Last Saturday Canada’s Toronto Star ran a report about a protest demonstration organized by the Sudanese community calling on the Canadian government to take a stronger stand against Sudanese government’s excessive use of force against demonstrators protesting cuts in fuel subsidies.
The report attracted very interesting comments. I would like to share one I liked the most.
“Sorry NOT INTERESTED in foreign problems. If YOU care, go home and fix the problems. The writer MUST remember Canada is the country it is today because WE fought similar problems and abuses and WON. Now Canada is the BEST country in the world and our historical fights are the reason for that. Bottomline, stay here and enjoy the safe clean environment or go back to you former homeland and fight for justice, but DON’T expect Canadians to do ANY fighting for you.”
That was point-blank!
Many in the Arab world believe that Western nations value human rights and people in the West respond strongly to violations of rights anywhere in the world. Governments, apparently sensitive to their public opinion, come into action and exert pressure on countries accused of using violent tactics against their own people.
To the disappointment of many, I beg to disagree. Foreign policy of a country is dictated by self-interest. There is no free lunch in global politics.
I remember a discussion I had once with an American diplomat about what is being seen as double standard in their foreign policy where they advance interest at the expense of values. His answer was straightforward, “governments, including that of the US, look first at their interest, though sometimes we have a classical case where interest and value combine as happened in the case of Kuwait when it was invaded by Iraq.”
Over the past few years widespread violence in the world especially the Middle East has made people almost indifferent to blood and gore. Such reports from the Middle East hardly attracts any attention.
It seems that war-weary Americans and other westerners do not wish to see their countries getting involved in yet another military adventure in the Middle East.
In the case of Syria, President Obama’s reluctance in defying the public opinion clearly proves my point. Despite the fact that Assad crossed the famous “red lines” several times, Obama did not dare go against the public opinion, which was against military action.
The bottom line is that in the Middle East and North Africa, decades of dictatorships have stifled chances of growth and strengthening of institutions.
In the wake of regimes’ collapses, people are faced with multifaceted problems. In the absence of strong institutions, the social fabric is directly affected, which results in chaos as we are witnessing these days in the Middle East.
The turmoil following the fall of regimes in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya proves that the expected transformation is not as easy as A, B, C. It will take time and face teething problems.
In order to control the situation, all stakeholders must agree to resolve issues peacefully through careful deliberations. Democracy is more about recognizing defeat than winning elections. And that is why in well-established democracies the first step for the loser is to speak out, recognizing his defeat before the winner takes over. Such a practice promotes peace and gives the winner a chance to carry out his program. While at the same time, it provides the loser a chance to work harder to win the next round.
