As a rule, I have decided not to start threads because of the bandwidth crisis around here, but I think this article deserves a thread. _____________________________________________ February 26, 2003 The Gridlock Gang By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN William Rees-Mogg, the former editor of The Times of London, raised a very important question in an essay he wrote after watching the recent, massive antiwar demonstrations in Europe. Referring to the various banners carried by protesters, he noted: "There was, I thought, one slogan which was missing. There were quite a number which called for `Freedom for Palestine' [but] I looked in vain for one which called for `Freedom for Iraq.' . . . None of the speakers expressed any wish to free Iraq. . . ." Mr. Rees-Mogg is quite right. When it comes to the Middle East, the whole issue of democratization and better governance simply is not part of the debate over the future. To the extent that it is, it is used as a tool to beat up on enemies, not a supreme value to be promoted for everyone. Let's start with the Europeans. There is only one group of Arabs for whom Europeans have consistently spoken out in favor of their liberation — and that is those Arabs living under Israeli occupation, the Palestinians. Those Arabs who have been living under the tyranny of Saddam Hussein or other Arab dictators are of no concern to President Jacques Chirac of France and his fellow travelers. We all know what this is about: the Jewish question. "For too many Europeans, Arabs are of no moral interest in and of themselves," observes the Middle East analyst Stephen P. Cohen. "They only become of interest if they are fighting Jews or being manhandled by Jews. Then their liberation becomes paramount, because calling for it is a way to stick it to the Jews. Europeans' demonstrations for a free Palestine — and not for a free Iraq or any other Arab country — smell too much like a politically correct form of anti-Semitism, part of a very old story." The truth is, France is not interested in promoting égalité, fraternité and liberté in the Middle East. It is primarily interested today in managing American power. It is primarily interested in positioning France to become the world's next great "Uncola," the leader of the alternative coalition to American power. In fairness, though, before now the U.S. has never shown much interest in Arab democracy either. It treated the Arab states like big, dumb gas stations, and all the U.S. cared about was that they kept their pumps open and their prices low. Otherwise they could do whatever they wanted to their own people at home or out back. Only after 9/11, as we realized that what was going on out back in these countries threatened us, did the U.S. begin to call for democracy in the Arab world — but only to get rid of Yasir Arafat and to punish those Arab regimes it did not like, namely Saddam Hussein's. You still have not seen any serious democratization effort being directed at Saudi Arabia or Egypt or Kuwait. For America, government of the people, by the people and for the people is only for our enemies, not our friends. But then, other than a few courageous Arab liberals, Arab intellectuals have not made democracy promotion a supreme value either. In part it's because liberating Palestine has always been treated by them as a more important political value. And in part it's because many Arab societies are still so tribalized, and have such a weak sense of citizenship, they fear that democracy could bring forth fundamentalists, a rival tribe or anarchy. Hence the Arab saying: "Better a hundred years of tyranny than one day of anarchy." Ironically, 9/11 began to change this view. You can see it in the lack of Arab support for Saddam. There is a much deeper awareness that leaders like Saddam are what have r****ded Arab development. "But because Arab peoples and systems have never developed their own way of getting rid of bad leaders, they can only look to outsiders to do it — and that evokes the worst memories of imperialism and colonialism," notes Mr. Cohen. "They don't want to get rid of Saddam at the cost of being controlled by Americans." So they are paralyzed — wanting their Saddams removed, but deeply afraid of who will do it and what will come next. What all this means is that when it comes to building democracy in Iraq, the Europeans are uninterested, the Americans are hypocritical and the Arabs are ambivalent. Therefore, undertaking a successful democratization project there, in a way that will stimulate positive reform throughout the region, will require a real revolution in thinking all around — among Americans, Arabs and Europeans. If done right, the Middle East will never be the same. If done wrong, the world will never be the same.
My God...JohnHeath...do you realize that you just posted an op-ed piece from the New York Times??? What's the world coming to??? Kidding aside...I read Friedman's columns quite a bit, and this is a good one, especially the last paragraph. We will all have to wait and see how everything plays out.
I am crazy about Friedman's articles. I don't always agree with his conclusions, but his arguments are honest and extremely informative.
I was extremely pleased to hear Bush's speech yesterday [btw, it's funny that the thread about Saddam's interview has multiple pages, but nobody's mentioned Bush's speech]. The money line was: "The United States has no intention of determining the precise form of Iraq's new government. That choice belongs to the Iraqi people. Yet, we will ensure that one brutal dictator is not replaced by another. All Iraqis must have a voice in the new government, and all citizens must have their rights protected....Rebuilding Iraq will require a sustained commitment from many nations, including our own: we will remain in Iraq as long as necessary, and not a day more." You're both right about Friedman, he was also one of the first columnists to harp on the concept of democratizing the M.E. as a top-tier foreign policy objective.
Here is another interesting article from the Saudi perspective. ________________________________________________ US Deluding Itself Over Iraq: Saud Mohammed Alkhreiji, Arab News Staff JEDDAH, 27 February 2003 — The United States is deluding itself if it thinks it can control Iraq after a second Gulf war, which it has threatened to launch soon, Foreign Minister Prince Saud Al-Faisal said here yesterday. Prince Saud was addressing a news conference to discuss the looming Iraq war and the weekend Arab summit which is slated to make a last-ditch effort to avert armed conflict. “Anyone who thinks he can control Iraq is deluding himself,” Prince Saud said in reply to a question about Washington’s perceived plans to “control” Iraq after a possible war. “Iraq is a people, a country, a civilization, a history, and its people will not tolerate any external control,” he added. The US has said it intends to set up a military administration in Iraq after the eventual overthrow of President Saddam Hussein. On the possibility of the US going to war without UN support, Prince Saud said: “Unilateral action would not be advisable. It would not be in the interest of Iraq, the region or the United States. Thankfully, we have seen the United States agreeing to allow the United Nations to tackle the issue.” The foreign minister was also asked about a recent report which said America’s interest in Iraq was strictly to gain control of its oil reserves. “We are not about speculation or conspiracy theories. But we are for the survival and stability of the region. “Our goal is to avoid war. Any opportunity that can lead to that should be utilized. Peace is always the best solution.” He voiced reservations about French-German proposals to expand UN arms inspections in Iraq, saying they would only add to the region’s woes. “Proposals to increase monitors and dispatch international forces to Iraq ... do not solve the problem and would perpetuate the state of tension,” the prince said. “The region needs a quick settlement based on Iraq’s compliance with the UN inspectors’ demands and ruling out a military solution.” Under the French-German proposals, UN inspections in Iraq would be open-ended and the international boycott of Baghdad would be tightened, he said. “We appreciate the efforts of all parties seeking to find a peaceful solution to the Iraq issue. But there are essential issues which are of major concern to us, chiefly ending the suffering of the Iraqi people (from UN sanctions) which has lasted 12 years and ... secondly (safeguarding) Iraq’s unity, independence, sovereignty and internal stability,” Prince Saud said. “Any proposals should deal with the Iraq question as a whole and not be based on political considerations or disputes among the concerned member states of the UN Security Council ... We are uneasy at the present differences between member states on ways of implementing (the Council’s) resolutions. “Proposals now on the table lead to one of two things: A military solution that would kill Iraq ... and solutions that would choke it.” The foreign minister denied a Washington Post report that Saudi Arabia and the US had come to an agreement on the use of Saudi military bases in the event of a new Gulf war. “They must know something I don’t,” he said. “We will not allow it (Prince Sultan Base) to be used for anything other than what was agreed in the Safwan accord of 1991.” The accord states that usage of the base is to enforce the “no fly” zone over southern Iraq. When asked under what circumstances the Kingdom would ask US troops to leave, Prince Saud said he did not know. “I can’t visualize any circumstances (for that to happen), but if that were to happen I’m sure that it would be an amicable agreement, and it would be done in our national interest.” Prince Saud said the Arab summit will be held in Sharm El-Sheikh in Egypt on March 1. “We will look into repairing the Arab condition, and reforms across our region,” he said. “This will happen if they do as we say. This will strengthen our relations in the Arab world, and all nations in the Middle East should work toward that goal.” An unnamed Saudi official told AFP yesterday that the Kingdom saw no point in holding an emergency summit of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, as proposed by Qatar. Such a meeting would be useless for Arabs and Muslims and would lend nothing new to the Iraq issue, the official was quoted as saying.
