Transform what part of the region, exactly?

by Chris Bowers, Wed Jun 09, 2004 at 08:53:57 PM EST

One of the favorite hawk claims to justify both starting and continuing the war in Iraq is that a democratic Iraq will "transform" the entire region. The problem with statements such as this is they imply that every country in the Middle East is ruled either by Saddam Hussein circa 1990 or one of his cousins. This sort of attitude is spread around the country through offensive front-page stories like "bringing democracy to a region that has never known it," or "can Islam and Democracy mix?" In such stories, the entire region becomes an undifferentiated mass of dictatorial Otherness that will be transfixed by the shining light of Iraq once we turn it into America Two on June 30th.

In reality, there are nineteen countries in "the Middle East," all with different governmental organizations and with widely varying degrees of democratic self-representation. A recent BBC article offers a quick breakdown of the governments in most of these states. For those of you without time to read the entire piece, here is the 30-second summary:

  • Algeria: Powerful, dubiously elected President. Elections of 1991 were annulled after an Islamist party emerged victorious.
  • Bahrain: Constitutional monarchy. Elected parliament with gender suffrage. Independent judiciary.
  • Egypt: One-party, autocratic dictatorship.
  • Jordan: Monarchy with appointed Senate and elected House. Universal suffrage.
  • Kuwait: Constitutional monarchy. Elected parliament without gender or literacy suffrage.
  • Iran: Theocratic oligarchy. President and parliament, both of which have limited powers, are elected by universal suffrage.
  • Iraq: Ruled by the United States.
  • Israel: Parliamentary Republic.
  • Lebanon: Democratic state with universal adult suffrage.
  • Libya: Autocratic dictatorship.
  • Morocco: Monarchy. Two-thirds of the government are elected directly though universal suffrage, and one third indirectly.
  • Oman: Monarchy. Legislature has no power.
  • Qatar: Monarchy. Parliamentary elections to be held next year.
  • Saudi Arabia: Monarchy.
  • Syria: One-party state.
  • Turkey: Republic.
  • Tunisia: Republic.
  • United Arab Emirates: Monarchy.
  • Yemen: President appoints powerless legislature. Legislature nominates autocratic President.

Considering this, "transforming the region" would not appear to include transforming Algeria, Bahrain, Israel, Kuwait, Jordon, Lebanon, Morocco, Qatar, Tunsia, Turkey or Saudia Arabia. This is because in all of these states, one or more of the following applies:

  • The state is already democratic.
  • The state is a limited democracy moving toward greater democracy.
  • We are allied with that state.
  • The state cancelled elections to prevent the rise of fundamental Islam (a real catrch-22 for Americans hawkish on the Middle East).

This only leaves seven regional countries for a democratic Iraq to transform: Egypt, Iran, Libya, Oman, Syria, United Arab Emirates and Yemen. In the last twenty years, the United States has either engaged in military with, or threatened military action against, all but three of those countries: Egypt, Oman and the United Arab Emirates. Further, almost every single one of these states already has a sham legislature controlled by an unelected, autocratic government behind the scenes (like Iraq after June 30th, only with fewer Americans). It is hard to imagine how being near yet another country of that sort will transform many people in the region.

So, even in the most extreme neo-con fantasy, "transforming the region," actually means, "peacefully transforming a very small part of the region, but that probably won't even happen." It sounds a little less Romantic to phrase it that way.




Tags: World (all tags)

Display:
Permalink :: 7 Comments :: Post a Comment


Fact Check (none / 0)

You really really need to check your sources here chris.

First, the idea that Tunisia is a Democracy is deeply ridiculous. You really need to fact check...

Like many of its neighbors, Tunisia has the trapings of representative government wihtout the actual pesky detail of having those folks have power. In fact, the county is more repressive than some of the others you list as monarchies and its president got almost 100% in the last election (link).

See this economist article:
"In prosperous little Tunisia, [rules] are super strict, making for the dullest play. Except for a handful of lapdog leftist parties and a relentlessly harassed gaggle of human-rights groups, opposition, in effect, is outlawed. Last month, the president of the past 15 years, Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali, swept a referendum amending the constitution to allow him up to 12 more years in office, plus judicial impunity for life. Backed by a 130,000-strong police force, an adulatory state-controlled press, and a ruling party whose membership comprises a fifth of Tunisia's 10m population, he won a farcical 99.52% yes vote from a 99.56% turnout. Fun for Mr Ben Ali, but one dissident, writing to an Internet forum, describes the experience as "a nightmare where you scream but no sound comes out"."

The article also give a good rundown of the fake democracies of Morroco and Algeria...

You have a better case for Lebanon, but the centeral government only controls two thirds of the country and given that Hizbullah retains its weapons and 16,000 syrian troops occupy part of the country it has little actual power... (link

I'm a Newer Democrat
by samiam on Thu Jun 10, 2004 at 12:28:20 AM EST

Iraq not just a example of 'freedom' for Bush (none / 0)

Somehow I don't see even the most idealistic neo-con or neo-imperialist proponent of 'remaking' the middle east believing that all that it would take is a good example (in Iraq).

It seems to me far more likely that the phantom hope or dream is that we would apply strong military, diplomatic and political pressure on these countries, perhaps one by one. My shortened term for this is neo-imperialism, because it most resembles that approach.

We've already seen some of these people casting their dream-wishes in the direction of both Iran and Syria.  

Syrian 'remaking' might be possible once US forces are beginning to be available post-Iraq, assuming many other things (like no united opposition from the other arab states).  

Even Syria seems well beyond our capabilities to me, but realism and well thought-out plans are not the hallmark of the Bush administration.

"Pay any price, bear any burden"
by JimPortlandOR on Thu Jun 10, 2004 at 12:45:33 AM EST

Liberal Autocracy (none / 0)

In many of these Arab countries, the limited amounts of pluralism do not indicate a movement towards democracy.  In these countires, limited competition (and the tolerance of official opposition groups that never win) serves as a safety valve for dissidents to blow off steam.  Furthermore, dictators frequently find this more manageable because htey can play groups off each other.  Mubarak in Egypt for instance welcomed US aid to NGOs becuase the proliferation of NGOs furhter divided the opposition and allowed him to play groups off each other further (and give favors to some to coopt them).  In many instances, US democracy aid has played right into a dictator's hand and stabalizred hteir rule.

The exception to the liberal autocracy model is that of Syria (and pre-invasion Iraq) where a minority group rules and must maintain absolute control because they cannot effectively play groups off each other.

by Anonymous Citizen on Thu Jun 10, 2004 at 10:46:25 AM EST

Shell game (none / 0)

It's okay to take administration claims at face value and pour cold water on them, as Chris does here. But fundamentally this line about "democratizing the Middle East" is a diversion.

What's the one obvious place almost everybody else in the world would say we have to start with? Can anyone say "Palestine"? It had democratic structures that the US and the Likudists ignored and sidetracked so they could focus on demonizing Arafat and destroying the national movement.

For almost everybody except the neocons, a democratic Middle East has to start with self-determination for the Palestinians. The Iraq adventure is intended to divert attention from that crucial point.

by Anonymous Citizen on Thu Jun 10, 2004 at 12:14:25 PM EST

Attn. Jerome: Bell Battle Could Get Ugly for Bush (none / 0)

Bell Battle Could Get Ugly for Bush

By Scott Moritz
TheStreet.com Senior Writer
6/10/2004 1:24 PM EDT

A legal defeat for Ma Bell and MCI (MCIA.PK:Nasdaq - news - research) could turn into political ugliness.

The eight-year effort to stimulate phone competition by forcing Bells to rent rivals access to local networks at cheap rates hit a major roadblock at the White House Wednesday. But it was good news for the Bells, whose stocks jumped after U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson chose not to ask the Supreme Court to consider an appeal of a prior defeat of proposed pricing rules.

And soon after the Bells -- Verizon (VZ:NYSE - news - research), SBC (SBC:NYSE - news - research), BellSouth (BLS:NYSE - news - research) and Qwest (Q:NYSE - news - research) -- were handed the victory, the once-hotly divided Federal Communications Commission said it planned to offer no appeal. FCC chief Mike Powell vowed Thursday to draw up a new set of pricing rules, but offered no time frame for when the guidelines would be complete.

AT&T (T:NYSE - news - research) and MCI are the two telcos most affected by the elimination of steeply discounted access rates. Analysts and investors say that without much legal ground to stand on, the two companies face some grim decisions.

At a time when political sensitivities are running high during an election year, industry watchers fear that AT&T and MCI could announce plans to shut down consumer businesses in some states, make price hikes in other areas and possibly lay off workers, as they place the blame on the Bush administration...

http://www.thestreet.com/tech/scottmoritz/10165552.html

by Anonymous Citizen on Thu Jun 10, 2004 at 01:35:35 PM EST

Gender Suffrage? (none / 0)

Male suffrage might be more accurate.
by Drew on Thu Jun 10, 2004 at 02:29:26 PM EST

Egypt (none / 0)

Seems to me that Egypt should fall under the category of "countries we are allied with," what with all the Camp David and the money, etc. I use the worried "allied" as sneeringly as possible.
by DavidNYC on Thu Jun 10, 2004 at 02:48:04 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.

Login
Username:

Password: