The Staggers

The New Statesman’s rolling politics blog

Approving of autocracy

If you write favourably about Qatar or Russia, are you speaking up for dictatorships – or acknowledging there may be different kinds of social contracts?

By Sholto Byrnes Published 05 December 2010 14:53

Yesterday Mehdi Hasan wrote an excellent post about the extraordinary reaction to Qatar being chosen to host the 2022 World Cup.

Quite apart from the fact that the emirate will undoubtedly make a great success of the event – I went to the opening of the 2006 Asian Games in Doha and even though they had the misfortune to suffer a downpour, an exceedingly rare event in those climes, the ceremony, choreography, fireworks and lighting of the torch were the most spectacular display I've ever witnessed – Mehdi's was a very mild defence. He did not deny that the "country, like every other Gulf nation, has an autocratic and reactionary regime and is far from liberal or democratic". But speaking up for Qatar was still a step too far for the many who then attacked him in the comments section.

It appears that automatic disapproval is what is expected – demanded, even – whenever one writes about a country that fails to meet our standards when it comes to human rights, democracy and liberal values; no matter how recently we as a society may have come not only to protect in law but also embrace those values in practice. (Think of our attitude towards gay men and women in public life being a good instance of a halo we have bestowed on ourselves though we haven't quite earned it yet – or are we ready for a gay prime minister?)

Certainly, there are states that you would have to be particularly perverse to want to defend – Burma, for example, or North Korea. Yet what about countries that strike us as illiberal and whose practice of democracy is erratic or barely existent – but whose peoples seem content with or approving of such deviations from our ideal?

Take Russia, whose prime minister, Vladimir Putin, has been accused by the former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev of acting as though "democracy stands in his way". But has the electorate there chosen a semi-autocracy instead? The Stanford academic Michael McFaul put the reasons for Putin's success well in Foreign Affairs magazine two years ago.

In the 1990s, under post-Soviet Russia's first president, Boris Yeltsin, the state did not govern, the economy shrank and the population suffered. Since 2000, under Putin, order has returned, the economy has flourished and the average Russian is living better than ever before. As political freedom has decreased, economic growth has increased. Putin may have rolled back democratic gains, the story goes, but these were necessary sacrifices on the altar of stability and growth.

McFaul, a specialist in Russia and the former Eastern Bloc, thought this was wrong: the country, he said, would have done better "if democracy had survived". However, he also conceded that: "This narrative has a powerful simplicity, and most Russians seem to buy it. Putin's approval rating hovers near 80 per cent, and nearly a third of Russians would like to see him become president for life."

To take another example: semi- or fully autocratic regimes were the norm throughout south-east Asia in the 1980s and 1990s. In Singapore, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew has argued this is because what he calls "Asian values" prevail in the region. That this is a distinctly unfashionable analysis is not likely to trouble MM Lee in the least. However, there are some western observers who agree that there may be something in it.

In Joe Studwell's 2007 book Asian Godfathers: Money and Power in Hong Kong and South-East Asia, he wrote that the countries he covered (he did not include Indochina or Burma) were experiencing a "developmental honeymoon", and so were not so bothered about their lack of western-style liberal democracy. In this state, he wrote:

Populations are unusually willing to trust authority and their leaders' promises to deliver continuous improvements in standards of living. When south-east Asians were told that free association of labour was antithetical to growth . . . and that constraints on individual freedom and the media are part of Asian culture, they acquiesced.

Like McFaul, Studwell believed they were wrong to do so. But he still thought the relevant populations gave their de facto assent to this bargain – and not without reason. "With the average GDP growth rates from 1986 to 1995 picking up to 8-10 per cent a year in Malaysia, Thailand and Indonesia, versus 6-8 per cent in the period after 1960, they trusted the politicians and waited for the bourgeois nirvana that would release them from the shackles of economic need."

If this is the kind of deal that operated there, would it not be even more attractive to the permanent populations of Gulf states such as Qatar, whose citizens can expect plentiful financial benisons – way beyond the pleasures suggested by a mere "bourgeois nirvana" – to be provided for them throughout their lives by their governments?

The points I am making are simple, but there is a particular reason for making them here, in the New Statesman. Many commenters regard it as axiomatic that left or left-leaning writers should not only speak up for the kinds of liberty and democracy we enjoy here, but also regard them as universal values that are therefore applicable – if necessary, by force – around the world.

But it seems to me just as left or left-leaning to ask what it is that people want and then to respect that choice, at least to the extent of admitting that it is their decision to make and not ours. If it turns out that they don't actually want our brands of liberty and democracy; if they are quite content without them, or even vote to give up some of the freedoms we would cherish, some seem to think it is the role of the left not just to tell them they are wrong, but to try to force them to change their minds by economic sanctions, trade wars and bellicose rhetoric.

This attitude, to me, smacks rather of what France in the 19th century referred to as its "mission civilisatrice". We in Britain were a little more honest about it. We called it "imperialism". It is a mystery to me why anyone should think there is anything left-wing about that.

Special Offer: Get 12 issues of New Statesman magazine for just £12

Tags: democracy Russia

More from Sholto Byrnes

34 comments

Mon, 2010-12-06 01:27 — Tom Brook (not verified)

Riaz,

I didn't realize that Afghanistan or the USA for that matter was awarded the 2022 World Cup. Qatar was. Can Isrealis attend the 2022 world cup? No. Can Gays attend the 2022 World Cup? No. Can HIV+ persons attend the 2022 World Cup? No.
If the World Cup were to be held in the USA, would Muslims be able to attend the 2022 World Cup? Yes.

You have no defense for that. And neither does Qatar. Nor FIFA.

Mon, 2010-12-06 01:31 — skiptonman

i`ve forgot what the article was about .. but my mate`s friend`s sister`s brother has HIV .. he watches footi down the George and Dragon, hope he reads this before booking his world cup tickets ..

Mon, 2010-12-06 03:28 — south pacific

If the fans don't like the places where the WC is held for whatever reason and stay away then the WC's will be a flop.

The power lies in the hand of the fans.

I for one won't waste any money going there.

Mon, 2010-12-06 10:11 — Isaac Green (not verified)

Sholto, your column makes a reasonable case (have you been reading John Rawls' "The Law of Peoples"?) but misses a crucial point. Consent is only free if it can also be withdrawn. The essence of democracy is that there is a process whereby the people can sack the government if they choose to do so - this is why elections at fixed intervals. Without free elections there can be no test of whether or not current arrangements have the people's consent. This allows a wide spectrum of government policies on the liberty-authority spectrum but not the abolition of the one test of whether the people do actually consent. And that is at the heart of what the fight for democracy is about.

Mon, 2010-12-06 17:59 — Hans Castorp (not verified)

Oh dear Lou. Sulk sulk sulk.

Great point Isaac!

Sun, 2010-12-05 15:44 — mount1

where've you bin man? wait for the haters....

Sun, 2010-12-05 16:06 — Nathan (not verified)

At least have the courage to admit that when you write "our brands of liberty and democracy" you really mean "liberty and democracy".

Thu, 2010-12-09 12:38 — Stuart Eels (not verified)

Lou and Hans Castorp.

Is this your private battlfield or can anyone else join in?

Qatar wasn't chosen as a World Cup Venue because of it's fantastic fans and facilities as we all know. The 2022 Cup should have gone to Australia. We now have a FIFA member saying that it should be held in the January/February of 2022 because of the heat. I personally can't see any European Federation putting up with.

You both need to take a calming rest with a cup of tea!

Sun, 2010-12-05 17:36 — Lou (not verified)

We don't apply our view of liberty and democracy in a liberal or democratic way.

We condemn countries like Qatar but offer no condemnation of countries like America who still see the death penalty as a liberal and democratic form of justice, who see it as right to inter fifteen year olds in Guantanamo, or to rendition what turn out to be innocent people to other countries in order to conduct torture an illegal act, nor do we condemn them turning a blind eye to their own laws on funding states that they condemn publicly but privately support be it militarily or financially, states that use child soldiers, rape women, imprison homosexuals and commit no end of terrorist atrocities. Nor do we condemn their autocratic style of political invasions of countries who have something they want be it oil, gas or providing access to resources.

We operate selectivity when deciding what is democratic and liberal and we fail to see that western governments like the US operate autocratically in inflicting their idea of democracy, their view of liberty, their foreign policies and their vision of the free world on others whilst condemning other autocratic countries for the same behaviour.

George W Bush was as much an autocrat as Saddam Hussein.

Sun, 2010-12-05 18:34 — swatantra nandanwar

Rather like Justice, Football is blind to autocrats. Lets not have the ridiculous situation we had at the Moscow Olympics when half the countries boycotted Moscow.
The point about Sport Music Culture and the Arts is that they are more important than Politics and transcend borders.

Sun, 2010-12-05 18:50 — Tom Brook (not verified)

So you think that throwing Gay men in a cage for 6 months and beating them with a stick 90 times simply because they are who they are is a 'cultural perspective'? How about Qatar's banning of HIV positive persons from entering the country (I hope Magic Johnson isn't a soccer fan)? How about Qatar leading a fight against UN condemnation of executions of people simply because they are Gay? How about Qatar's repulsive import labor laws (which some compare to slavery - I'd disagree by labelling more like indentured servitude - but that is more of a minor quibble)? How about Qatar's treatment of women? How about Qatar's treatment of religious converts? I guess none of that matters to you. Gay people, HIV positive persons, and Israelis cannot attend the World Cup in Qatar (maybe they should change the name to the Part of the World Cup 2022).

You enable all of the above by calling it a 'cultural perspective'. I'd argue that it is torture, plain and simple.

As a Gay man, I see little difference between Burma and Qatar. Please help me see the difference. Actually, given Qatar's recent UN activism, i'd argue that Qatar is WORSE.

You speak of the 'wonderful benefits' that have accrued to the Qataris. Who are you talking about? Not the majority of the people who live there (as they aren't Qatari citizens and will never be, even if born there). Even among Qatari citizens, a minority (Sunnis) have been accused of systemaitc discrimination against the majority (Shiites).

Thanks for the history lesson on the 19th Century. I guess that would be relevant if FIFA was awarding the 1822 World Cup. As it stands today, FIFA, in my opinion, has made a bold endorsement of 15th century values.

Your assertion that about the west using 'force' on Qatar to implement democracy and liberal values is risable. Please defend said assertion. Who is forcing anything on Qatar? No one. This is about rewarding behavior.

Furthermore if the UK won the World Cup, would Israelis, HIV positive persons, religious converts, and Gays be able to participate/attend? Yes. Will they be able to Qatar? No.

But I can sum up your argument as follows. Since the West committed offenses in the 19th Century, we should cheerlead regimes that do the exact same thing in the 21st Century.

Sun, 2010-12-05 19:04 — Tom Brook (not verified)

Lou,

What does the former President of the United States have to do with this discussion?

If the US had won the World Cup, then it might be relevant to discuss the United States. Qatar was affirmed by FIFA, its Qatar's behavior that is to be discussed. Not America's.

I didn't get your opinion on the torture of Gay people, the lack of human rights for women, the lack of decent treatment of immigrant labor, the lack of democracy and human rights, the banning of certain nationalities from entry (e.g., Israel), the banning of HIV positive persons from entry, and the rights of people to change their religion in Qatar. Can you please expound on that within a Qatari context without referring to other nations?

Sun, 2010-12-05 19:24 — Lou (not verified)

Let's not be so selective when condemning Qatar's stance on HIV and Aids.

You aren't allowed to become a permanent citizen of America if you are an HIV positive foreign person. Also it's not only Qatar that bans HIV people from travelling there, so does the liberal and democratic United States of America which only lifted it's ban on foreigners getting visas to come in to America if they were HIV+ in January of this year (thanks to Obama else they'd still be banned). Armenia, Colombia, Iraq, Oman, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Solomon Islands, South Korea, Sudan and Yemen still ban HIV+ visitors to their countries.

India operates socio ostracising policies for people with HIV and Aids, Israel denies medical access for HIV positive people and Aids sufferers who are immigrants on a visa or asylum seekers. Russia requires an HIV/Aids status certificate for foreigners to gain visas for longer than 90 days

Sun, 2010-12-05 19:29 — Hans Castorp (not verified)

This is one of those articles that actually gets worse and worse every time one reads it.

"But it seems to me just as left or left-leaning to ask what it is that people want and then to respect that choice, at least to the extent of admitting that it is their decision to make and not ours. If it turns out that they don't actually want our brands of liberty and democracy; if they are quite content without them, or even vote to give up some of the freedoms we would cherish, some seem to think it is the role of the left not just to tell them they are wrong, but to try to force them to change their minds, by economic sanctions, trade wars and bellicose rhetoric."

Sholto, you are wrong, dead wrong. Completely wrong about what it means to be of the left. Utterly wrong to claim there are “kinds of liberty and democracy” instead of, as another commenter points out, “liberty and democracy” as absolute and universal human values.

When has it been the rightful role of the left to apologise for regimes that do things we would decry here? To euphemise their disgusting failures, and relativise them away? To reject the left’s internationalism?

Did I miss the democratic referendum where Qataris got to choose their despotic government, volunteered to have the country’s vast natural wealth controlled by spoiled princes and slobbering dauphins, decided to criminalise homosexuality, impose aspects of Sharia, and settled to ban Israelis (i.e. Jews) from entering the country? I must have done, because Sholto implies there was one.

Sholto, do Qatari gays ‘choose’ to be gay, and so to be shamed and criminalised in their own country?

Our tardy acceptance of universal rights and values does not preclude us from seeking to see these upheld elsewhere. On the contrary, if we are to feel some measure of guilt, as Sholto would have us do, over this lateness, we are to put it to use to doubly and trebly ensure our late-flowered realisations spread elsewhere.

To be of the left is, of course, to be internationalist. To call for our own freedom in our own country, and to each outside to their own, is to be a grubby Stalinist, which is not the same thing.

We take it as universal and timeless that women are equal to men, and the rights of homosexuals should be untrammelled. So, contra Sholto, we are not to tolerate intolerance any more in Qatar than in Kettering. We are not to wait for autocrats, dictators and despots to ’catch up’.

For how long, Sholto, are the gays of the UAE to wait for freedom and dignity? 100 years? 1,000? How many are to suffer while the fiefdoms of the UAE undergo social change? Why are we forbidden by you from slating their failures in the interim? Why are you so confident that they will change of their own accord?

It is *because* the West took too long, and fight so hard, to realise universal rights, that we cannot abide to see them now negated. Impatience on this point is a virtue, though hands in Islington may wring and the po-faces in the menagerie at the Guardian CiF section may cringe.

I note a latent racism in what Sholto avers, of the following sort:

‘These Arabs are just different, aren’t they! Who are we to question their vile abuse and suppression of women? Maybe Afghan women just don't like being given the opportunity to be the equal of the male counterparts, and would prefer to have their noses hacked off at the summary judgement of the local illiterate Talib.

Maybe Iranian gays are resigned to their death penalties, and Qatari gays like being pariahs and criminals for who they are. Maybe Qataris are happy that their government’s ban on Israelis entering the country prevents them from seeing their Jewish friends and colleagues.

And it’s just in the Russian national character to go for bribery, graft and so on. Those peasants just loved it when their national natural resources were sold out from under them, and get a kick out of having to pay off the local Mafioso to get anything done. It’s practically a day of national celebration in Russia when a bothersome journo is shot, or a difficult chap has his tea spiked with polonium.’

These people are, as Sholto insinuates, are “quite content” without our “kind of liberty and democracy”, because, you see, they are different from you and me.

Give. Me. A. Break.

We need to call out this sort of thing for what it is: Craven moral cowardice; the ghettoisation of what should be universal principles; the shameful, cringing trammelling of our care for fellow man; the resultant support for tyranny and theocracy.

Wherefore left internationalism?

Leave the oppressed to their despots, says Sholto: they may get their own shake at freedom, at some unspecified point in time.

How execrable that a self-professed member of the left would stoop so fucking low.

Sholto would call smear internationalism as imperialism. If our ‘empire’ is one of equal rights for all and equality before the law; of freedoms of expression, association, worship and the rest; of the liberation of women and oppressed peoples; of criticising the calumny of oppression wherever it arises; and identifying the illegitimacy of the despots who commit these things by their rightful names, then it is my empire, and I am a proud imperialist.

Sun, 2010-12-05 19:31 — Hans Castorp (not verified)

Lou, so is Qatar wrong on HIV or not? I'm seeing a lot of relativism from you, but no actual moral stance on anything.

Oh dear.... I'm catching....

Despotphobia! Homophobiaphobia! Comparophobia!

Sun, 2010-12-05 19:38 — Lou (not verified)

Tom

I was responding to the article entitled approving autocracy.

My commentary was about autocracy and the application of liberty and democracy in the western world and how we see fit to impose our own autocratic ideals of liberty and democracy on others conveniently ignoring our own failings to be liberal and democratic in our dealings and responses with other countries.

Read Mehdi's article for more of my views. I don't condone Qatar's stance on human rights or homosexuality at all but I do recognise that the West is hardly a beacon of light for true liberty and democracy and behaves very much like an autocracy in many areas.

Sun, 2010-12-05 19:40 — Lou (not verified)

Hans,

It's wrong. I've said it before in a post yesterday. Thanks for asking though.

Sun, 2010-12-05 19:59 — Tom Brook (not verified)

Lou, you are incorrect about the USA. HIV positive persons now are not banned in any way from entering or obtaining visas or citizenship in the United States. Ask Andrew Sullivan about that.

With regards to Russia, they are horrendous too. But their repulsive behavior on a whole host of HIV/Gay rights issues does not in any way excuse Qatar's worse behaviour.

You aren't going to win this argument by talking about other nations. We're talking about Qatar here.

Sun, 2010-12-05 20:07 — Hans Castorp (not verified)

Lou

Stop making relatives from absolutes.

"impose our own autocratic ideals of liberty and democracy"

is a meaningless contradiction in terms.

And the west does not "ignore" its failings. The very fact you say this negates your point.

You might, as an example, notice that we are having an open debate on the website of a press organ that is a free and vocal critic of government and so on.

Sun, 2010-12-05 20:08 — Lou (not verified)

Tom,

I mentioned on my comment that the ban was lifted in January of this year. Still it is only lifted thanks to Obama, attempts to lift it before failed every time. It's something to be glad for now but their archaic stance was shameful just as the other countries are I mentioned.

Actually Qatar is not the only subject matter in this article, liberty and democracy are and so is Russian and Asian autocracy. Whilst comment is free, I will comment freely and will not take instruction from anyone thank you on what I am allowed to comment on.

Sun, 2010-12-05 20:16 — Hans Castorp (not verified)

Ditto, Tom. One does not excuse the other. Shoto's entire article rests on the contrary (and, someone has to say it, Sholto's complete moral blind-spot re all things Islamic).

Oh, and to back you up, about six months ago I notarised US entry application papers for a gay guy with HIV/AIDS (it was on the forms) - he now lives there with his other half permanently. Can't do that in Qatar.

Another challenge for Sholto:

We had slavery here once. We then realised it was wrong, and got rid of it.

Other countries still practice this. Qatar, for example, have effective slavery in the form of extremely onerous indentured labour.

Am I not to criticise slavery because it's another example of an alternative "social contract", with an assumed knowing consent on the part of the slave worker? Where does this train of reasoning end?

Sun, 2010-12-05 20:18 — Hans Castorp (not verified)

Lou, Russia and so on are only mentioned because Sholto wants to deflect away from criticising the country at hand: Qatar. This was, after all, an article written following Mehdi's on "qatarphobia".

It's a typical verkrappt-left rhetorical ploy. Bait then switch. Don't fall for it.

Sun, 2010-12-05 20:22 — Lou (not verified)

Hans,

It is not a contradiction. I don't negate my point and your final point is 'stating the bleeding obvious' to paraphrase Mehdi. An open debate but I'm told I can only comment on Qatar? What happened to freedom of speech.

Sun, 2010-12-05 20:28 — Tom Brook (not verified)

Comment on every other nation on Earth if you want to. its off topic and will do nothing to advance your argument. We will focus like a laser beam on Qatar's behaviour and practices as they are today. Feel free to complain about some has been US President, the 19th Century in France or whatever.

Sun, 2010-12-05 20:39 — Lou (not verified)

That's your opinion Tom and you have a right to deem my opinion off topic if you so desire.

It's good that Qatar has become such a focus for human rights in the last three days and people feel so passionate about it now. I trust you will all actively protest to Fifa, Qatari diplomats and foreign ministers and campaign vigorously with the passion that you protest on these pages regarding human rights abuses in Qatar.

Sun, 2010-12-05 21:22 — Tom Brook (not verified)

Absolutely, we will use the next 12 years to force the world to pay attention to Qatari abuses. We will contact UK, Western European, and American sponsors of World Cup events and ask them to desist lest they endorse abuses of Gays. We will embarrass FIFA. We will work with workers rights groups, womens groups, religious groups (remember Qatar bans conversion), HIV groups. Qatar has a choice in its behavior. It will no longer have the luxury of behaving as it currently does without comment.

Qataris leaders can use this as an opportunity to change or see their behavior thrown in their and FIFA's faces for the next 12 years. It ain't gonna look pretty. For example, we will see how Qatar votes on UN condemnation of Iranian executions of Gay people (last year it led the opposition to condemnation). We shall see how Coca Cola responds if asked if they are going to sponsor events to which Gays and Jews and HIV positive persons are banned.

My guess they will be as tone deaf as they have been in the past. My guess is that its going to be long and LOUD 12 years for FIFA and Qatar.

Sun, 2010-12-05 22:08 — Riaz Ahmad

.....even - whenever one writes about a country that fails to meet our standards when it comes to human rights, democracy and liberal values; .....

The above statement comes from a mindset suffering from delusions. UK is part of parcel of killing hundreds of thousands of human lives in Iraq and Afghanistan. Half a million infants in Iraq alone perished due to lack of medicines resulting from sanctions. Those who kill indiscriminately, abduct and torture people, how can they even talk about human rights. Reality speaks louder than words.

Sun, 2010-12-05 22:10 — Hans Castorp (not verified)

"That's your opinion"

Of course it bloody is. What a stupid thing to say.

Lou: Explain, logically, how liberty and democracy are autocratic ideals.

Sun, 2010-12-05 22:29 — Hans Castorp (not verified)

Oh, and Sholto, in answer to your standfirst

You are speaking up for dictatorships.

And you should think on that.

Sun, 2010-12-05 22:52 — writeon1

But our political leaders only pay lip service to our core democratic principles. In reality they have contempt for ordinary people, the great mass of voters, and see 'excessive democracy' as a direst threat to elite rule.

We no longer live in a democracy, but an oligarchy. The level of real democracy in a society is directly related to the level of economic and political equality present. Britain and the United States, which have staggering levels of economic inequality, also don't have much real democracy anymore.

Our political leaders don't give a damn about human rights. Human rights is merely a propaganda phrase to be rolled out when needed as a weapon directed against our enemies.

Countries with appalling records on human rights, torture, executions, lack of democracy etc. are allowed to get away with murder as long as they are inside our imperial sphere of influence, as long as they pay tribute to our empire, we turn a blind eye to their transgressions.

Sun, 2010-12-05 22:55 — Hans Castorp (not verified)

More conspiracist claptrap from writeon.

Our "leaders" get elected, and their decisions are open to scrutiny. You don't get elections or scrutiny in Qatar.

But I'm not engaging with writeon further because his mind is a cul-de-sac of bald assertions and dribbling paranoia.

Sun, 2010-12-05 23:13 — Lou (not verified)

An example for autocratic ideals of what liberty and democracy is? I've mentioned already, George W. Bush and Iraq.

Oh and Hans (re 19.07) the West does ignore Qatar's failings on human rights for it's own political ends. I'll repeat here my comment in Mehdi's Qatarphobia piece on the US congressional report on the kind of military, financial and economic interest the US has in Qatar.
http://www.usembassy.it/pdf/other/RL31718.pdf

'....an important ally of the US since the late 90's, serves as host to US military facilities for command,basing and equipment, third largest field of pre-proven natural gas reserves in the world and enjoys the highest per capita income of anywhere in the Middle East.

It also goes on to mention their change to a more liberal stance, praises their progress regarding women and the right to vote and run for national office, the US Combat Air Operations Centre is based there regarding Afghanistan and Iraq since 2003, 1 billion dollars invested in the exploration of Qatar's natural gas reserves, Qatar isn't subject to OPEC conditions, Qatar has signed several agreements with the US and other energy companies to export gas to the agreed countries, 1991 Gulf War and since has seen coalition forces operating from Qatari territory, Qatar gave over 100 million dollars in relief following Hurricane Katrina, Qatar invested over a million dollars in the building of american bases on Qatari territory, a further 126 billion dollars was authorised by congress for military operations in Qatar, US exports over a six month period to Qatar were worth 1.45 billion dollars, fuel and fertilizers over the same period were worth 338 million'.

Or if you were referring to my comment on Fifa 'ignoring' (human rights issues) and 'it's failings' on human rights - aren't you arguing that point as well, I would have thought that comment was something we actually both agreed on - that Fifa is ignoring human rights abuses in Qatar and failing to address these issues?

Sun, 2010-12-05 23:48 — Hans Castorp (not verified)

I'm not going to get sidetracked by Iraq, but you're flat out wrong. They've now had several elections judged free and fair. Without the requested explanation of how democracy is autocratic, I can't see any autocracy there. The idea that liberty and democracy can be "imposed" is self-evidently nonsense, and given Iraq's history, sickening.

But ah, here we have the meat of it: US-bashing! Wahey!

Does the US stiplulate (and enforce its stipulation) that Qatar be a despotic fiefdom that hates gays and jews?

Is there any evidence the US would actively prefer Qatar did not become a democracy?

No. Bashing the Great Satan here goes nowhere. I'll flag the State department's critical report on Qatar's HR record for good measure here:

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2009/nea/136078.htm

Also, your contention that "George W Bush was as much an autocrat as Saddam Hussein" is patent crap. Bush, like all Presidents, stood down when his mandated time was up.

Here's a question: where do you think an Iraqi would rather live - under GW Bush in the USA, or under Saddam Hussein in Iraq?

On ignoring, it seems I have to remind you what you said re "the western world" (not FIFA):

"conveniently ignoring *our own failings* to be liberal and democratic in our dealings and responses with other countries."

No one ignores that, hence my comment. It's a bit depressing when you can't read your own comment, let alone those of others.

The fact is, you're so fixated on slagging off the US, so full of post-colonial guilt, you forgive tyrants and people who, if they were running for election here, by relativising them with the west. If I wanted to be really fair, I would say you do this because you cannot comprehend quite how awful life is under dictatorship (perhaps understandable).

If the Qatari royal family were running for office here, you would oppose with every sinew of your being, because you would hate to live under them. You would not be saying, "well, absolutism under them would be bad but I think democracy under George Bush would be worse".

Sholto does the same. "Social contract" in Qatar? My arse. Read some Rousseau and tell me if Qatar makes the grade.

Mon, 2010-12-06 00:04 — Lou (not verified)

Hans,

You talk shite and you twist comments to suit your particular take, then you revert to condescending and patronising jibes.

Don't tell me I forgive tyrants when I do no such thing, don't attribute quotes to me that I haven't said (absolutism under them would be bad....etc) and look up autocrat in the dictionary, it doesn't mean only lifelong dictatorships.

I see no point in a back and forth tennis match of commentary with you any further. You have your opinion, I have mine. End of.