Yes
By Scott Withycombe
Contributing Writer
After more than 30 years of living in fear, the citizens of Iraq can finally begin to breathe the fresh air of freedom. As our troops continue to uncover the mass graves of the brutally murdered and discover the torture and rape rooms of a ruthless tyrant, the mission of the United States comes into full perspective. Now, our country stands with Iraq at a precipice in human history. Our objectives could not be more concrete, our duty more clear.
The United States remains totally committed to the development of a free Iraq. Aid workers are beginning to provide vital humanitarian services, construction crews are working to rebuild primary infrastructure, and soldiers are providing necessary security. Meanwhile, diplomats from the State Department and other U.S. organizations are working to secure the final goal of Operation Iraqi Freedom: the development of a representative democracy.
This is no small task and will come at great cost, but it remains the final responsibility of the United States in post-Saddam Iraq. The development of a representative government that will promote general welfare, protect the natural liberties of all citizens, and provide for domestic security must be the end result of U.S. military intervention and coalition peace keeping.
In such a vulnerable nation, the promotion and implementation of a democratic government would be impossible without American support on many fronts. Friendly guidance, economic support and investment, internal peace and stability, and the development of an infrastructure that promotes trade of both goods and ideas are essential to the success of our mission.
Certainly the opportunity to participate in the creation of such a government is more than just a responsibility — it is an opportunity to increase stability in the region through a show of commitment to Middle Eastern development. The creation of a free and working state will provide an example and model to others seeking freedom and opportunity. Failure on our part to establish a working system can only result in a disaster worse than the previous regime.
The rise of the Baath party in Iraq was largely a response to the failure of the post-WWI mandate powers, which attempted to establish legitimate governments and successful local economic infrastructure. The Baathists created an ideology based on a socialistic economic model with nationalistic and militaristic underpinnings.
It was through this party that Saddam came to power, and it was through military control, fear and brute force that he maintained power.
Both the party and Saddam failed miserably in creating solutions to the problems left by the mandate powers. Today in post-Saddam Iraq, a system must be developed that is capable of answering the basic problems of the Iraqi society. This process will not be easy considering Iraq’s history of economic dependency and illegitimate government. Iraq’s lack of primary infrastructure and domestic stability creates a situation that is prone to repeat the past without vast financial support, substantial policing and encouragement of civic participation.
Thus it remains the responsibility of the United States to ensure the development of legitimate government by securing of financial support and local stability, reconstructing primary infrastructure, and reforming government. Natural democratic development in Iraq, without U.S. aid, could be the result of various pressures: economic independence and increased transparency in government.
Economic independence, in the form of financial investment and economic growth, could improve the living conditions of the citizens, spurring a capitalistic spirit. Such improvements would elevate individualism and increase desire for equity in protection of inalienable rights, particularly property and person. The result would be representative institutions derived from free market participation.
Increased transparency in government would work in the opposite direction. If the Iraqi people developed a government capable of ensuring rule of law, domestic stability and international cooperation, private investment would flow into Iraq. Such investment, secure because of government transparency and protection, would improve living conditions and boost infrastructure development making the democratic model successful in terms of protection and promotion of personal and economic freedom.
The conditions for either scenario to take place do not exist in Iraq and are not likely to evolve without U.S. aid. Failure of the economy or any interim government would, as the failure of the mandate system did, simply provide the conditions in which an authoritarian leader could grasp power making false promises and instilling false hope.
The development of democracy in Iraq will be neither easy, nor quick, but it must be successful. Failure to create successful government institutions, rule of law and economic independence would be disastrous, resulting most likely in the rise of another authoritarian style of government and creating serious implications for United States foreign policy and stability in the region.
The whole world is watching the liberation of Iraq and successful implementation of representative government would signal the dawning of a new day in the history of a region troubled by failed colonialism, economic hardship and the existence of authoritarian systems that may serve as a light to others seeking freedom, equality and opportunity.
No
By Rudabeh Shahbazi
Assistant Perspectives Editor
The imperialistic attitude that the United States is the world’s civilizing force disregards the needs and traditions of Arab and Islamic political culture. The goals in Iraq are to control the country’s oil, privatize the economy, establish a military presence in the region and dominate Iraq’s foreign and defense policies — not democracy.
The question is not if democracy is good, or if Saddam Hussein is bad, but whether the United States has the right to unilaterally dictate in the face of worldwide opposition. The Iraqis must develop democratic institutions in their own way and at their own pace.
Democracy is not as compatible with Islam as it was with the infant nation of the United States. According to Islamic principles, only Allah is ruler, and will appoint a leader by divine revelation.
If the Iraqi majority really were to choose, the result will be active hostility to America, which devastated the country in the Gulf War and tacitly supports Israel in its violations against Muslims. Any American regime will be regarded with distrust. This is already evident in the negative Iraqi view of Ahmad Chalabi, the governing council member who had not even lived in the country for 20 years.
Morocco and Malaysia demonstrated that the shift to democracy does not necessarily improve liberties such as women’s rights and cruel and unusual punishment, demonstrated by the events in those countries following the democratic shift.
The Bush administration is implementing the very terrorism it claims to counteract, aggravating America’s reputation among Muslims, and hindering the struggle of pro-Western reformers, just as was seen in Iran. As in the case of Egypt, Arab unity proves a strong and dangerous measure of desperation against imperialist forces.
Just what kind of democracy is this, and at what cost? Paul Bremer, the former U.S. diplomat charged with rebuilding Iraq, announced that he himself, and not the Iraqi people, would appoint a political council, which he would have the power to veto. British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s administration justified the plan on the basis that Iraq was “too weak” for democracy. Bremer also cancelled all local elections, as well as the holiday commemorating the most progressive government that Iraq ever had. Already, he has shut down two newspapers and one radio outlet.
Who needs evidence anymore? For months, the most sophisticated military in the world has probed the small country of Iraq for nuclear weapons, but has yet to prove that they exist. It has succeeded, however, in manipulating the American public with fear, generating baseless support for the overseas violence comparable in absurdity only to the bogus claim that Iraq was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks.
When the administration couldn’t come up with evidence, 10,000 lives were already lost, and President Bush’s goal became democratizing Iraq. If the effort was humanitarian, why not go after Saudi Arabia, Washington’s No. 1 Arab ally, arguably the most oppressive regime in the world? In that country, women are discriminated against even more than they were in Iraq. Bibles, alcohol, demonstrations, political parties and defense attorneys are banned, and the press is tightly controlled.
However, none of that matters to the United States because it supplies the most oil in the world. Coincidentally, Iraq’s oil quantity comes in a close second. According to the Cheney energy plan, by 2020 Middle East oil may have to supply up to two-thirds of the world’s demand. Private American contractors plan to sell off the Iraqi economy to foreigners.
The administration is entirely capable of the same manipulation regarding its true intentions for the future Iraqi government.
Further hypocrisy is illustrated by two major U.S. attacks on democratic progress: Allende in Chile and Mossadegh in Iran, the only democratically elected leader in the nation’s history who was removed by the CIA. In Afghanistan, Washington has installed undemocratic warlords like Ismail Khan and Abdul Rashid Dostum. The day after the “victory” in Iraq, the Los Angeles Times reported U.S. plans to establish four permanent military strongholds in the region for regime change in Iran and Syria next-door. The United States does not want democracy; it wants puppets to serve its geopolitical interests.
Those who dismiss civilian casualties in the name of “freedom” should set foot in the country (without a machine gun) and see what “democratization” really looks like. Constant infighting worsens between Kurds, Turks, Sunnis and Shiites (60 percent of the population, who would be given power in a real democracy). Although it improves slowly, Iraqis wait helplessly for security, healthcare, water, transportation, electricity and communication. The United States suddenly wants the United Nations’ help.
Indeed, bombing a country is much easier than helping it recover. Bush’s goal appeared to be establishing U.S. military and economic dominance in Iraq, not democracy.
October 02, 2003