SID HAMDI YAHDIH
The relation between the democracy of USA and the tyranny of Morocco's monarch is very strange; it is an example of wedding between contradictions. Meanwhile USA want to overcome all no-democratic rules in the world, and launch unprecedent campaign to hunt terror on the planet, it started a holy moon with one of the worst regime in the world; the monarch of Morocco. USA declared that Morocco is one of its "preferable friends in Africa and Arabic world". The problem is that USA announced the decision parallel with its huge campaign againts Iraq, Iran and Afganistan to hunt the so-called terror.
The world could not trust USA intentions and principals to spread democracy over the planet . How could we understand the behaviours of a state pretends spreading principals over some places in the world meanwhile it is overwhelming the same principals in others?
USA hunted down the regime of Saddam Hussien as an example of no-democratic regimes in the world, but before finishing its campaign on Iraq, it signed up an accord with the dictator of Morocco. In Morocco there is no sign of democracy allowing USA to make the world understand the reasons of such alliance; no general elections, no bit of democracy at all in the mentioned country. If there is general elections in Morocco the people will overpower the Monarch, because its place is in the museum of history and not on the political theatre. American administration could not convince its people about how it is worthy such alliance with a tyrannical monarch. USA would know very well that such accord with Morocco will affect completelly the image of democracy USA want exporting abroad particularly to the region.
On internal level, Morocco ( the preferable friend of USA) has bad record on human rights; its name is on the top- list of countries which have bad conduct in human rights domain. On the other hand, the world knows that the monarch regime is a mafia of various sectors exporting human beings, arms, drugs, and terror to Algeria and Europe, and everyday the monarch sends Moroccans illegally to European countries to make troubles there.
On the external level, UN consider Morocco a colonialism regime because it is still putting various setbacks before the decolonilisation of Western Sahara, and has no intention to leave it nearly. Africa too has problems with the same monarch because it works to subdue any African Union. The gape is very wide now between African peoples because of Morocco stubborness, and USA still encourage it to go foreward in such bad behaviours.
USA' plan to Mid-East and North Africa would not obtain success while such plan aims, not to spread democracy, but to get profits from the mentioned regions. The democracy of such plan is not enough justified in Mddle East and North Africa because USA, as superpower, would not play any positive role in two crucial affairs in both regions, one in the East ( Palestine) and other in North Africa ( Western Sahara). In Western Sahara case, when USA had intended to sign an accord of alliance with Morocco, the last one had conditioned the resignation of Baker, as envoy of UN to Sahara, with its acceptance of the alliance. USA accepted the deal and went forward against the principals of democracy. The deal between Morocco and USA would affect any project of democracy in North Africa region, and its peoples would get angry with USA behaviours in such crucial era of instability.