It seems the Middle East might be starting a move toward democracy. Slowly, painfully but movement none the less. But is it really democracy or just a snow job and a facade of movement under the guise of appointed American puppets changing one type of dictator for another more politically acceptable one?

Egypt and Saudi Arabia have had movements but do not allow women to vote. Mahmoud Abbas in Palestine was elected after Arafat died even though the majority abstained. There is an argument now that the US invasion of Iraq caused all of this and that the spreading of democracy has just begun. It will require more troops and time to provide the necessary security for the changing of the guard but it is on its way. Furthermore, economic and diplomatic actions could no longer be tried and had been tried for some time leaving the only option of force.

Were such options even attempted? Where standards set that would phase out such organizations as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the World Trade Organization? Was there a mandate for corporate responsibility and using the courts to revoke the concept of ‘corporate personhood’? Was there any attempt for rigid controls over currency speculation in order to protect the economies of countries devastated by this form of Hold ’Em poker? Was there urging for the cancellation of Third World debt and the enactment of international covenants designed to protect the economic integrity and sovereignty of all nations? Was international trade agreements promoted that had human rights protections as their primary purpose, that provide for ‘fair trade’, as opposed to the euphemistically-named ‘free trade’? And such agreements would insist on pushing toward sustainable development, including protection for workers, trade unions, the environment, women, minorities? And those agreements would not undermine the ability of each nation, state or local community to meet its citizens' social, environmental, cultural or economic needs? Was there a push for socially responsible investments? Was there a promise to work toward a better and more just world by adhering to the long-standing agreements and treaties which were designed for the advancement of all, not just the United States and that they would agree to work within multilateral projects as equal partners? Was there a promise by the United States that they would pay what they owe the United Nations. And then accept that this organization is intended to make a better world, not a wealthier United States?

No. Should any of the upheaval today be credited toward the US? Of course! All of it bad? No. Most of it? Hard to say, journalists who are not embedded have a habit of being shot. It will take more than a good marketing campaign by the Bush administration to sell this new world order to the rest of the world. It is readily apparent that democracy is a definite seller but militarism and unrestricted corporatism are not. What if other countries decide to use the US model for invasion for their own gain? On what grounds could the US fight them if any? Has the US crippled itself by overextending? Has there been a great reconsideration of the United States place in the world by the rest of the world? Is the US the true advocate for democracy or for militarism?