IN a recent article in the New York Times, Thomas Friedman wrote: “If we really want to hasten the transition from autocracy to something more democratic in places like Iraq or Iran, the most important thing we can do is gradually, but steadily, bring down the price of oil — through conservation and alternative energies.”
He supports this argument with a few examples: “Which was the first and only real Arab democracy? Lebanon. Which Arab country had no oil? Lebanon. Which is the first Arab oil state to turn itself into a constitutional monarchy? Bahrain. Which is the first Arab oil state to run out of oil? Bahrain.”
Mr. Friedman believes that the transition of Arab countries to democracy cannot be achieved except by taking steps to impoverish them and dry up their economic resources.
Now in this article, I am not going to attack Friedman’s nonsensical ideas or his poor selection of examples which he gives to support his argument. His foolishness is clearly evident from the example of Lebanon. But what I would like to highlight here is the mentality of certain American intellectuals — their opportunism, their views about others and how they think!
For them, democracy is just a means. Their main objective is to protect Western interests rather than the national interests of any other people in any other country.
The question that is immediately raised by Mr. Friedman’s article is: What benefit can the Arabs gain from democracy if it can only be achieved through poverty? Is poverty the first condition for the achievement of democracy? It seems that when democracy is mentioned, American intellectuals really mean the creation of regimes submissive to the United States or regimes which are supposedly “democratic” and which will serve American interests. But this is not democracy as we understand it and, frankly, I have never read an article more lacking in support for democracy than Mr. Friedman’s.
When we read the article, another thing which comes creeping into our minds is that American academics and intellectuals, who often call for human rights, have become monsters who don’t care about human beings and who will not allow people to have a decent life if it differs from their own ideas. Rather they are concerned with furthering their own vested interests by any and all means, even if those include impoverishing others and making them economically weak and submissive.
If, in their writings, Mr. Friedman and his ilk represent the foremost thinkers of the United States, this means they aim to impoverish us by slashing oil prices in order to serve their policies — if not demands — in the fight against terrorism. And this is a dangerous trend which we should be aware of and speak out against at all times.
What Friedman says is essentially this: Rich countries cannot be pressured to toe the US line because, unlike poor countries, they need neither American financial assistance nor loans. So as long as certain countries are rich, they will be strong and capable of resisting American pressure. And this is what Mr. Friedman does not like.
