Following up on the article, here is an interesting question (and, as I say elsewhere, I am Cairene): does a consensus-building approach to running society have to be be codified into a document in order to make it legitimate? Traditional societies, almost all have window-dressing constitutions and laws, usually rely on the "unwritten" laws and informal institutions. But I claim that these unwritten laws (a la English law), is or could be as democratic as any other as long as it makes sense to the people who play by its rules and as long as it is fair. I claim that both existed in Egyptian society since Mohammed Ali's time (1805) up until may be the 1950s/60s (when grotesque corruption started to creep in). Hence, I also claim that Egyptians, along with their Middle Eastern Arab and Muslim peers, are very prone to democratic forms of governance, though not necessarily in the same form as it is understood, practiced, and implemented in the West. If GWB or any US government wishes to spread democracy in the ME, it has to be according to the Middle Eastern understanding, historical practice, and means of implementation. Clearly, the first two rely heavily on Islamic code. Is that a problem? For whom is it a problem? If it is a problem for the West, why should the West resist this form of informal democracy? If it chooses to do so, does it have any *right* to do so?

The article is an excellent and needed contribution to a debate centred on too-often arrogant faith in US institutions (not so much European ones). Also, the reply from BigSky hits well on this latter point.

I would challenge, however, how deep the commitment to imposing democratic institutions in the ME really is within the Bush-Cheney regime. To the extent there is still any adherence to the Monroe Doctrine, the ME is not Washington's priority for behaviour modification. My Latin American colleagues will wince at my reminding anyone in Washington that they once claimed such responsibilities.

The real strategic objective behind the current catastrophic fiasco is security for Israel and for critical energy resources. In the planning, one of the ways of pacifying the local populations in the wake of "big action" was to quickly introduce US-style consumerism through shopping malls, Procter & Gamble products, Hollywond entertainment, and Visa cards. These initiatives have succeeded. Watch Iraqi television. Countries across the Gulf have, indeed, succeeded in this respect. While their populations are strongly opposed to US hegemony, they complain over Starbucks coffee in their malls.

Nonetheless, most people are good and, as Stephen Cook describes, life goes on, and often amazingly well. I would rather cross Cairo's streets than try to figure out how to be a pedestrian anywhere outside of a handful of US cities. I will also note, as Ste^phen has not, the Cairo's streets can be more interesting than most in the US, where malls are the better choice.

In the planning, one of the ways of pacifying the local populations in the wake of "big action" was to quickly introduce US-style consumerism through shopping malls, Procter & Gamble products, Hollywond entertainment, and Visa cards.

Excellent point. Not only that. Some in the ME claim that this "consumerization" of ME societies is intentional by the US. Why? Two reasons. The first is that the pursuit of trends, fashions, material happiness, and so on, will help divert the people from the real questions such as social injustice, moral decadence, government corruption, the Palestinian question, just to name a few. The second reason is to economically transform Egypt from an industrial, product producing economy to a consumer and service community, where the economy is based on foreign-manufactured products and the likes of Pizza Hut, Starbucks, McDonalds, and so on. Simply put, there is a stagnant industry-based economy.

Why did the US see this consumerism as crucial? During Nasser's time, there was a motto "We will build everything from the pin to the rocket". Egypt with its huge manpower was, especially in the 1960s, emerging as a large industry and agriculture-based economy. That scared a lot of Western powers as well as Israel. With Sadat (him being a firm believer in US-style open-market economy) in power in the 1970s, there was the golden opportunity for consumerism in Egypt.

Now those who think so may just be conspiracy theorists. However, they have some very good data to back themselves up with. Their is evidence to contrary, too. But the sure thing is that consumerism in a country like Egypt has really done a lot of harm.
Look at the cotton-industry, the steel-based industries, and others. They are all in a very poor state at the moment. Egyptian wheat is all but almost gone because of reliance on US wheat that is delivered via the USAID program. A lot of opposition groups in Egypt fear that if US-Egyptian relations would go south and the US stops wheat from coming to the country, a mass starvation will ensue. This is a very unlikely scenario, but would any self-respecting, patriotic, country-loving man or woman like to feel that his/her destiny (even survival) be in the hands of a foreign power?

Some here in the US may not have heard of these issues being discussed in the media. However, these are really hard questions being asked by many conscience Egyptians. They are worried. This worry leads them to mistrust the US entirely. And then we ask "why do they hate us?" Well it is exactly because of issues and concerns like the above. "They" hate the US, not because of its freedoms, liberties or wealth, it is because of things like those described above (in addition to, of course, the unbounded support for Israel). "They" may include Islamists, seculars, Christians, the poor and the wealthy. Hate is ultimately not religiously motivated.

Your first-hand insights on this matter are quite compelling. I would caution that there is a balance between what globalisation can bring and what can be achieved through an empowered local economy. This debate is at the top of the issues list here in Switzerland, where local industry is finding it harder to compete in external markets, where quality differentials are no longer so much a premium (this strategy has been overplayed by many enterprises) and local demand is beginning to look outside Swiss borders for competitive options. What has been a core success here is now at risk. Meanwhile, growth here is coming from rapidly expanding multinationals' activities, where CH offers tax advantages, non-EU regulatory freedom and European access. Many here are forced to admit that too much pre-globalisation nostalgia is biting the hand that feeds us.

That said, the US will need to come to terms with the fact that others have been feeding its consumptive habits for a longtime. There are signs that the Gulf states, China, Japan and Europe are beginning to call in some overdue bills. Tyring to finance their wars and mortgage market myths through a falling dollar will only work so far. Dollar positions continue to show signs of shortening. In the end, the US makes a lot less of what others or Americans want to buy than it did 20 years ago. 1987 was not the best year in their economy.

"Look at the cotton-industry, the steel-based industries, and others. They are all in a very poor state at the moment. Egyptian wheat is all but almost gone because of reliance on US wheat that is delivered via the USAID program. A lot of opposition groups in Egypt fear that if US-Egyptian relations would go south and the US stops wheat from coming to the country, a mass starvation will ensue. This is a very unlikely scenario, but would any self-respecting, patriotic, country-loving man or woman like to feel that his/her destiny (even survival) be in the hands of a foreign power?"

The industrialized nations often put up tariffs and trade barriers to goods from other countries-- not out of hatred, but to protect their own industries. In the case of USAid, there's also a nasty habit of using American-grown crops for the aid as a favor to our agricultural industry-- even when there is food that can be bought closer to the destination for lower prices.

It's not hatred, it's just business. A business, ironically, that hurts American consumers as well. Not that any of this much comfort to the people thrown out of work as a result. . .

Good Point. As an Egyptian living in the US, I really am for stopping US aid to Egypt. Not only because it hurts local economies when the aid is in the form of products like wheat, but it goes to corrupt hands, and incurs a general depressive feelings amongst the Egyptian. Would anyone be happy if he/she is aid recipient (especially if the person is capable to be independent)?

US aid to Egypt is, I believe, a direct proportion of that provided to Israel. Impressions are that the bulk go to military projects and border maintenance. Both have room--BigSky room--for corruption, yes? Current reports of rises in contaminated water supplies along the Nile delta farms would raise questions as to the effectiveness of non-military aid. Any European visiting Cairo knows not to eat any fruit or vegetable product in a local restaurant. The large hotels are the only place safe to consume food freely, and they import their supplies.

When was the last time there was a serious debate on the linked Israeli-Egyptian aid package? Why should Israel, which is hardly poor, continue to benefit from billions of direct foreign aid from the US? I would propose this point deserves discussion in New Orleans--as well as Cairo. I would also propose a close review of US AID mandates and funding.