No way but out
Bush may argue that democracy secures peace, but occupation forestalls democracy, writes Mohamed Sid-Ahmed
The speech delivered by President Bush on 6 November was less to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the creation by former President Ronald Reagan of the National Endowment for Democracy than to take advantage of the occasion to ponder over the very rationale of democracy -- especially in the Arab world, where its value is seen to be disregarded. In the aftermath of 11 September, attention was concentrated on "terrorism". Now, it is being shifted to "democracy". What meaning should we give to this shift?
To begin with, we must recognise that democracy is not only a slogan, but a specific type of conduct. Democracy cannot be said to be put into practice without the implementation of given rules such as openness, transparency and candour. There are no new developments in the Middle East concerning these values. Why, then, is democracy being given precedence over terrorism at a time when the latter is perceived as more threatening than ever?
It is worth noting that violence is a feature of all the conflicts now being played out in the region. There is no difference between the willingness of all the protagonists in the various arenas of confrontation to use violence; the only difference is that one form of violence is attributed to terrorism, another to combating terrorism. In one case, it is violence against democracy; in another, violence in the name of democracy. How then to distinguish "legitimate" violence from its opposite? Moreover, to what extent can violence practised in the name of democracy be regarded as legitimate?
The scandal related to the suicide of British arms expert David Kelly nearly dislodged Tony Blair from his seat as prime minister. Similar scandals, notably the disclosure of the involvement of an American diplomat's wife with the CIA, adversely affected President Bush's position. America and Britain waged war against Iraq under the pretext of going after its alleged arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. The war began and ended without any such weapons being discovered. Had all peaceful ways of detecting these weapons been exhausted before launching an all-out war? Had the rules of democracy been applied by the US administration? And when such rules are not applied, to what extent is it justified to give other parties lessons on democracy?
An important point raised by Bush in his defence of democracy as key to putting an end to terrorism is his statement that democracy paves the way to peace and compels conflicting parties to condemn violence. We tend, rather, to believe that violence is due first and foremost to occupation, even within the context of a situation where negotiations aimed at reaching a settlement are resumed. Last week, Chief Civil Administrator Paul Bremer was summoned back to Washington for urgent talks on the future of the US-led occupation, meeting immediately with Secretary of State Colin Powell, Secretary of Defense Donald Ramsfeld and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice to discuss the deteriorating situation and the chances of accelerating passing over state authority to Iraqis. This would mean going beyond the present intermediary stage and selecting an Iraqi head of state, without democratic practices having been firmly established -- a situation more likely to produce chaos than overcome the growing impasse.
A US intelligence official has confirmed that a new CIA report warns that the Iraqi resistance appears to be gathering strength because of the lack of clear progress by the US-led coalition. The CIA and the White House refused to confirm the existence of the report which was first disclosed by the Philadelphia Inquirer. But government officials outside these agencies said that its conclusions were among the darkest intelligence assessments distributed since the American-led invasion of Iraq in March. "It says that this is an insurgency and that it is gaining strength because Iraqis have no confidence that there is anyone on the horizon who is going to stick around in Iraq as a real alternative of the former regime," one US official said.
The classified document warns that Iraqis are losing faith in the coalition and are supporting the Iraqi resistance in growing numbers. It also says that the American-led operation is approaching a critical turning point.
The US intelligence official confirmed the existence and general thrust of the report. He said it was something of a warning flag, and that it was in line with other US intelligence assessments that had been compiled in the last four to six weeks. The report certainly appears to be at odds with some of the more optimistic public statements being made by top Bush administration officials. While other officials have downplayed the report and insist the administration has acknowledged the problems, one official, who asked not to be named, declared that Bremer is now working at establishing a policy aimed at transforming the Iraqi ruling council into a body empowered to take certain decisions which could accelerate the constitutional process.
The CIA report described the Iraqi council as made up of a majority of Iraqi exiles with limited support inside Iraq and who have failed to convince ordinary Iraqis that the occupation is temporary and will eventually give rise to a unified, totally sovereign Iraq. The report also mentions that many of the council members are absorbed by infighting between various clans and involved in personal affairs of corruption and nepotism, which have nothing to do with their previous pledges towards the war in Iraq, and towards changing the regime.
The CIA also warned that Iraq's Shi'ite majority could come together with the Sunnis in resisting occupation. The CIA believes that the total closure of borders with Syria, Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait is moot because of prior movements of extremists into Iraq from a variety of places to fight the Americans. Bremer's deliberations in Washington included talks on increasing the Iraqi security forces. The new Iraqi army is to reach 220,000 instead of the present 180,000 troops.
In the days which preceded Bremer's visit to Washington, the upsurge in armed resistance in Iraq highlighted the fact that events are moving in a direction which, far from consolidating democracy, presage still greater violence. If there is one fact which is incontrovertible, it is that occupation and democracy cannot go hand-in- hand.
Al-Ahram Weekly Online : 20 - 26 November 2003 (Issue No. 665)
Located at: http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2003/665/op3.htm