We're looking for a drop in replacement for Saddam. http://www.thestatesman.net/page.news.php?clid=4&theme=&usrsess=1&id=29961 Escape from Iraq... THOSE who try to do the undoable must also think the unthinkable. American strategists in Iraq are contemplating what they have always denied, the search for a “strong man with a moustache” to stop the present rot. If the result is not democracy, so be it. If the result is the dismemberment of Iraq, so be it. Iraq has become a mess. There is only one priority, to “get out with dignity”. This strategy is now being rammed down the throat of the Pentagon proconsul in Baghdad, Mr Paul Bremer, by Mr George W Bush’s new “realist” Deputy National Security Adviser, Mr Bob Blackwill. He answers to Ms Condoleezza Rice, not Mr Donald Rumsfeld, and is the new boss of Iraq. The Pentagon, Mr Rumsfeld and Mr Paul Wolfowitz, architects of the old “idealist” strategy, are in retreat. The Iraqi Governing Council, which Mr Bremer reluctantly created, will be disbanded. Washington must find someone with whom it can do business, someone who can deliver order in return for power. That search is Mr Blackwill’s job. In a nutshell, Washington has bought the old British West Asia strategy, that you deal with local leaders and leave them to it. The fantasies of Mr Rumsfeld and of Mr Bush’s recent “world democracy” speech are at an end. There must be no second Vietnam in Iraq. Necessity has become the mother of humiliating invention. We shall never know if Mr Rumsfeld’s adventure could have turned out otherwise. As his weapons of mass destruction vanished in the desert air, so has his belief in a “new democratic beacon in West Asia”. That collapsed from the minute he peremptorily tore up the State Department’s Future of Iraq Project shortly before the invasion and ostracised its staff. His faith in corrupt expatriates was crazy. His post-invasion demolition of Mr Saddam Hussein’s state apparatus removed the institutions and disciplines on which any government depends. The 16 May order disbanding the Iraqi Army created 400,000 enemies overnight and gave Mr Hussein’s loyalists what they most needed, a sea of Sunni resentment in which to swim. The wild shooting habits and hearts-and-minds ineptitude of the 82nd Airborne and 4th Infantry did the rest. They supplied a stream of blood-feud assassins. For Iraqis this inept occupation has brought to life the Arab proverb, “Better 40 years of oppression than one day of anarchy.” What is amazing is the speed with which Washington recognises its mistakes. The dubiousness of “victory in Iraq” was vividly illustrated last week when Mr Bush had to visit the country in secret and dared not leave his airbase. Mr Hussein’s loyalists are operating virtually at will, now even in the south. The White House got the message. Washington sacked its first Governor, Mr Jay Garner, within a month of the invasion. It is now effectively abandoning its second within six months. Baghdad has seen three regime changes in a year. The plan Washington forced on Mr Bremer last month abandoned the Pentagon’s policy of steady progress towards democracy through an elected assembly. The new plan was more urgent, a “transfer of power” to a provisional government next spring, with the hope of elections thereafter. This government would be selected from the three provinces on a local “show of hands”. It would run the New Iraqi Army and police force and enjoy some patronage over oil revenue and $19 billion of aid. Now this plan appears also to be in disarray. After witnessing the present governing council, the White House has understandably lost faith in Iraqi assemblies, however chosen. The CIA assessments are clear. Evidence of economic recovery means nothing when Iraqis associate American occupation with fear and lawlessness. Something new is needed. Iraq has only ever been held together by brute force. The USA is grudgingly accepting the view that this is unlikely to change. A new leader is needed to prevent the place becoming a global magnet for what the Arabist historian, Mr Bernard Lewis, calls “new causes for anger, new dreams of fulfilment, new tools of attack”. This was, after all, the view that Washington took in the 1980s when it decided to support a certain Mr Saddam Hussein. The Shia majority (60 per cent), long oppressed by Mr Hussein and his Sunnis, see its hour as come. Its primary allegiance is to ayatollahs who, however moderate, require government to be based on Islamic law. Like all Iraqi politicians, these men are playing slow at present. They are watching the chaotic mood swings in the Republican Palace fortress in Baghdad — and biding their time. These men include Mr Aziz al-Hakim, chairman of the Sciri group on the governing council, Mr Muqtadah al-Sadr, heir to the heroic Ayatollah al-Sadr whose face has replaced Mr Hussein’s in a million picture frames, and the Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. They are not so close to their one-time Iranian hosts as to scare their fellow Iraqis. They eschew the word fundamentalist and have for the moment (mostly) stood down their militias. Mr Blackwill’s game plan must be to find his strong man from this group. He must let the Shias decide which of them should be boss and hand Iraq over to that person. — The Times, London
You do see the oxymoron, right? See, that's the problem...when you force others to do anything, it cannot be considered an excercise in freedom. There are several problems with 'forcing' freedom aside from the fact that as soon as force is applied, it is no longer about freedom. Another problem is that you , as the 'force-feeder' are also giving to yourself the right to defeine what constitutes freedom for other people. Freedom, like many other vague concepts, is seen by differing groups through differing lenses, and among those culture is very prominent. When you say that our version of enacted freedom is THE only correct version, irrespective of that people's desires, you are also saying that our culutural perspective is the only legitimate one. But, in the end, you are just another tyrant forcing your system on others, nominally for their benefit, just as every other conqueror in history has done.
i see your point, macbeth. but i think there wouldn't be an oxymoron if no freedom existed before. when the european powers surrendered their empires around the world voluntarily, it was also not by the choice of the governed territories. in many cases, new regimes were set up just like how america is doing it today in iraq. freedom in those cases were also "force-fed" to these emerging states, weren't they? so yes, the means and the end may be contradictory, but i think the process and the result can and ought to be examined separately. and i think getting the right results is in many cases more important than how we get there. for example, i prefer leeting enlightened despots instituting rapid, stable, democratic reforms while advancing its people's rights, over semi-functional corruption-plagued democracies (e.g. india) pretending to be a democracy while riding rough-shod of its people's rights for decades. and while procedural aesthetics may appeal to intellectuals, to me it's people's lives we're talking about, and improving their welfare ASAP should go before any other consideration. sorry, i digress.
It wasn't? You mean the colonies of European empires wished they could have remained colonies? I think they definitely wanted independence. In the case of the Israel, and many of the African nations the way the borders were done caused problems, but that doesn't mean that it was against the colonies choice that they received their independence.
You are simply throwing out things you can't prove. To prove your point you need evidence that shows the majority of those said people were against freedom, and received repression in the forced process of independance and democratization. In fact, freedom was not froced upon the democratic new regimes during de-colonization because if people there weren't willing to enjoy freedom on their own will then those regimes, after its democritization, would beg for colonial reigning from the old masters. They didn't. Therefore it shows a clear intention from their people to stand on their own.It's an insult to those people to say that freedom were forced upon by their old masters while they themselves are the ones went for independance. If freedom was force fed to people, then there will be an agent that holds a gun to people's head, saying" you will be punished if you don't go for independance and freedom." Now, where is that freedom imposing AGENT you are insinuating? Therefore, if something is force fed to people, it cannot be freedom simply because freedom can't be forced upon. What can forced upon is not freedom but restrictions. That is a contradiction. Are you advocating military conquest over India to install a better government? Still, even so that is not what you call force feeding freedom to the Indians, as how do you know that the Indians don't want freedom? Only if you can prove that Indians don't want more freedom, and you suggest conquering them, holding guns on their heads and punishing those who don't agree with you, and transforming India in the way you like as you are the representative of freedom, does that constitue force feeding freedom to people. Therefore, oversimplying situation results in irrelevant ramification that leads to your point being obscure and inscrutable.
Question: Of all the countless examples of tyrants in history who conquered and imposed their system, how many didn't believe that the system they were imposing ( their own) wasn't better? Do we excuse them, or not call them tyrants because of it? Lil...I will respond yo your post later...
One man's treasure is another man's trash. Your "being better " might mean "being worse" for other people. If an individual wants to stay at his house all day long, you don't have the right to force him go outside and exercise, even fresh air and sweat is better for his health. If an individual doesn't want to drive a car, you can't force him to do so even if he will definitely enjoy more freedom that way. A dictator might be more able than an elected official to lead a country out of poverty and consequently, save millions of lives of people. However, a better leadership should not void the rights of people to choose their own path, and to bear the consequences, good or bad, of their OWN decisions, which is what constituting the concept of freedom. To say freedom should be forced upon because it promises a better system is the same as saying dictorship should be forced on people because it can save millions of lives. People should have the rights to define their own course of action regardless of the quality of their decisons unless such decisions unjustifiably get in the way of other people. When such thing happens, the least reasonable thing to do is granting them freedom, but to lock them up. To say rehabilitating criminals as force feeding freedom upon them is a laughable joke, yet a dangerous language game played by facists to suit their purposes, to justify their agendas, such as the Taiwan seperatists calling pro-renification Taiwanese as "traitors who sell out freedom" as a way to "force feed freedom to the wrong and stupid". Respect for other people's freedom should be force fed, but freedom itself should never be force fed, becuase 1, it's a language game, and 2, the mankind will face the best excuse for repression and wars from the "representatives and enforcers of freedom". You can't promise a better future to people unless you are God. To force feed anything to people against their will, when they didn't violate others, under the cause of improving their future, is a man trying to play God.
The reverse is also true. Do we call actors who intervened to good effect heroes or hoagies? Doesn't that evaluation also assume that the effect was better than what came before it?
panda, i've got to admit this is one of the best pieces i've seen you write. well thought out. conscientiously argued. and very persuasive. individualism and free will is at the heart of western democracy. won't argue with you there. again. wonderfully argued. but have you stopped to consider two things? 1) Have you thought of applying the logic of despotism vs. democracy to the Chinese Communist Party dictatorship? 2) Have you thought of applying the logic of self-determination to different ethnic groups within China? The Muslims, Tibetans, etc. (and according to you, Taiwanese too)? don't get this part at all. i think we've misunderstood each other here. Freedom for me automatically means "the right kind of freedom" as in the western ideal where all people have to right to pursue their own happiness while being protected from violation by others . because if there are rights violations, then by definition, somebody's freedom is being taken away, no? maybe i should have said "the right system needs to be force-fed to people sometimes" instead of saying "freedom needs to be force-fed". i believe God made us masters of all on Earth. And left us to find our own way back to him. The closer we come to playing a just, moral, gentle, loving God, the closer we are to serving God's will and fulfilling our divine mission/destiny.
So you are saying that a democratic and free system is just as bad as Saddam the tyrant. Interesting.
I think it depends on if the system put in place is truly democratic and free. Is our goal to be the lesser of two dictators?
It's wrong to impose dictatorship on people, however, it doesn't follow that such dictatorship cannot change into a driving force of promoting higher living standard and civil awareness. The CCP is a capitalistic party with a communism sticker that is open to gradual democratization parallel with China's social and economic development. They were wrong, but they have been slowly correcting their mistakes. You said it is risky for a country to make a drastic shift in political system, and I agree with that. The reluctance of the CCP to shake off the communism sticker is because of its fear that an indentity crisis would lead to drastic change in political climate. It's wrong to say that dictatorship should be imposed on people because it can save millions of people's lives than an impotent democracy, however, that's because no one really knows about future. Now, suppose that we all know about future, and there is only two ways: 1. Follow an able dictator to lead the country out of poverty, and therefore save millions of people's lives, with a shift towards democracy upon the completion of economic development, that is, the South Korea, Singapore, Taiwan, and currently, China's path. 2. Call for an impotent democracy that stalls the country in poverty, and millions of children die or suffers from disease, starvation, or malnutrition, but having the freedom to speech and election right now, that is, the India and Sri Lanka path. Which way is your way? I dont' remember when I acknowledged that Taiwanese are an ethnic group, just like I don't think Beijingese are an ethnic group. It's Taiwan seperatists who want to do so. Self-determination to me, is still a developing concept with holes to fill. The major flaw of self-determination is, where do you draw the line of self-determination: 1. If it can be exerted as a result of oppression, then what prevents people from declaring independance upon being treated unfairly at any time, in any place? Is it good that way? Can Martin Luther King declare "I have a dream, I have a dream that one day I will exert self-determination and declare independance with my black brothers against the white repression."? Should any blacks suffering police brutality or other minorities such as the native Indians being discriminated be able to exert self-determination and found their own country? Should army soldiers in Taiwan declare independance against Taiwan for they were forced to spend two years in the military, and now they are forbidden to marry mainland females? 2. Who should be able to exert self-determination? A country's land should be shared among its citizens, among which a joint ownership is present. However, the right of self-determination is often being based not on the identity of citizen, but on one citizen's geographical location. Case in point, if blacks congregates in El Paso, TX, and they would like to declare independance there, what's gonna happen? Folks in other parts of America can't have a say in their country's fate because they don't live in El Paso, despite their identity being Americans, and Americans are the joint owners of the America. The abuse of self determination requires ownership rights hinging on one's geographical location, instead of their indentities. It spells absurdity to me. 3. Under a ruthless dictatorship, when people in all places suffer from lack of human rights, people in place A have a chance of self-determination and independance while people in place B don't, also, they don't want to seperate their country. Under the circumstances, is it right for people in place A to exert self-determination and dissect a country just to protect themselves? What does that make people in place B out to be? Let's see, people in place B not only lose human rights from the ruthless dictatorship, but also lose human rights-the ownership of their land- from people in place A, as a result of being excluded from the self-determination process. In short, people in other places are double victims suffering from two parties, the ruling party, and the self-determination part. 4. To sum up, the abuse of self-determination will lead to confusion in human values, and give rise to large numbers of new countries that undesirably complicate the global operation, and decimates unity of the world. For these reasons, self-determination isn't given green light all the way under the current international legal framework, the right to it is generally given to those regions in the process of decolonization. Taiwan and Tibet, as part of China's territory for hundreds of years, do not have claims to self-determination erasing the ownership rights of 1.3 billion people singlehandedly. Here is an excerpt on Tibet and Taiwan history In the middle of the 18th century, during the reign of emperor Qianlong, the Qing dynasty reached the apogee of its power.Manchuria, Mongolia, Xingjiang and Tibet were all securely under Qing control. Even Nepal was made to feel Chinese influence.Burma(now known as Myanma) sent periodic tribute to the Qing court, as did the RyuKyu islands.Korea and northern Vietnam also recognized Chinese suzerainty, and Taiwan was incorporated into China proper. Taiwan is promised by China to be given special treatment upon reunification, and Tibetans have received preferential treatment from the Chinese government at the sacrifice of other Chinese: 1. The Tibetan language, along with three other languages or major minorities in China, are printed on China's paper money RMB, at any denominations. Not only so, figures of the minorities are also largely printed on RMBs. Pardon my ignorance, does any other country do that except China? It's showing respect to the minorities which forms a bond between different ethnic groups in China that makes China a great country. 2. Free points on university entrance exams. I don't know if this practice is still in place today, but it was there in the 80's and 90's. Students from minorities were granted a certain amount of free points to promote the minority status. In the 80's and 90's academic competition in China was fierce, still today, although to a lesser extent. Some students went cracy receiving bad exam results due to insurmountable pressure from themselves and parents. It was a very big deal, say to get 20 free points on an exam. If this isn't sacrifice from the Chinese, then what is? 3. Two children under the one-child policy. The Han race in China, being the predominant race constituting 80% of the population, gets to have one child per family, while minorities, such as Tibetan Chinese, can have up to two children per family, to promote the development of the minorities. Again, if this isn't sacrifice from the Chinese, then what is? These are just basic facts known as common sense among people in China. However, I doubt you'd find any of it mentioned in a western article on the issue. The inability of the western media reporting basic facts contrary to their stereotypes no longer surprises me. Tibet is China's province and Tibetan Chinese are Chinese, the same goes for Taiwan.
OK, Tibet was only sporadically part of China's territory, passing between being an independent, feudal state, to a Mongolian feudal state, to a Chinese feudal state during the Qing dynasty It didn't become part of the PRC until they sent 50,000 soldiers in to "liberate" Tibet (liberate Tibet from who? btw? Tibetans?) in 1950. Huh, so by this token, China also has a territorial claim to Mongolia, Nepal, Burma, Vietnam, and Korea? So the PLA could just invade Mongolia or Vietnam today and that would be excusable ? Why doesn't Mongolia have a valid claim to Tibet then? Why doesn't Mongolia have a valid claim to mainland China? If by preferential treatment, you mean killing imprisonment, torture, and reeducation, then you are correct. 87,000 (PRC figure) to 430,000 Tibetans were killed in the uprising of 1959. Tibetans claim that over 1 million Tibetans have been killed since 1950 in labor camps, died in prison, uprisings, executions, etc. Chinese is the official language of the province. Tibetan language is not taught in secondary schools; Tibetan children are only allowed to learn Tibetan as a second language. Combine that with the fact that the PRC has re-located hundreds of thousands of Han there, and you have a recipe for a dead language. LOL, so Tibetan youths get to go to Chinese universities and lose even more of their culture? Some sacrifice... See above, the Chinese now outnumber Tibetans in their own country. Really? You didn't mention anything about hte exiled dalai lama and the restrictions that the Chinese have imposed on tibetan buddhism throughout the years, or the fact that 80% of monasteries were destroyed or closed during the Cultural Revolution, dumping nuclear waste, the PRC's reneging on the 17 point agreement of 1951, or any other of the relevant facts that are pretty common knowledge.
Tibet has formally become part of China in the Qing Dynasty, and span off China after the collapse of Qing, with China holding claims over Tibet, then being incorporated back into China by the PRC. Tibet was one of the most backward places on earth under the theocracy ruling of dalai Lama, today Tibet is still backward, but its various aspects have been improved by leaps and bounds. Suzerainty is not equal to sovereignty. So China doesn't have claim over Korea, Vietnam, Burma, Nepal. As for Mongolia, China, as you know, was conquered by the Mongolians and the Yuan dynasty was established. In the Ming dynasty, the Mongolians were driven back out. In the Qing dynasty, Mongolia as a whole was incorporated back into China. The Mongols conquered China,and China conquer them back, fair game. Due to China being weak after the collapse of Qing dynasty, the Outer Mongolia was lost due to international politics against China, while the Inner Mongolia remained as part of China to this day. China has acknowledged the sovereignty of the said countries such as the Outer Mongolia, Vietnam, Korea etc... and vice versa, such countries have acknowledged the inner Mongolia, Tibet and Taiwan being part of China, with most of the countries in the world, including the democratic ones, acknowledging the status quo. And the extreme right wing Japanese now claim that the Nanking massacre in which 300000 Chinese being slaughtered was a story made up by Chinese to make Japan look bad. Yep, we Chinese are demons constantly plotting to frame people, there, happy now? The fact is, the rebellion by a FRACTION of Tibetan Chinese were sponsored by CIA as part of cold war, and the cold war is over now. If you are talking about lack of human rights in the 50's in China, then you shouldn't only limit it to the Tibetan Chinese, but also all Chinese in China at that time. Every country has turmoils and oppression at one point in her history. The same goes for America. Chinese all had it bad when China was more backward, the same goes for the Han, the Manchurians, the Mongolian Chinese, practically, the same goes for all countries in the world. What kind of native language of the Native Indians or the blacks is taught in America? People in Tibet have the right to use Tibetan language in the legal system. The Tibetan language is regarded as a dialect in China, the same as Cantonese etc... The Tibetan Chinese are free to learn their local language. I believe that Tibetan Chinese cherish their culture as well as the Han Chinese, and there is mutual respect between them. If you think that going to Chinese universities make them lose their culture, it's up to you. You know, if the Chinese would like to uproot the Tibetan culture they don't need to sacrifice their precious educational resources to a minority race. No, I think it's disinformation. The Han Chinese is still minorities in Tibet right now, and even if the Han Chinese outnumbers Tibetan Chinese, so what? The Han Chinese can migrate to the rual and relatively backward Tibet as they like, and Tibetan Chinese can migrate to places in their countries with better living standard such as Shanghai, where Yao Ming came from. Dalai Lama was a dictator ruling under theocracy, Tibet was stuck under mediveal age under his ruling, he should be replaced. Although CCP was not much better 1950's in terms of human rights, Tibetan Chinese' population has doubled since the departure of Dalai Lama due to more food, better nutrition, education, medication, transportation and political stability. Women's status leapt from meadivel age to the equal of men. China treats Tibet as part of her body because it is so, acknowledged by the world. Chinese are free to believe in religions such as buddhism, christians, islam etc..., but religious organizations are placed under governmental control for various reasons, this is common practice throughout China, not restricted to the Tibetan Chinese. The cultural revolution is a disaster in Chinese history, all Chinese suffered a great deal in that ordeal. We Chinese need to learn our lessons from history to prevent it from happening again. As to dumping nuclear waste, isn't it common sense to handle them in remote and rural areas? Does the USA dump nuclear waste in New York? Much of the anti-China propoganda rests on painting pictures of confrontation with a racial vibe. Using ethnic difference to devide Tibetan Chinese from Chinese. If the same is done in regard to the relationship between the native Indians vs. the Americans, or blacks vs. Americans throughout the history, I guess the picture might look worse than China's.
