US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice rejected warnings that the push for democracy in the Middle East would lead to instability. Khaled Dawoud reports from Washington In a series of lengthy interviews this week, United States Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice stressed that democratic reforms in the Middle East was a top priority for US President George W Bush in his second term. Egypt and Saudi Arabia, whose governments are close US allies, were cautiously praised for starting the democratic reform process. Rice also stated that more is expected and that they will continue to be closely watched. As for Syria, with its long list of disputes with the US over its alleged support of "terror", backing resistance in Iraq and dominance over Lebanese politics, received harsher words from Rice. The warning emerged amid widespread speculation in the US capital over whether the end target of the current Bush policy towards Damascus was regime change. In interviews with The Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post, Rice said the final judgement over recent reforms proposed by President Hosni Mubarak, namely amending the Constitution to allow a multi-presidential election, remains in the balance. "We're encouraging the Egyptians to make these real reforms. But we will see." Rice told the Los Angeles Times. "I think Egyptians understand that the international community is looking to see that these are real reforms that will have an impact on how elections are actually carried out," she added. Pressed in her interview with the Washington Post to explain what the administration expected out of upcoming elections in Egypt, to assure that genuine democratic reform was taking place, Rice stressed wider political participation and competitive presidential elections. She stated that it was unlikely that the elections would "look like American competitive political presidential elections," but that competitiveness would be an important element. "Greater political participation" was another specific issue of concern to the US administration, saying that "it means that people now have a voice, one way or another, in the decisions that affect their lives." Rice also noted that the administration would be watching the developments of the case of opposition MP Ayman Nour, who was referred to trial over charges of fraud this week. His supporters maintain that the case was a political attempt to prevent him from competing against President Mubarak in upcoming elections in September. Despite ongoing daily violence in Iraq and the failure of various political factions to agree on forming a government two months after elections were held, President Bush and his loyalist team spearheaded by Rice have insisted that the 30 January vote had left a positive impact on the region, leading to increasing calls for democratic reforms in several Arab countries. While their basic argument remains contested by many experts and former US officials, the Bush team insist that Iraqi elections, together with Palestinian presidential elections in early January, popular revolts in Ukraine, Georgia and elsewhere, have inspired changes in Lebanon, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and, will sooner or later affect Syria and other Arab countries. Refuting fears that the current push for democratic reform in the region would only foment more instability due to its complex political, ethnic and religious structure, Rice had a different theory that is popular among neo-conservative circles dominating the present US administration: considering the Middle East was not stable in the first place, democratic reforms "take on a life of their own" once they start. She argued that democracy has an inherent moderating effect on societies, assuring that extremists would not be the winners in the final balance. In her interview with The Post, Rice signalled that it was not in America's best interests to see militant Islamists come to power in the Arab world, yet pointed out that "it isn't as if the status quo was stable the way it was." For Rice, 11 September revealed that under the surface "the Middle East is a place that's badly in need of change." She professed confidence "that democratic institutions and people's desire not to live in violence... is going to have a moderating effect on the region... when you know that the status quo is no longer defensible, then you have to be willing to move in another direction, encouraging the spread of freedom." But in rating the progress towards democracy in the region, Rice affirmed commitment to traditional alliances and consensus that the support of key allies like Egypt and Saudi Arabia was necessary to work on other vital issues such as the peace process, Iraq and the war on terror. "The hardest one in many ways to predict, I think, is Syria because I don't think the process really has begun in Syria. I do think the process is beginning, however tentatively in Egypt or Saudi Arabia," Rice said. Asked directly whether she wanted to see some regimes change in the region by the end of her term four years from now, the harshest words were again saved for Damascus. "The issue isn't who's in power and who's not in power; it's these places that are making steps towards reform. And I just haven't seen anything in Syria yet that suggests that political reform, as opposed to economic reform, where there have been some minor steps, is on the agenda." Tamara Wittes, an expert on reform in the Arab world at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy, cautioned against the optimistic assumption of a "domino effect" sweeping the Middle East region as witnessed in Eastern Europe before the fall of the former Soviet Union in the late 1980s and early 1990s. Few Arabs view Iraq -- with its daily violence, occupation and threats to its unity -- as a model to pursue in order to bring democracy to their own countries. The Bush administration remains accused of double standards in the Arab world for keeping silent on the negative democratic record of countries like Tunisia or Libya, while stressing change in Lebanon and Egypt according to its political agenda. Wittes also suggested that for the Bush administration it would be better to deal with present regimes and assure a gradual and peaceful shift towards democracy rather than risking the rise of extremist groups. And while the Bush administration thrives on seeing people queuing up to cast their ballot in various Arab and Muslim countries, Wittes said that a lot of work needed to be done on promoting the protection of freedoms, rather than merely holding elections, in light of the existing popularity and influence of political Islamic groups. Yet while Wittes believed that the recent developments in Egypt proved that the US government could promote democracy without risking Cairo's support on other key issues, namely the Middle East peace process, Martin Indyk, former US ambassador to Israel, had a different view. Indyk said that the Bush administration's lack of concern to engage the Egyptian and Saudi regimes was the reason behind the recent failure to mobilise Arab support for normalising relations with Israel at last week's Arab summit in Algiers. "King Abdullah [of Jordan] was left alone to do our own work," Indyk said referring to the Jordanian initiative presented to the Algiers summit which sought to encourage more normalisation of relations between the Arabs and Israel. The proposal failed because it did not have the backing of Egypt and Saudi Arabia, Indyk said. He also sounded sceptical that the administration was actually committed to the revival of the Arab-Israeli peace process, saying that democratic reform and the present situation in Lebanon were its main preoccupation.
