Jonathan Freedland (Guardian Utd): The war's silver lining

[Jack Rabbit]

From the Guardian Unlimited
Dated Wednesday March 2

The war`s silver lining
We need to face up to the fact that the Iraq invasion has intensified pressure for democracy in the Middle East
By Jonathan Freedland

Tony Blair is not gloating. He could - but he prefers to appear magnanimous in what he hopes is victory. In our Guardian interview yesterday, he was handed a perfect opportunity to crow. He was talking about what he called "the ripple of change" now spreading through the Middle East, the slow, but noticeable movement towards democracy in a region where that commodity has long been in short supply. I asked him whether the stone in the water that had caused this ripple was the regime change in Iraq.
He could have said yes, insisting that events had therefore proved him right and the opponents of the 2003 war badly wrong. But he did not. Instead he sidestepped the whole Iraq business.

Perhaps he was simply reluctant to reopen a debate that came to define, if not paralyse, much of his second term. Or maybe he calculated that it was best to keep the current democratic shift in the region separate from the Iraq war, so that people who opposed the latter might still rally to support the former.

But if he had wanted to brag and claim credit - boasting that the toppling of Saddam Hussein had set off a benign chain reaction - he would have had plenty of evidence to call on.

Read more.

[Jack Rabbit]

1. Critique

I don't quite agree with Mr. Freedland, although this is thoughtful.

The invasion of Iraq did not precipitate the rally to democracy in the Middle East. I am not certain that there is such a rally right now.

What the Iraqi elections (an Shia and Kurdish event), the Iraqi insurgency (a Sunni matter), the Palestinian intifada and the Lebanese demonstration of people power have in common is a desire for independence from occupation. Indeed, it would be difficult for Mr. Bush to truly take credit for the elections in Iraq. He didn’t want them, favoring instead a byzantine system of caucuses which he and his aides could control and which would yield leadership responsible to Washington and Wall Street than to the Iraqi people. The elections were held only because Ayatollah Sistani insisted on them and backed his demand with threats of mass demonstrations and civil unrest. It is Sistani, not Bush, who deserves credit for the Iraqi elections.

The slate that received a majority in the transitional legislative body was nothing like Bush and his friends wanted. It was a slate dedicated to Islamic law, to demanding a withdrawal of foreign troops and to repealing Bremer’s colonial decrees. It was, in short, a repudiation of Bush’s occupation. It was a vote for Iraq’s independence from US colonial rule. But while it is a move away from colonial rule, it is also a move toward Islamic republicanism, not democracy. Nevertheless, the people have determined that the time is come for US troops to leave Iraq.

Saudi Arabia’s elections do not go nearly far enough to satisfy a true democrat. These were designed to protect the Saudi regime, nothing else. We will know that Arabia is a liberated country when we can stop calling it Suadi, as if it is a personal fiefdom of the House of Saud.

Lebanon, however, may be an encouraging sign. Syrian troops were intended to have a stabilizing effect in Lebanon when the civil war ended; the Syrian occupation has outlived its purpose. The assassination of former Prime Minister Hariri shows that the presence of Syrian troops is now destabilizing to Lebanon’s body politic. The time has come for the Syrians to leave Lebanon.

Having criticized much what Mr. Freedland has said, we must agree with his conclusion:

(W)e have to say that the call for freedom throughout the Arab and Muslim world is a sound and just one - even if it is a Bush slogan and arguably code for the installation of malleable regimes. Put starkly, we cannot let ourselves fall into the trap of opposing democracy in the Middle East simply because Bush and Blair are calling for it. Sometimes your enemy's enemy is not your friend.

[Capt_Nemo]

3. Freedland got it all wrong here. Time to rally round Tony Bliar, you know?

On what concerns Lebannon one can only look at Tisdall's
thoughtfull analisys to see the errors on Freedlands reasoning:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldbriefing/story/0,15205,1428401,00.html

Besides Lebannon's system is infinitely closer to a democracy than
any of the US supported Gulf monarchies.

If anyone was to stage a demonstration like Beirut's in Ryadh everybody
would get gunned down. The scale of that problem far surpasses any
lack of democracy in Lebannon, yet Mr. Freedland is blind to the fact
that those Hailing Lebannon's demonstrators are the very same
that support the House of Saud. Isn't that strange?

As to who killed Rafik Hariri, why in the world would the Syrians
make a "martyr" out of him, when the issue was burried?
I'm absolutely convinced it wasn't them. Nor US intelligence has
the human assets on the ground there to carry out such thing.
But the Israeli intelligence, that is a different matter... remember their links
to the phalangists?
And they have an advantage in destabilizing their northern neighbour.

[Jack Rabbit]

4. Tisdall seems to be overestimating Bashar (but so do many others)

From the BBC Online
Dated Monday February 28

Syria`s Lebanon conundrum
By Jon Leyne
BBC News, Damascus

For the Syrian government of President Bashar Assad, recent developments in the Middle East have been very bad for business.

This is the country in the Middle East that stands to suffer most from the new international climate in President Bush's second term.

The rapidly developing situation has left President Assad unwilling or unable to respond . . . .

Most critics of the government insist they nevertheless respect President Assad himself, whom they believe is a reformist.

The problem, they say, is that he does not have much power.

By most accounts Syria is now ruled by a series of fiefdoms, a series of private empires - particularly the intelligence services.

I don't know what's worse, a high-class thug like Bashar's old man or weakling with good intentions like Bashar himself. When Hafez al-Assad was in power, at least one knew when something like this happened that, if Assad wasn't behind it, some heads would roll in Damascus -- and I don't mean somebody suddenly reaching "retirement age".

I get irked when I hear Bush, Sharon or even some pundit blame "the Syrians" for the Hariri assassination. That's not because I don't think there were Syrians behind the deed -- there are in most reasonable theories -- but we don't know which Syrians. This BBC piece paints a picture of a byzantine government where it is possible to do something like this without Bashar's knowledge. Theoretically, Syria is a one-party state with an authoritarian leader. That's not supposed to happen. Nevertheless, it very well could have and no one can really say that it didn't.

Bashar is the idiot son of a powerful leader. He had no interest in becoming President of Syria until his older brother died in an accident, when he simply and dutifully assumed the role of heir to the throne. When Hafez al-Assad was dying, his aides could have asked who succeeds him and he might have answered, like Alexander, "the strongest among you." However, that would have been costly to Syria, so they turned to Bashar. He was someone the real power brokers of the Baath Party could agree on as a figurehead. Bashar may be nothing more than a visible symbol of unity in a government that is in fact fractured.

If one wants to make a case for regime change (and I'm not trying to make one, at least not by direct intervention), then this doesn't make Syria any less of a candidate. Bush's word is worthless because he is a liar; Bashar's word is worthless because, while he may not be a liar, he can't make it happen.

If the Israelis were to go to Bashar and ask that he rein in Hezbollah, he could agree, but so what? If his theoretical underlings aren't willing to carry out his directives and he can't make them, it has the same consequence as if he had no intention of keeping his word at all.

A weak leader is every bit as much of the problem as dishonorable one.

[Capt_Nemo]

11. I don't think Bashar is an idiot

I think he would have prefered to live a quiet life as an ophtalmologist,
but he accepted to be leader most likely because the most powerfull faction
in Syria's power structure made it clear to him it was in his interest
to do so.
If he doesn't have absolute control it is not because of idiocy but
because
lacking some of the skills of a true politician he doesn't have all the connections
he would need now in Syria's regime.
Anyway, if he is that weak he would have abdicated long ago. We'll
see if he can handle the pressure. If he's realy a weak character
he'll do just that.
Other 2 remarks:
Hafez was only a bit more of a thug than Sharon
which can be measured in a somewhat higher bodycount.
There is an actor about which we have heard very little the last few
days: France - Lebannon and Syria's former colonial power.
It is not clear if France's interests are coincidental or divergent from
US and Israeli ones.

[Jack Rabbit]

16. You know, Captain

I'm considered a fairly intelligent fellow -- at least by people who have never seen me try to fix an alarm clock.

I'm sure Bashar was a fine ophthalmologist. He should have remained one. He's about as good as being a leader and political reformer as I am at fixing alarm clocks.

When I try to do anything mechanical, I look like an idiot. When Bashar tries to be president of Syria, "lacking," as you say, "some of the skills of a true politician he doesn't have all the connections he would need now in Syria's regime", he looks like me trying to fix an alarm clock.

[Capt_Nemo]

17. I see your point Jack and I agree to a certain extent

but more than about Bashar this is about the faction he represents
in Syrian politics.
I mean, those that chose him are not as ready to make him expendable
as those that are supposedly undermining his position.
Admitting he's a liability so far in the game could be inviting defeat.

[Maple]

2. People have forgotten

that bin Laden called for the overthrow of the Saudi family, and all other US 'puppets' in the ME.

This isn't any move to democracy.

[bemildred]

5. Even if one accepts the idea that what is going on is "democracy",

the causative effect that Freedland claims, i.e. that the
Iraq war caused the "pressure for democracy" is an unsupported
assertion, in the nature of a post hoc, ergo propter hoc
fallacy. The war has caused "pressure" for a number of things,
two of them being fundamentalism and "terrorism", and the fact
that we are also getting some "democratic" dog-and-pony shows does
not change the degenerative social effects of the violence and
destruction.

[Jack Rabbit]

6. I agree

It is post hoc reasoning. I saw on another thread last night where a Lebanese man said that the only way Bush had anything to do with the uprising in Lebanon would be if he was behind the Hariri assassination.

Those who are saying that Bush deserves credit for for popular uprisings in the Middle East are overlooking the fact that those Iraqis who voted four weeks ago voted for a slate of candidates who oppose further foreign occupation of Iraq or continuing the economic policies of occupying power. And democracy? Please. I hope Iraq reaches that lofty goal someday, but their choices now seem to be between an Islamic republic, somewhat milder than Iran's, and continued colonial occupation. Neither of those choices is democratic.

No matter how supporters of the Bush regime try to paint post-Saddam Iraq, the invasion was classic colonialist gunboat diplomacy and the occupation has been a classic colonialist rule. It should be no surprise that the natives rose up. Some took up arms and others demanded an election by which they repudiated the puppets of the colonial power by giving that slate a meager 14% of the vote. Had the Sunnis not boycotted, Allawi's share of the vote would no doubt have been lower. The election, which the neocons pretend to be their achievement, was just another aspect of insurgency.

I will be delighted to see the Syrian troops march out of Lebanon for the same reason I will be delighted to see the Israeli troops march out the West Bank and Gaza after a peace accord is reached and to see American troops march out of Iraq and transnational war profiteers run out of Iraq with their tails between their legs. Freedom, a word that Mr. Bush likes to use but little understands, means the right of the people of a nation to determine their own future without foreign troops on their soil or foreign corporations burdening them with odious debt.

[bemildred]

7. It's the "war causes democracy" idea that annoys me.

History is full of wars, and they are followed by "democracy" in
a vanishingly small number of instances. The same can be said
of the USA and it's many wars. It is a ridiculous idea. Mostly
wars cause death and destruction, and the idea is always to make
rule over the rubble easier.

It does look like Syria may leave Lebanon, and one may hope that
that will prove to be a good thing.

[Jack Rabbit]

8. Syria has been in Lebanon for fifteen years

Syrians troops were put there to maintain security following a long civil war. They had a legitimate purpose. Then.

The Syrians didn't promote democracy during that time, but Lebanon still built up institutions of free government. We can be more optimistic about the prospects for democracy in Lebanon than in most Arab states. That is more in spite of Syrian occupation than because of it.

Bush needs to bear in mind that democracy is unpredictable and won't necessarily give the results he wants. Hezbollah holds twelve seats in the Lebanese parliament. I'm sure he doesn't like that any better than I do. What is he going to do about it? Send American troops to the Bekaa Valley and tell people how to vote? Arrange for Katherine Harris or Ken Blackwell to run Lebanese elections?

If they won a free and fair vote, we just deal with it.

[bemildred]

12. Shows what war really brings, and what 15 years of peace can bring.

War brings occupation, peace brings governmental reform (eventually).

[Capt_Nemo]

13. From what I recall from the late '80s early '90s Syrian presence there

has a less clear origin.
Syrian troops fought directly the Israelis in 1982 and had to retreat
to the North and the East while the Israelis pushed on up to Beirut.
Then the conflict was fought by proxy between Lebanese factions supported
by each side.
Israel even had its version of Alawi in the Gemayel brothers,
blown up to kingdom come in succession.
Israel couldn't keep up with the occupation and retreated to
Southern Lebannon. Syrian troops filled in the vacuum but still
the proxy war raged in stalemate on the coastal cities.
Then came Saddam's invasion of Kuwait.
Poppy knew that Hafez hated Saddam's guts and that Lebanese factions
that fought against the syrians got support not only from Israel but from Saddam, so...
in order to get Syria into the Coallition the quid pro quo was to
let Syria's armed forces strike Beirut with all their might and
expell from the country the factions sympathetic to Israel.
And so it happened. While the world had its eyes on "Desert Storm"
Syrian Air Force was blowing up their enemies' positions in Beirut
and when they fled the Syrian army took control. The rest is
history.
That's one of the things that left Israel and its supporters in the
US mighty pissed off at Poppy. Now that they are in back in power
at the side of his son, they want to remake history...

[chomskysright]

14. THANK YOU! it is the post-hoc advantage.....

[alevensalor]

9. The problem is

people are confusing Democracy and freedom. They are not the same thing.

~A!

[Jack Rabbit]

10. Good point

On the other hand, I think when Bush uses either word, democracy or freedom, it's empty.

To me, democracy is a state where:

• Citizenship is universal. Each person born within the boundaries of the state is a citizen, as is one born abroad to at least one citizen parent or who swears allegiance to the state in a rite of naturalization.
• Citizenship is equal. Each citizen has an equal opportunity to participate in and influence public affairs. Every adult citizen shall be enfranchised with the right to vote. Decisions are made by a majority voted based on the principle of one man/one vote.
• Citizenship is inalienable. A guaranteed set of civil liberties is in place to assure full and open public discourse of civic affairs. No citizen may be stripped of his citizenship or otherwise punished by the state for expressing any point of view, no matter how unpopular or even absurd.

This is a finer definition of democracy than usually given; it would encompass fewer examples. What most people call democracy I would call government with the consent of the governed. This might include Iran, where a council of religious elites first approves a candidate for public office before the candidate goes before voters in an election that might otherwise be free and fair. It might also include the United States, where a candidate for public office in order to run an effective campaign must seek financing from private interests, i.e., the socially elite. Again, the ensuing election might otherwise be free and fair, although we are now seeing examples in America where that characterization can be challenged, specifically in Florida and Ohio.

Government with the consent of the governed is a necessary feature of democracy. However, in a true democracy, there are no middle men between the candidates and the people; the elites have no more say than anybody else.

[Demeter]

15. There IS NO Silver Lining!

To quote Vonnegut in Cat's Cradle: See the cat? See the cradle?