| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| Iraq: Real change requires region-wide change |
| 2003-04-15 |
| Long, but rather interesting; from the Asia Times HONG KONG - Because of the doctrine of preventive war promoted by the administration of US President George W Bush, observers are now examining the implications of the imminent defeat of Iraq for the Middle East and elsewhere. Is the Middle East really changing? "Change" is not a concept that can be neatly captured. In fact, the vocabulary to describe and understand change in international system remains very limited. To the extent scholars talk about change at all, the approach has strictly focused on the profusion of a new cluster of influential actors. Hence, change has strictly revolved on how non-governmental organizations (NGOs), multinational enterprises (MNEs), think-tanks and epistemic communities exert their impact on the policy process of various countries and multilateral institutions. Beyond the addition of newer actors, change is also conceptualized within the context of polarities: Whether an international system is unipolar; bipolar; tripolar or multipolar. In turn, the polarities are investigated on the basis of whether they tend to increase or decrease the war-proneness of the international system. Kenneth Waltz, a political scientist at Columbia University, argues that bipolarity is more pacific as misperception is reduced. Traditional concepts of change, in other words, have been measured from the quantitative dimensions. That is, change is analyzed from the standpoint in which it can affect the high and low politics of international relations. A parallel increase in the number of NGOs and MNEs, for instance, signals an increase in the stakeholders. A state can no longer make its policy without proper regard for the interest of these two constituencies. On the other hand, the transition from bipolarity to unipolarity, as occasioned by the end of the Cold War, signals the increase in the preponderance of the United States in regions that had hitherto relied on its presence as a stabilizer. As can be seen above, change is seen or examined in a metric manner. Nevertheless, change is a complex topic that is deserving of greater attention for the simple fact that the world is constantly undergoing ideological and technological revolutions as well. From the Enlightenment to the present post-modern age, for instance, the world has witnessed both the arrival and departure of different ideologies. Their impact, familiar to any student of world history, has been significant. Nationalism, fascism, communism and liberalism have each tried to exist independently or in combination with others. The progressive introduction of the telegraph, radio, airplane, television and the Internet has also changed the face of society. Technology and ideological revolutions have often caused societies to experience disruptions. Robert Gilpin, a professor at Princeton University, has provided a useful starting point in any discussion of change. He distinguished three levels or types of change: systems change, systemic change, and interaction change. Systems change involves change in the organizing structure of the international system itself, including the character of the actors themselves. A shift in a system of empire to nation-state constitutes systems change. This occurred most profoundly in 1945, after the end of World War II, where imperialism and colonialism were invalidated. Systemic change, on the other hand, refers to change in the governance of an international system, which means change in the international distribution of power, the hierarchy of prestige, and the rules and rights embodied in the system. In other words, which country gets to be the top dog? This type of change involves basic shifts in power arrangements that facilitate or undermine the ability of hegemonic states to "govern". Interaction change is a residual category. It refers to change in the relations, processes, and specific agreements among states within the system. It refers to the vast array of day-to-day events in world politics, popularly known as globalization. In trying to draw any lessons from the Iraq war, one would find that any so-called change is merely cosmetic. The removal of Saddam Hussein does not necessarily mark any change in the Middle East or, for that matter, in international relations. This is because US unilateralism has electoral limits. The hawkish policy of the Bush administration can only have another term at the most. Nor is regime change, a seemingly subversive idea, at all unique in the annals of international relations. In fact, history is replete with democracies removing dictators, only to install other tyrants that favor the interest of democracies, an act described by John Owen IV as the process of "deposition" - in other words, the creation of congenial regimes. During the period 1815-2000 there were 110 depositions of leaders by foreign states as a result of war or as a result of intervention in an ongoing civil war to support one of the warring states. Ninety-one depositions occurred in the 20th century, including 29 brought about by the United States, 17 by the Soviet Union (or Russia before 1917), eight by the United Kingdom, five by France, nine by Germany, and four by Italy. These are the most prominent ones; there are other minor ones that include depositions during World Wars I and II. The 110 cases are only "successful" ones (as opposed to failed attempts such as the US effort to change the regime in Cuba, for example). Writing in the New York Times, Thomas Friedman has averred that the US war in Iraq is unique in the Middle East in that the United States is trying to export democracy to the Middle East through Baghdad. In other words, the US is using its military arsenal to transform radically the ideological character of another state and, ultimately, surrounding states as well. Yet, on keener analysis, this would be shown to be superficial. When Britain invaded Iraq in 1917, it made the same claim, but no such thing occurred. It remains to be seen whether the United States will avoid repeating the United Kingdom's mistake. This is doubtful, because to transform the Middle East, the US has to contend with the fact that none of the Arab countries are at present truly democratic. In attempting to change Iraq, it has to make the same aim to change other countries around Iraq, without which the Middle East would still remain volatile and vulnerable to the growth of terrorism. Hence, what would make the US war on Iraq distinct depends greatly on whether it has the will to change the entire Middle East. This would inevitably involve toppling Syria and Iran and pressuring the monarchies in the Persian Gulf region to accept democracy. Since the US can only err on the side of caution, its strategy in the region must be very conservative at best. The Middle East will not be transformed by this war any more than it was it transformed by any of the other wars that have occurred in this unstable region before. What will change is merely the balance of power - in favor of the US and Israel. Inevitably, the combined presence of Israel and the United States would only weaken the legitimacy of Arab leaders, rendering it more shaky with each growing day. The death of Arabism would also usher in a higher degree of Islamism. However, whether Islamism will turn violent or otherwise would depend very much on how the Arab leaders co-opt the younger Islamic activists and the bulging youth population who increasingly cannot tolerate the impotence of their leadership in the face of naked US and Israeli aggression. |
| Posted by:Anonymous |
| #4 The big thing is to export a Republic of Laws, under a Federal system, with democratic means for sustaining it. That is, the rights of individuals should be established first - laws that no government can unreasonably abridge - liek our bill of rights. Then the laws supporting local government - cities and states - is especially important in Iraq, since it has severla distinc cultrual and ethnic area, historically. After all that, a Federal (over-arching) system is needed to provide some unity and the ability for each of the localities to benefit from the strengths of the others, and to provide for the common defense. The other duty the Federal system would have is to guarantee those individual rights against state-local encroachment. And the bottom line way to establish this is through a 1-person 1-vote system, be it parliamentary (UK) or representative (US), with some sort of a bicameral legislative body (one proposing, the other disposing). And of course a seperate court system to judge the laws. This is going to take a while. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2003-04-15 14:28:16 |
| #3 wake up bozo's...democracy is nothing more than mob rule...just ask the prez to confirm this!! |
| Posted by: Anonymo 2003-04-15 12:57:04 |
| #2 "This is doubtful, because to transform the Middle East, the US has to contend with the fact that none of the Arab countries are at present truly democratic." He's too pessimistic - the region is far different than it was in 1917. Iraq is bordered by Turkey a democracy. By Jordan and Kuwait, neither a democracy, but both with some liberal elements in their political systems. Israel is also a regional example of a democracy - generally not a model for arabs, but Iraq for unique reasons may be an exception. In 1917 the Iraqis were liberated from the Ottomans - Arab nationalism looked like a hopeful new departure. Today they know the costs of Arab (as opposed to Iraqi) nationalism. In 1917 the Kurds were actively trying to get a seperate state - today their leaders are much more realistic. So IMO it is possible to change Iraq, without first changing the whole region. Changed Iraq will then lead to further changes in the region. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-04-15 10:17:34 |
| #1 Democracy did not come overnight for South Korea or Tawian. Kuwait and Qutar are trying, with baby-steps, to follow the right course. The region is not hopeless, just behind the curve. |
| Posted by: Yank 2003-04-15 10:42:28 |