Arab states—such as Dubai in the United Arab Emirates or Morocco—that are not democracies but are nonetheless, politically stable and relatively free.
Even in those countries, we spoke about the importance of a rule of law, the importance of having political, economic and social change and to keep moving the process forward. Education in those countries is very important, as well as the ability to recognize different views and to have a freer press.

Relatively free? I do not know about Duabi or UAE but Morocco “Relatively free”? Who is this interviewer? Mohamed VIth? Just see here or here for freedom of expression, here for freedomof reunion, here or here or here for tortures.

Certain Islamist groups such as Hamas in Palestine and Hizbullah in Lebanon are in fact political parties and do provide important services to the people such as food assistance and education. Can these groups be integrated into the legitimate political arena even though they have been involved in terrorist acts in the past and are currently classified by the United States as terrorist organizations?

We can’t have terrorist organizations participating, but if there are some Islamist organizations that can give up the use of force and follow the rules, then I think that it’s useful to include them in the political process. We should not allow Middle Eastern leaders to use national security as an excuse to suppress nonviolent organizations. And we should support the political participation of any group or party that is committed to abide by the rules and norms of the democratic process.

How sweet. Hizbollah: mm, yeah very peaceful. Hamas, just the same. Like Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, eih? Their project can be read here.

What can the international community do to stimulate economic development in Arab nations given that corruption and isolation have been deterrents to foreign investment in the past?
This is where the whole issue of rule of law is so important. If countries can meet certain criteria then they can be a part of the World Trade Organization, which then provides a set of rules around which everybody has to operate. Nobody is saying any of this is easy, but I think it is important that many of these Arab nations become part of this global economy. We depend on some of them for oil, and these are potential markets, as well, if there is proper investment that then creates jobs, which takes care of the problem of people being disaffected or unemployed.

Hmm, now I make a question: depending on oil is not the real cause of it? Arab multibillionaires think they can rule the world with it. And some fool and dangerous “believers-in-the-religion-of-peace” too.

Is democracy in conflict with the United States’ best interests in Arab countries? What stance should the U.S. take toward supporting opposition leaders such as Ayman Nour in Egypt?

If we think that stability is in America’s best interest and so we are afraid to think about changes in government, then in the long run, there is no stability. There is nothing less stable then a long[-serving] authoritarian government. That doesn’t mean that the U.S. should go out and support particular political figures. Some of the political figures might not even want it given our reputation at the moment, but I think that it is important to support a political process. I don’t think Americans—either as NGOs or even in the government—should be afraid to meet with opposition figures. It doesn’t mean that they are supporting them—they are supporting a process. I’ve been in discussions about what is it that really is the essence of democracy, and frankly it isn’t elections. It is the existence of an opposition party, which means that there is accountability by the ruling party, and always the possibility of the opposition party getting in.

Oh yeah, you have been even with fellows of Al-Qaeda, as the photos of one link above this post shows. I mean, it’s true that understanding comes from listening to other people’s views. But I do not think that people that killed themselves by killing others, just intending to cause the most harmful consequences and their hooligangs-supporters, are good people to deal with.

Advertisement