BOSTON — There was an appropriate irony to the fact that the day after Saddam Hussein was found guilty and sentenced to death for his murder and torture of many Iraqis, the former American ruler of Iraq, L. Paul Bremer, published a commentary in the Wall Street Journal applauding this show of justice and rule of law in a land once terrorized by Baathist dictators. The irony stems from the juxtaposition of these two very different men who shared a common terrible legacy: Their rule of Iraq resulted in mass human suffering amidst systematic violence.
These American and Iraqi rulers of Iraq are cut from very different cloth, and used very different motives and means to pursue their policies. Bremer’s assertion that “America did a noble deed in liberating Iraq from this evil man” will long be debated around the world, but it will not change the hard realities in Iraq today. The verdict of history and time in due course will be passed on both of these men and their peculiar reigns. In their own very different ways, they reflect the dire convergence of the two most destructive forces that have plagued the Middle East in modern times: Arab despotism and Western militarism. Pain, fear and injustice come in many forms.
Paul Bremer and Saddam Hussein are the epitomes of that tradition, despite their dissimilarities. Bremer drove Iraq into the ground and sparked terrible internal conflict and mass suffering in the name of a noble mission to promote democracy, freedom and the rule of law. His motives and those of his country for Iraq were lofty, idealistic, and slightly romantic, but always well intentioned — if we give them the benefit of the doubt and take them at their word.
Saddam Hussein’s Baathist Party rule in Iraq was an evil display of systematic human cruelty and institutionalized repression. The overthrow of that regime has exposed the full extent of its torture and violence against its own citizens. It is clear that most Iraqis are pleased with the overthrow of that regime and the court trial of Hussein and his top officials.
Yet history is measured in consequence as well as motive. The consequence of the American-led military removal of the Baathist regime in Iraq has been costly indeed, in terms of tens of thousands of dead and injured, and hundreds of thousands of displaced. The country is wracked by chronic violence that is now stoked by internal ethnic and religious feuds.
The coherence of Iraq as a country is somewhat in question, and if it breaks up as a unified state the repercussions in the region could be momentous. The growing strength and influence of Iran is another consequence of U.S. policy in Iraq, with unclear implications for the region and the world. Terror in Iraq merely changed place with the transfer of power from Saddam Hussein to Paul Bremer; instead of the state terrorizing its people as happened under Hussein’s rule, terror is now used by a variety of Iraqi and other Arab factions seeking to throw out the Americans, take control of the government, and hurt rival communities.
Bremer in his commentary this week, like the George W. Bush administration’s policies in recent years, would have us judge the American proclamation of liberty in contrast with the Baathist legacy of despotism and torture. There is no possible debate if the issue is framed in this way. Liberty will always be the preferred choice. But is this the correct frame? Or is it more useful to ask if the consequences of Arab autocracy have been more or less terrible than the consequences of Western militarism?
The more useful question that Bremer and others should ask is: Can Western power be used more effectively and legitimately, working with like-minded Arabs, to gradually erase the tradition of Arab autocracy and police-states? This is more relevant than ever, because many Arab autocrats remain in power and continue to torment their citizens.
It is unclear if incumbent Arab autocrats feel more secure or less secure these days, in light of the Iraq precedent. The American experience in Iraq suggests that more such regime changes are unlikely to occur through the medium of the American armed forces. At the same time, American support for Arab autocrats remains relatively steady.
The inconsistent American record on promoting freedom and democracy in the Middle East has left Arab democracy activists in the awkward position of shunning any associations with the United States, because Washington’s policies are so widely opposed throughout the region. So the United States finds itself in the doubly awkward position of not being able to promote democracy by using its military for regime changes, and unable to connect with partners in civil society to promote democracy through peaceful means. This, too — the immobilization of America as a credible promoter of democracy — is a consequence of Washington’s policy in Iraq.
The important issues related to the trial and conviction of Saddam Hussein are neither the technicalities of the trial’s fairness and legitimacy (as critics say) nor the power of the example of removing an Arab dictator and holding him accountable for his crimes (as supports say). The core issue is about the juxtaposition of Western militarism and Arab dictatorships as twin plagues on the modern Arab world. It is good that Saddam Hussein’s regime is no longer in power to brutalize its people; but it is bad that Iraq remains convulsed by new forms of suffering, death and mass fear that have been sparked by the American invasion.
Rami G. Khouri is an internationally syndicated columnist, the director of the Issam Fares Institute at the American University of Beirut, and editor-at-large of the Beirut-based Daily Star.
Copyright ©2006 Rami G. Khouri / Agence Global
—————-
Released: 08 November 2006
Word Count: 922
—————-
For rights and permissions, contact:
rights@agenceglobal.com, 1.336.686.9002 or 1.212.731.0757