 |
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999 time: 21:27
|
|
We see in the left's comment what the Arab street will believe if we find WMD.
This is the OJ case all over again. The all black jury beleived the blood evidence was planted by racist cops.
Last edited by Ned on 11-04-2003 at 04:15
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001 time: 06:27
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Ned
Spiffor, the Iraqi's will set up their own government. The only thing we are guaranteeing is that the new goverment will be 1) a government of the whole of Iraq; and 2) democratic.
The problem with turning this over to the UN is they do not guarantee 2. |
I hope Democracy will turn out to be a success in the mid 2000s' Iraq. But I don't hold my breath, because I strongly believe the influent parties will be nationalists, religious, and separatists, because these issues will be the big ones of a post-Saddam Iraq. Would you like to have an Islamist president for Iraq ?
The US is very aware of this, and that explains why an exiled group of people are dubbed the "Iraqi opposition" by Washington : sure, these people bravely opposed Saddam, and were lucky to go into exile rather than getting killed. Sure, these people call for a democracy in Iraq. But how representative are they ?
My concerns come from the quite failed democratization process in Africa : at the beginning of the 90's, many African countries begun to experience free elections and free speech. Several civil wars were ended at last. However, we have seen the result of such freedom isn't all rose. The crisis in Ivory Coast is mostly fueled by a decades-long ethnical policy, where every president favored his ethnical group at the expanse of others. Both sides of the civil war want absolute power for them.
Elsewhere, the Bosnian "Democracy" is a nearly powerless tool which basically acknowledged the division of the country. Yes, it doesn't kill or rape its people, which is excellent news. But such a division can create ethnical problems in the future, once again.
Democracy in Iraq won't necessarily bring the same problems, but similar ones may appear. The rebuilders have to be very cautious before saying "Give power to whomever you want".
To be true, I am not opposed to a US puppet government in Iraq if it respects individual rights. At least for a few years, so that we know what the Iraqis want.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999 time: 21:27
|
|
quote: Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
I think "supervision" is your word, not ours.
It's rather telling that those on the right can't understand the difference between imperialism, as opposed to defined programs of aid, training and assistance in creating the institutions, infrastructure and economic base for a functional independent state. |
Well, to the extent that we retain authority to remove a Iraqi leader or government for whatever reason, we are acting like Imperialists.
As to "institutions," Annan has already pointed out that Iraq does not need very much help in this regard because it "has" a well-developed and functional government. Perhaps it "has" too much government so that it stifles a free market. This we can and should fix.
In a short-term, we need to reestablish government, police, fire prevention, utilities and essential public services. In the longer-term, we need to re-build certain infrastructure, such as water and sewer, and of course oil production.
We can an should be there for Iraq to help in the transition. However, at some time, we need to withdraw completely, the sooner the better, IMO.
I am worried, though, by those here who seem to suggest that we have failed Afghanistan because the warlords have not ceased to exist and because opium continues to be grown. This seems to imply that we should involve ourselves directly in the governing of Afghanistan. If we did that, though, we would be imperialists.
Last edited by Ned on 11-04-2003 at 04:17
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
gsmoove23
|
|
Didn't the administration used forged documents to "prove" Iraq had smuggled Uranium from Nigeria? Sure British intelligence likely forged them and the Bushies just didn't know.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001 time: 06:27
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Ned
Spiffor, your point about Africa is well taken. Brutal dictators have arising from the colonial remnants across the continent. I do not believe there is a single free market economy in the whole of Africa, except, perhaps, for South Africa. I am no expert on this, but this is my impression. |
There is no US-like free market in Africa (erm, maybe Uganda is one), but it doesn't hinder a country to be democratic, like Sweden et. al show. Most postcolonial rulers in Africa have been murderous dictators, but some countries knew Democracy to some extent, like Ivory Coast and Senegal (these countries still didn't match western standards) until the 90's. At the beginning of the 90's, the tide changed in Africa, and a long "democratization" begun, with many free elections. However, many problems emerged : old dictators retaking power, losing factions refusing their defeats, the temptation of having the "despotism of the majority" at the expanse of the minority, you name it...
All these problems weren't masterminded by the former colonial powers, they came from the Africans who weren't ready for a modern Democracy. It is fairly possible the Iraqis aren't ready for a modern democracy as well : they never had a democratic experience in the past.
Another big problem undermining the construction of democracy in Africa is the catastrophic corruption, which rots every layer of society. While corruption isn't as mindboggling in Arabic countries, it is pretty important when compared to western standards. Corruption can be a challenge for a true democratization of Iraq.
quote: We should learn as much as possible from the mistakes made in Africa. However, I still point to the US successes in Japan, Germany and South Korea. We even were instrumental in removing dictators from the Philippines and Panama, former US "colonies." |
Japan, Germany and South Korea are all very different situations : Germany knew a somehow democratic political life from the end of the 19th century, even though the elected bodies were nearly powerless under the 2nd Reich. They had a true Democracy for more than a decade, and the parties that were opposed to democracy were verboten at the creation of the Federal Republic. Germany had all elements to create a modern Democracy, and its opposing factions were eager to challenge each other in elections.
The Japanese Democracy has very long belonged to the Liberal-Democrat Party (LDP), who nearly monopolized the government since WW2. Sure, Japan doesn't oppress its citizens at all, but its political system is nearly not representative : the LDP maintained power through clientelism and local bosses, as well as a soft support born by the fast Japanese reconstruction and the traditional Japanese search for consensus. Power struggles were held between the "houses" of the LDP, wiht nearly no input from the voters.
IIRC, South Korea has remained a soft police-state extremely long, and representative democracy is about a decade old. It is probably normal in a country so much threatened by the North, but one must acknowledge the democratic process has been "monitored" (to say the least) very long.
quote: I think we can be successful in Iraq so long as we keep the UN and the other Arab states out of the process. |
I wholeheartedly agree with you when you say we should keep the Arab states out of the process. The Arab states will only look for opportunities to bring riches to their leaders, or to minimize the threat a Freedom-respecting country would do to them.
However, the UN is IMHO the best option. The US haven't led any democratization process in 50 years (Germany and Japan), and they are rusty. I don't think the US had any significant influence in the recent Korean democratization, which was Korea's feat.
OTOH, the UN has several democratization processes pending, in East Timor and Bosnia. There is a wide range of tools already available in the UN, which are very experienced in education, alimentation, basic infrastructure etc. Another plus : the US might lose focus on rebuilding Iraq, when budget cuts will be needed, or chen a new administration shows up. The UN would be much more stable.
When I say I am not opposed to a US puppet government, I'm not saying it is the best possible way, because I'd much prefer a UN imposed government. It is just more likely the US gets its way.
Ned, I understand you really want to create a good democracy in Iraq to fight efficiently against fundamentalism and antiamericanism, like the US fought against communism in 1945. However, I'm not sure your determination is the same everywhere else. When I see how Halliburton plunged on the opportunity, when I see Rumsfeld saying "the Iraqis will pay for their reconstruction", I fear the short term interests of your admin will ruin this dream. And put simply, I fear the job will be half-assed, because your admin is much less determined than you.
I think the UN will 2/3rd-ass the job, which will be better 
|
|
|  |
 |
|
gsmoove23
|
|
Germany and Japan were also helped along by long stewardships by the allied governments and the presence of signficant military forces throughout the cold war and even now. South Korea similarly has been the focus of military attention and support do to its strategic flashpoint position. Iraq will hardly receive similar support and investment.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:27. Apolyton Time is 00:27. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|