Neo-Cons Get Good News, or Do They?

A long time ago, there were some policymakers in Washington who told the president that US troops would be greeted in Baghdad with sweets and flowers. Yesterday, US casualties in Iraq reached 1,500 killed in action. Yet, things are looking up for the neo-conservatives who sold Mr. Bush this foreign policy of imperial adventurism in the Middle East. Elections in Iraq and proto-Palestine have created a semblance of democracy, and the people power of Lebanon that forced out the pro-Syrian, semi-illegal government have all been welcome to the Wolfowitz and Perle crowd. At the same time, they could be mistaking nationalist values for democratic ones.

In Iraq, there is no doubt that some kind of government is going to reflect the values of those who turned out to vote on January 30. The Kurds and the Shi'ites did very well because they turned up to vote. The Sunni, generally, did not vote, and their participation in the new government is a huge problem. Elections don't establish good government (although they can), but they do create a legitimate government. When an entire community chooses not to vote, does the resulting government have any legitimacy? As important, why did the Kurds and Shi'ites vote? They voted in large measure because they thought it was the best way to get the Americans out of Iraq. Elections in post-colonial Arab and African states have had a tendency to be one-man, one-vote, one-time. If there is nascent Iraqi democracy, proof that it exists requires a peaceful change of government after an electoral defeat of those in power.

As for Palestine, the intifada failed to get the Palestinians a country of their own. Yasser Arafat's death removed the Israelis' greatest pretext for not talking. Independence for Palestine hinges on a democratic partner with whom the Israelis can negotiate. Having failed with violence, they must try to talk, and the election of Mahmoud Abbas (a/k/a Abu Mazen) as President of the Palestinian Authority establishes such a partner. However, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad aren't buying it. There is no Palestinian political force in favor of continuing the occupation, but whether there is a similar commitment to regular elections remains to be seen. Hope is more plentiful than in the past, but proof is always preferable.

As for Lebanon and its "Cedar Revolution," the people massed peacefully in the streets works only if the army won't shoot. Compare the events in Kiev recently with those in Tiananmen Square a while ago. In this case, Lebanese nationalism trumps all. The protesters are not in the streets because they want to vote (although hand the Lebanese a ballot and they are likely to use it was wisely as anyone). The protesters want the Syrians out of Lebanon.

Democracy and human rights in the Middle East are as noble as they are elsewhere. But there is one common thread among Iraq, Palestine and Lebanon, and it isn't voting. It's "Yankees, or Israelis, or Syrians, go home!" In recent world history, people have been more prepared to suffer under one of their own than be governed well by a foreigner. While this may be a stupid attitude, that doesn't make it any less true.


© Copyright 2005 by The Kensington Review, J. Myhre, Editor. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written consent.
Produced using Fedora Linux.

Home