In its editorial (£) this morning, the Times still clings to the delusion that the ‘Arab Spring’ was the harbinger of democracy in the region. Although it coyly concedes that
‘the path of change is strewn with uncertainties’
such as the fact that
‘Sunni extremist parties have gained electoral support in Egypt, while Coptic Christians have suffered murderous attacks’,
such, ah, ‘uncertainties' do not deter the Times from concluding nevertheless that
‘The Arab Spring is nonetheless a movement as inspiring as the fall of communism.’
If the Times was hoping to win this week’s Pangloss Award for the most asinine display of intellectual blindness and wishful thinking, it has surely been pipped at the post by the British Foreign Secretary, William Hague who has also written in the Times. After entering at the start his own coy caveat:
‘Violence and votes for Islamism are a setback but this was never a quick fix’
he nevertheless passes smoothly on from this setback to reason to the quick fix of fantasy:
‘...being realistic does not mean losing faith. Far from it: greater freedom and democracy in the Middle East is an idea whose time has come. It holds the greatest prospect for the enlargement of human freedom and dignity since the end of the Cold War.
‘On the positive side, Tunisia has its first democratically elected parliament since the 1950s, with 24 per cent of the seats held by women. Morocco has held free elections under a new constitution that, for the first time in its history, means a prime minister from the party that won most votes, rather than one picked by the King. Turnout in the first phase of Egypt’s elections was above 60 per cent, compared with 23 per cent in the 2005 elections under the Mubarak regime. Libya has a new government after more than 40 years of dictatorship. Positive reform is under way in Jordan, and Yemen has agreed a political transition negotiated by the increasingly influential Gulf Co-operation Council. Bahrain has begun to take steps to implement the conclusions of its commission of inquiry into the violence last year, although the need for full implementation remains.’
Rub your eyes indeed. The fact is that the principal outcome of this ‘Arab Winter’ is the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood -- the anti-Jew, anti-woman, anti-gay, anti-human rights body of jihadists that is currently making spectacular inroads into the western culture it intends to conquer, as well as mounting selective murderous attacks as through the Hamas in Gaza; and close behind them are Islamists who are yet more extreme. Those relatively moderate Arab countries which have not yet succumbed to the Islamists, such as Jordan, are desperately holding out; but the gains the extremists have made in Egypt and elsewhere mean that such resistance against them has been weakened.
The British government’s partner in this crime against freedom, the Obama administration – acting in accordance with the Obama doctrine of embracing America’s mortal foes while dumping on its allies –has now openly reached out to the Brothers. While reports have been denied that Obama has used the spiritual leader of the Brotherhood Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi as an intermediary in the American surrender talks with the Taleban, the overtures by the US to the Brotherhood are being openly acknowledged.
The reason given is that since these guys have won power through elections, the US has no alternative but to talk to them. Neville Chamberlain said much the same thing at Munich. Here is what the supreme leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, Dr Muhammad Badi, said in his weekly message at the end of last year (via Raymond Ibrahim):
‘“The Brotherhood is getting closer to achieving its greatest goal as envisioned by its founder, Imam Hassan al-Banna. This will be accomplished by establishing a righteous and fair ruling system, with all its institutions and associations, including a government evolving into a rightly guided caliphate and mastership of the world.
‘...“The Imam [Banna] delineated transitional goals and detailed methods to achieve this greatest objective, starting by reforming the individual, followed by building the family, the society, the government, and then a rightly guided caliphate and finally mastership of the world [my emphasis].
‘...“In this Arab spring, the revolutionary people were determined to achieve particular, obvious goals. They were adamant and uncompromising about goals such as the end of unjust regimes and the ousting of unfair rulers, to rid our countries of all corrupt systems that usurped our resources and thwarted our progress. And today we are very close to achieving a major goal by establishing a righteous and fair ruling system with all its institutions and guiding principles.”’
In his article, Hague purses his lips and concedes:
‘It is true that parties drawing their inspiration from Islam have done better at the polls than secular parties and there are legitimate concerns about what this will mean’,
which ‘setback’ he says is
‘partly a legacy of the refusal of governments to allow the development of meaningful opposition parties in the past. It may also be part of a tendency to vote for groups believed to have done the most to oppose dictatorship and corruption and to offer basic welfare.’
What Mr Hague bashfully declines to acknowledge is his own government’s role in this disaster. It was the UK along with the US which helped lever Mubarak out of power in Egypt and went to war to remove Gaddafy in Libya. It is the UK and the US which have therefore helped bring about the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood in these countries and the region. It is the UK and the US which have thus helped bring to power a jihadi movement which oppresses and enslaves the unfortunates that it rules, and which is waging a war of conquest against the entire free world. It is the UK and the US which have galvanised that movement by helping persuade it that it is well on the way to achieving its objectives of a restored medieval Islamic caliphate and the Islamic takeover of the entire world.
The Times editorial intones:
‘The spread of liberty is ultimately the best inoculation against theocratic extremism.’
On the contrary: the simulacrum of democracy, through its fatuous equation with elections, is currently empowering theocratic extremism and further threatening liberty everywhere. And it is that baleful outcome which will be Cameron’s and Obama’s legacy.
