There's nothing wrong with democracy. But notice the American attitude towards democracy - the US uses democracy as a tool to topple those countries it does not like and to install those it does like into power.
See the US attitude to Lebanses politics, for example. When it is the Christians etc protesting, its an expression of free speech. When Hezbollah protest, its a bunch of dangerous radicals.
See the US attitude to democracy in Kuwait. Iraq was worthy to be overthrown and converted to a democracy, but Kuwait, which was de facto liberated from invasion by the US ... did not 'deserve' democracy.
Why?
Because Hussein was anti US and the Kuwaiti sheiks (slave owners, judging by news stories about the Kuwaiti ambassador in the US) are pro-US.
That's the difference.
Excellent series of articles, Mojo.
And nice post at Zeyad's place.
Bruno:
I beg to differ with your implied assertion (via citation to the Nir Rosen article) that Hezbollah is merely a populist Lebanese political party. Hezbollah, in contrast to its political opponents in the elected government, has its own army that its stronger than that of the Lebanese State. Hezbollah used those armed forces this summer to invade Israel in order to capture and kill Israeli solidiers, which was an act of war. Hezbollah's cross-border military operation forced the entire country, largely against its will, into a state of active war with Israel. Hezbollah, therefore, is far more than merely a popular, anti-western political party. It behaves much more like a mini-state within a state.
Further, Hezbollah's recent power play for greater political representation was timed to try to block the International Tribunal into the Hariri assissination, which has implicated their Syrian allies. See the link http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/
2...on_Politics.php .
Hezbollah's current use of public protests as a means of political persuasion is certainly preferable to violence or overt threats of violence (which they used against Amal at the end of the Lebanese civil war and more recently against Lebanese Christian civilians that refused to serve as human shields in Ain Ebel this summer). However, it should be recognized that Hezbollah's political protests are backed by implicit threats to use its armed forces against its political rivals.
Bruno, as to the U.S. alliance with Kuwait, the U.S. has strongly advocated for reform within the Kuwaiti political system since at least the end of the first Gulf War. This call for democratic reform did lead to some limited results (Kuwait's first pariliment), but also ruffled the feathers of the Kuwaiti ruling class. If Kuwait were to ignore continued U.S. pressure for additional political reforms, do you propose that the U.S. declare Kuwait to be an enemy state and/or invade it to force those changes?
If not, then, Bruno, you must wrestle with the difficult question of how much actual actual power the U.S., or any foreign power, actually have to peacefully change the entrenched internal political policies of a nominal "ally," (short of violent means such an invasion or covertly sponsored coup). This issue inevitably leads to the even thornier one of how much moral responsibility should the U.S. bear if such an "ally" decides to ignore its presssure for democratic political reform. It seems to me that assigning the U.S. some type of ethical duty to change the internal politics of its allies smacks of paternalistic, neo-colonialism.
[bruno],"Because Hussein was anti US.."
I'd be careful to rush & label Saddam as an anti-US, bruno. He was never anti-US in his life. U yourself have many times brought forward the proof of their close collaboration. The US's aim with Iraq was always to control it. But if impossible, then destroy it.
This was the sole aim of the US with the Iran-Iraq war. When this failed to destroy Iraq, it arranged for the Kuwait affair...
[Mark-In-Chi-Town],
"as to the U.S. alliance with Kuwait, the U.S. has strongly advocated for reform within the Kuwaiti political system since at least the end of the first Gulf War. This call for democratic reform did lead to some limited results (Kuwait's first pariliment), but also ruffled the feathers of the Kuwaiti ruling class."
First of all MIHT, u do not at all seem to know anything of the how & why of the nature of the US-Kuw alliance. Not even the history of the latter.
The Kuwaitis had since a long time a Parliament. So it is not a result of Am efforts that the Kws have got one in 1991. It was only suspended in 1986 despite protests. & was rehabilitated in 1991 after the Kw war.
Concerning the Kw ruling class. Tell me, were did u get this info about ruffling the feathers??? Not from the Am propaganda magazines Time or Newsweek i hope.
The Emir of Kuwait is one of the biggest Am allies in the Gulf, the most faithful & also most reliable. So u were saying?
---
[mark] “Hezbollah used those armed forces this summer to invade Israel in order to capture and kill Israeli solidiers, which was an act of war.”
As opposed to Israel, which has regularly violated the Lebanese border and illegally detained hundreds of Lebanese nationals … let’s not get into this.
[mark] “Hezbollah, therefore, is far more than merely a popular, anti-western political party. It behaves much more like a mini-state within a state.”
Sure, I agree with this.
Fact remains, of course, that Hezbollah is extremely popular in Lebanon and that there remains a distinct possibility of a democratically elected Hezbollah government … which the US is seeking to de-legitimise as a player in Lebanese politics.
And the fact remains that the US reaction to the democratic election of somebody it regards as an enemy is fundamentally different from the US reaction to somebody it regards as a friend.
And that is what this is about. It’s about the use of “democracy” as a MEANS to and end (ie US foreign policy advancement) rather than as an END in itself. The US “love of democracy” is, in other words, a sham.
[mark] “Bruno, as to the U.S. alliance with Kuwait, the U.S. has strongly advocated for reform within the Kuwaiti political system since at least the end of the first Gulf War. […]This issue inevitably leads to the even thornier one of how much moral responsibility should the U.S. bear if such an "ally" decides to ignore its presssure for democratic political reform. It seems to me that assigning the U.S. some type of ethical duty to change the internal politics of its allies smacks of paternalistic, neo-colonialism.”
LOL!
So, let me get this straight.
Iraq, an enemy state which the US had despised for ten years “deserved” to be ethically invaded and it’s people deserved to be set free into the light of democracy. But a faithful US ally like Kuwait is to be denied the fruits of freedom (and democracy) and its people are to live forever within the bonds of dictatorial slavery?
In other words, the US assumes moral responsibility for “converting” enemy states to the democratic model, but shuns the same when allied states are at fault?
Hm. Sounds awfully like you are vindicating my standpoint of “selective democracy”, Mark.
My personal view is that one state should have little to say about the economic model and social model of another. While I agree that this will leave a lot of bad eggs in power, it will also avoid devastating “altruistic” invasions that are not actually altruistic at all. I think that soft power should be applied in order to encourage reform but that this reform should come on its own. The same as I disagreed with Communist revolutions that served to expand the power of the USSR, I disagree with pseudo-democracies that serve to expand the power of the US.
People will find their own way, and the way they choose to exercise that choice has little to do with me. That’s my view.
[bruno],"Because Hussein was anti US.."
[saad] “I'd be careful to rush & label Saddam as an anti-US, bruno. He was never anti-US in his life. U yourself have many times brought forward the proof of their close collaboration.”
Agreed. But …
[saad] “The US's aim with Iraq was always to control it. But if impossible, then destroy it.”
That’s your answer. 
Saad:
You need to brush up on the economic theory of supply and demand. If the chaos in Iraq can be contained, Iraq has the potential to be at least the world's second largest oil exporter (and a relatively low cost one to boot). With Iraq "destroyed" or even in a more chaotic state, Iraqi exports would be either unavailable or greatly reduced thereby causing signficant shortages and greatly increased prices under the current "tight supply" market conditions. Thus, destroying Iraq, or even knocking its current production off line for any length of time, runs counter to the the main U.S. interest in the middle east, that is, maintaining a steady flow of oil to the industrialized world.
Accordingly, from a purely economic standpoint, the U.S. would have been far better off to make a deal with Saddam concerning under market oil exports (like Syrian and Jordan recieved) than to risk major oil supply disruptions during a war. For these reasons, your assertion that the U.S. had a fall back goal of "destroying Iraq" is illogical.
Bruno: Your "hands off" approach to international criminals has the merit of a certain kind of moral purity regarding sins of commision. However, it is highly debatable whether standing by while a dictatorial ruler terrorizes certain sgements of his population does not constitute a sin of ommision. The U.N. charter is quite clear that, should such a dictator's actions rise to the level of "genocide," that U.N. member nation states are obligated to come to the defense of the targets of the genocide. Do you agree with this fundemental principal of international law? If so, are there any circumstances short of genocide that should rouse a nation state to action?
Your point about U.S. "love of democracy" being a "sham" is not logically supported by the example of Hezbollah that you cite. The support of democracy is support for process of selecting a goverment, not of the outcome of any given election. One can both support democracy and vehemently disapprove of the policies of an elected government.
Since Hezbollah is not currently part of the Lebanese government, citing it as an example of this phenomenon is unsupportable. However, as I am in a generous mood, I will offer you the superior example of U.S policy toward Hamas, which is often cited by U.S. critics. Immediatgely after its election, the U.S. asked Hamas to confirm that it will honor the international commitments the previous Palestinian government had made in peace negotiations with Israel. It is a cannon of customary International law that, between nation states, new governments are bound by the treaties entered into by their predecessors. Hamas, however, asserts that it is not bound, and will not honor, any such previous agreements or commitments.
Having invested a great deal of time and effort into attempting to moving that peace process forward (although it seems incapable of moving at more than a glacial p
(continued) pace), it is perfectly appropriate for the U.S. to condition continued financial support for the PA on acceptance of those agreements. Thus far, Hamas has been unwilling to do so and the U.S. has cut off aid to the PA.
Returning to Hezbollah's "democratic bona fides," it new tactic of blocking roads with burning tires in order to cripple the Lebanese economy treads far over the line separating legitimate protest (including defensible acts of civil disobediance) from illegitimate acts of political violence and intimidation. Such acts are not those of a political movement that is dedicated to democratic principals or confident of its majoritarian status.
bruno wrote,
"[saad] “The US's aim with Iraq was always to control it. But if impossible, then destroy it.”
That’s your answer."
Saddam was America's servant in the region. Through his stupidities he has served the US more than anybody else. By the time Saddam was showing so-called anti-Americanism (for u & other Arabs & for the local consumption) bcs the US was willing to control Iraq, he was at the same time sending secret offers to the US for concessions in return for his remaining in power.
One of the things he always & repeatedly boasted of to the Americans is that he 'cleaned' Iraq from all that "annoys" them, like the nationalists & the Communists. This to show his usefulness & value.
So bruno, u were saying?
---
[mict]"Thus, destroying Iraq, or even knocking its current production off line for any length of time, runs counter to the the main U.S. interest in the middle east, that is, maintaining a steady flow of oil to the industrialized world."
If this is your theory, then would u please enlighten me & tell me why the US imposed lengthy heavy sanctions on Iraq for 12 long years, established the no fly zones, initiated a destructive offensive in 1998, & last but not least occupied it in 2003 after an extremely devastating war. The air-campaign alone has caused a situation of unemployness so high in Iraq that it is considered as one of the reasons for instability in the country. To survive, people r subscribing massively in the diverse illegal militias that roam in the country.
Do u really don't know these things or r u trying to twist the truth like many in the Iraqi blogs r attempting?
I hope I'm wrong on this question...
---
Saad:
Did you ever hear of the U.N. sponsored and admisitered oil for food program? It conveniently allowed Iraq to sell oil to world markets with sales proceeds going to a U.N. managed account. This had the benefit, from the U.S. perspective, of precluding Saddam from using the income stream from oil sales to rearm as well as making sure that Iraqi oil was available for purchase in the International markets.
Also, the current tight market conditions have been greatly facilitated by the significant increases resulting from the impressive growth of the industrial bases of China and India over that last fifteen years (worlds two most populous countries). Over that time, increases in oil production have not kept pace with the rise in demand. Thus, Iraq's oil production is far more important to stable supplies and pricing than in the immediate aftermath of the first gulf war in 1991.
Further, you will note the U.S. did not target Iraqi oil fields or facilities for destruction during either gulf war, although they would have been considered legitimate military targets.
Further still, Saddam was at times a marginal U.S. ally with whom some satellite data was shared during portions of the Iran/Iraq war when it appeared that Iranians might overrun Iraqi defenses. The vast majority of Iraqi's weapons were pruchased from the USSR or French sources. His chemical weapons were largely produced in Iraq using technology purchased from Germany and France. Even the production of the chemical precursors to such weapons were, after the initial phase of the war, produced in Iraq. On the other hand, the U.S. also supplied Iran with parts and missiles when it appeared that Iraq would overun Iran's defenses. Official U.S. policy was that a return to the status quo prior to the war was the best possible outcome for that conflict.
[mark] “Your "hands off" approach to international criminals has the merit of a certain kind of moral purity regarding sins of commision. However, it is highly debatable whether standing by while a dictatorial ruler terrorizes certain sgements of his population does not constitute a sin of ommision. The U.N. charter is quite clear that, should such a dictator's actions rise to the level of "genocide," that U.N. member nation states are obligated to come to the defense of the targets of the genocide. Do you agree with this fundemental principal of international law? If so, are there any circumstances short of genocide that should rouse a nation state to action?”
Once again we have the problem of the basic fact that not all genocides are viewed as equal, the same as not all democracies are equal. In principle I could agree that yes, genocide demands immediate intervention. However, who interprets these facts? Who acts on them?
The genocide in Rwanda didn’t get the US too excited, let’s be honest.
When the Iraqi Shia revolted, and were mown down, the US stood by and watched.
Only once the revolt was suppressed, did the US cynically implement “no-fly zones” (in contravention of aforementioned international law, I may add) in order to keep hostilities open against the Iraqis.
(As an aside, should the US then be held morally accountable for NOT helping the Iraqi Shia in their hour of need? [forgetting the hw bush call for a revolt for a second] Should the US be held morally responsible for NOT sending troops to Rwanda? I don’t think so. I don’t believe in blaming the US or anybody else for ‘sins of omission’.)
See, this is the problem.
The “morality card” can be used as a potent weapon in order to justify advancement of a country’s foreign policy.
Let’s take the situation in Iraq for example. Millions of Iraqis have been displaced and hundreds of thousands killed. Is this genocide? What if Iran (ignoring real world power balances, for a second) decided it was, and used the opportunity to “stop the killing” through an invasion of Iraq in order to eject US troops ?
Would this be OK?
My attitude is sort of contradictory on this issue, because an ideal policy and reality don’t mesh.
On the one hand, I could support an intervention to stop an ongoing massacre. On the other, the “genocide” argument is and will be used by cynical governments (certainly not limited to the US) in order to advance their agendas.
I would argue that the real world double-dealing of humanity in general dictates that a “hands off” approach would work better than active intervention, since intervention seems to generally lead to greater chaos.
[mark] “Your point about U.S. "love of democracy" being a "sham" is not logically supported by the example of Hezbollah that you cite.”
My point is that the US attitude towards protest within a democracy is different depending on who is protesting and why. Ebullience towards pro-US Lebanese protests depicted as democrats contrast pointedly with negative portrayals of Hezbollah as being a bunch of anti-democratic thugs … when they are both doing the same thing.
[mark] “The support of democracy is support for process of selecting a goverment, not of the outcome of any given election.”
AGAIN, I never noticed any urgency in supporting the process of elected government in countries like, oh, say, Egypt, Jordan, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman … etc. Iraq, however, was in the most urgent need of a democratic makeover. Interesting to note for the umpteenth time the real world application of US firepower (as opposed to mostly toothless US rhetoric in the case of its dictator allies) in the “adjustment” of a government that it did not like.
[mark] “However, as I am in a generous mood, I will offer you the superior example of U.S policy toward Hamas, which is often cited by U.S. critics. Immediatgely after its election, the U.S. asked Hamas to confirm that it will honor the international commitments the previous Palestinian government had made in peace negotiations with Israel. It is a cannon of customary International law that, between nation states, new governments are bound by the treaties entered into by their predecessors.”
‘Course, the US does not feel obliged to press the Iraqi government of today to honour the contracts and deals it signed with French, Russian and Chinese national oil companies under the previous regime. I also note the speed with which the US abandoned Kyoto and the speed with which the US tried to scrap the entire UN system as unworkable (under the Bush admin.) when these treaties and commitments did not suit it
What we have in the case of the Palestinians is a people finally getting rid of a useless and corrupt party that sponged off them for years. The immediate US reaction was to sanction them and to seek ways to overthrow them, sponsoring the opposition and sidelining the elected government in as many ways as it could.
(Tell me, Mark, what is the domestic US attitude towards foreign powers sponsoring local US political parties? Do I detect some hypocrisy in the standards of democracy applicable to the US and the standards applicable to everybody else?)
Fair enough, the US did not like Hamas policies. Does that automatically justify sanctions, sowing internal discord and blank refusal to deal? Or is the civilised way to sit down, talk and see if there is not a way to deal with the elected Palestinian government after all?
[mark] “Returning to Hezbollah's "democratic bona fides," it new tactic of blocking roads with burning tires in order to cripple the Lebanese economy treads far over the
[mark] “Returning to Hezbollah's "democratic bona fides," it new tactic of blocking roads with burning tires in order to cripple the Lebanese economy treads far over the line separating legitimate protest”
You’re kidding, right? The US commitment to democracy in Palestine is supplying Fatah with money and possibly weapons so that they can subdue their domestic rivals … that’s OK, and within the democratic framework … but burning barricades by Hezbollah constitute a grave danger to the Lebanese democracy?
Look, I don’t particularly approve of strongarm tactics in a democracy, these tactics included, but comparing the two instances is quite instructive in revealing the hypocritical US commitment to democracy, and how foreign policy dictates who deserves to represent it and who does not.
[mark] “Official U.S. policy was that a return to the status quo prior to the war was the best possible outcome for that conflict.”
Mark, hats off to you, you are a born diplomat.
You make the US position sound so benevolent. I heard that Kissenger said “too bad they both can’t lose”, and in my view this summed up the cynical US attitude to this war.
[saad] “One of the things he always & repeatedly boasted of to the Americans is that he 'cleaned' Iraq from all that "annoys" them, like the nationalists & the Communists. This to show his usefulness & value. So bruno, u were saying?”
Re-read my comments again.
Just because something happened (Hussein killing Iraqis on US kill lists) after the Baath took power does not mean the same pro-US situation exists after Hussein decided to invade Kuwait.
Just because Hussein was pro-US for a long part of his career does not mean the situation was always so. And when the situation DID change, he was disposed of.
My understanding of the situation is correct.
bruno | 01.24.07 - 8:24 am
Ok, I will try this for the last time. What was the subject of our discussion? It was whether Saddam was really becoming Anti-American or just faking it. U said he was anti-am...I said he was not.
In 1992 just after the war ended there was a UN commission to redraw the borders btw Iraq & Kuwait. They did an unusual speedy operation that lasted something like 6 months i think. They prepared the maps in no time. They made everbody come & sign the agreements whether they liked it or not. Saddam the anti-American as u say what did he do? Nothing! He came & signed in the most enthusiastic manner ever!!! (of course he later denounced the operation very fast as any real anti-imperialist would do. Ha!) This is your anti-American Saddam.
Later he initiated the ridiculous fight against the US in the no-fly zones. An unequal struggle. He did that not bcs he was anti-'them' or whatever. But as a means (read strongarm attempt) or tactic to force 'them' back into the negociations table. He wanted them to guarantee his chair. R these symptoms of an anti-American? This was propaganda for u, me, the local 'market/public opinions', & the simple-minded international left. Saddam never did anything out of nothing. Always disposed of intel & worked accordingly.
Maybe the Americans didn't like him anymore after he threatened Israel. But he sure still 'liked' them.
---
[saad] “Ok, I will try this for the last time. What was the subject of our discussion? It was whether Saddam was really becoming Anti-American or just faking it.”
Correct.
[saad] “Saddam the anti-American as u say what did he do? Nothing! He came & signed in the most enthusiastic manner ever!!!”
What choice did he have? The US would have been thrilled to resume bombing him again under another pretext (which in fact was the NFZ anyway) if he did not sign.
Then:
[saad] “Later he initiated the ridiculous fight against the US in the no-fly zones.”
Let’s couple this with planning the assassination of HW in the KSA, then add to that the mosaics of the Bushes on the airport floor, then add to that the consistent anti-US rhetoric …
I’ll tell you what, if that was all mere propaganda, then he had me fooled.
But let me add this – I believe that if the US HAD offered him some sort of deal he would have taken it. Not because Saddam was pro-US but because Saddam was pro-Saddam. I believe he would have dealt with anybody who could keep him in power, whether it be the Russians or the Americans.
The real trouble came between Saddam and the US because Saddam was too pro-Saddam and not pro-US enough. That was the problem.
@ Saad
" But he sure still 'liked' them."
But what do you think was his guess about the USA after the Iran - Contra - affair ?
@ IA
I'm actually reading a book of your favourite Iraqi artists " Jewad Selim" who used Babylonian and Assyrian stuff, too. Maybe he, too, thought that this would be the basis of any Iraqi identity. And intestingly, Saddam wanted to take Selim under an 'Arabic top' and wanted to diminish the pre - Islamic / Arabic contributions to Selim's view of art.
@ Z
I still stick to my opinion from last time because your problem is you want to avoid an uncomfortable truth.
Don't expect all quick responses, I'm busy.
@ Saad
" " But he sure still 'liked' them."
But what do you think was his guess about the USA after the Iran - Contra - affair ?"
I'm sure u know damn well the answer to this stupid question.
---
exile - iraqi / gilgamesh X | 01.25.07 - 2:32 pm | #
"I still stick to my opinion from last time because your problem is you want to avoid an uncomfortable truth."
I don't know which 'last time' you're talking about, but if you mean that 'razing Sadr city' episode, then I can say I wasn't trying to change your view on the subject, so you can stick to your own opinion. And seeing as your highness is busy, I wouldn't make this longer.
Commenting by HaloScan
