Given recent events in the Middle East, many people are wondering if perhaps Bush and the neoconservatives aren’t right about our military ventures and the Bush foreign policy. Specifically, people are looking at:
- The successful elections in Iraq,
- the developments in Lebanon,
- municipal elections in Saudi Arabia,
- and the Mubarak’s promise of reform in Egypt.
I won’t say it’s inconceivable that these events are part of some modern-day domino theory at work, but I will say that we need to look a little closer at the Middle East’s past and present before we declare Bush the greatest president ever, as many seem to be in a rush to do.
Let’s look at the elections in Iraq. First of all, I’d like to say that I have been gravely remiss in not tipping you readers off about my old schoolmate Spencer Ackerman’s blog for the New Republic, “Iraq’d,” which delves much, much deeper into Iraq than I ever do, with far greater frequency. Do yourselves a favor and bookmark it.
As usual, the situation on the ground in Iraq is far more complex and chaotic than the administration’s public pronouncements make it seem. What we’ve had is about two years of “Mission Accomplished” photo ops in various guises. The famous Bush distaste for statebuilding has a good reason: democracy cannot be installed at gunpoint, and the administration knows this, even as they beam out a message that their bold actions are reaping rewards.
Consider the recent parliamentary elections in Iraq. Now, in order to have a working democracy, you need (at the very least) two things: an educated middle class, and institutions people respect–otherwise known as a legitimate government. Iraq actually has an educated middle class, so at least there’s a possibility of democracy taking root. It’s a good thing we destroyed all the institutions in Iraq, because otherwise, it wouldn’t be a challenge.
Pro-war liberals, such as the editorial staff of the New Republic, who then famously asked “Were We Wrong?” more than a year after they had declared their strong support, often compare our invasion and occupation of Iraq to that of Japan and Germany after World War II. Indeed, we invaded, destroyed, rebuilt, and fostered democracies in both countries. So, what are the key differences in our approach to those occupations and our approach to this one? Two words–“Marshall Plan.”
We poured massive amounts of money and logistical aid to the vanquished, so as to avoid the mistakes of WWI. Not to mention that we still have active bases in both countries to this day (the Japanese are getting tired of our soldiers raping civilians, but hey, what are they going to do about it?). Bush and company, on the other hand, have figured out a better resource management scheme; they had openly suggested that Iraq’s oil revenues would fund the invasion, and as soon as they got to the oil fields, they were seized and the interim government was forced to accept legislation allowing American robber barons to extract and keep Iraq’s most important natural resource: oil money. We’ve been handing out huge contracts to private American firms like Halliburton, who seem to have lost much of it. Same thing with our hand-picked puppet government, who apparently have kept 9 billion dollars from the funds we gave them for which no one will account. It’s the Reverse Marshall plan.
Are we setting up another Weimar Republic?
Getting back to the Iraqi elections: it seems to me that the true measure of any Iraqi government’s legitimacy (for the citizens, anyway) is their efficacy in getting U.S. troops to leave, which is probably impossible. While we’re pillaging what is rightfully Iraq’s, the country will be doomed to perpetual poverty. Why, Iraq (which sits on the world’s second largest oil reserves), actually has to import oil today. Still hopeful about Iraq’s chances for a lasting democracy?
Let us turn now to Lebanon. Hopeful Americans have linked the resignation of the pro-Syrian government there to our foreign policy. Again, if we look more closely, the casual linkage we can’t help but think about (Bush said something about democracy, Lebanese protestors win a victory, they must be connected somehow) falls apart.
Did our invasion of Iraq cause the Syrian government to assassinate Lebanon’s popular former Prime Minister, Rafiq Hariri? Did it retroactively create the Lebanese protest movement, which started in 2001? Will Assad’s government really withdraw its troops from Lebanon, or merely move them closer to the border, as they have actually proposed? Remember, folks, the Syrian government is Ba’ath, too. (Fun trivia fact: Saddam’s Iraqi Ba’ath party was the civilian wing, whereas the Syrian government comprises the military wing of the party.)
I do sincerely hope for the success of the Cedar Revolution, even if Bush takes credit for it. The White House (and it doesn’t matter who’s in it) will always claim responsibility for things going right, and seldom for things going wrong, regardless of their culpability in either case.
Our next stop on the pseudo-democratic tour is Saudi Arabia, where they have allowed municipal elections for the first time (of course, only men can vote). I actually think that this is a relatively promising development, because the franchise is being slowly expanded in a way that might actually build institutions on a local level.
It’s interesting that Saudi Arabia actually seems to echo the Bush vision (or perhaps, version) of America: a central ruling family (whose power was built on oil wealth and political connections stemming from that wealth) cares little for regional government; the tendency is toward a feudal distribution of royal funds to religious charities and what are essentially government subcontractors. (Government services are provided as “charities” literally by the grace of the monarchy). It’s easy to see why they allowed municipal elections–they don’t really give a shit about administering the country on a local level. Like any kingdom, the state is designed to protect the royal posessions, not to provide government for the people.
Back to the elections themselves: let us compare the Saudi elections with those in Iran. Iran, although it’s part of the “Axis-of-Evil,” has regular elections where women vote. Of course, it’s a one party system with theocratic checks (but no balances) which disqualify it from being a true democracy. Iran’s bicameral government has secular and clerical branches; but the clerics can disqualify candidates in the next election for any reason (which they have done several times). It’s a one-party system with orthodoxy written into the national constitution. By the way, Japan also has a one-party system, which was their way of transitioning from despotism. Building democracies takes a long, long time; much longer than the patience of most Americans. We’ll see what happens with Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak’s promise to have multi-party elections (either he wants to retire or the reforms are just for show).
You might call it ironic, but Axis-of-Evil Iran’s is the most likely path to democracy in the Middle East. It’s not quite a democracy, but it has been declared compatible with orthodox Islam. Someday, reformers will take over the clerical branch of Iran’s government, and they’ll be able to have a real democracy.
Here’s what’s really interesting: as we’re supposedly raising the flag of “democracy” abroad, our own country is becoming less and less democratic. Are we trying to meet the Arab dictators halfway? As they supposedly become more democratic, we become less so. Our civil liberties, the integrity of our press, the standards for truth in government–all are under attack as part of a truly integrated domestic and foreign policy. The Bush message to the Muslim world is that you can be a “democracy” without bothering too much about the nitty gritty of serving your citizens or respecting human rights. Just like us.
