| Submit your comments on this article |
| Southeast Asia |
| US success in Iraq crucial to Asia: Lee Kuan Yew |
| 2004-06-04 |
| Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew said yesterday that the Americans must not fail in Iraq as it would have far-reaching implications for the stability and security on which East Asia depends for its prosperity. ’I think if we all start withdrawing our troops and the Americans are left alone, that’s going to be very big trouble for them. And if they fail, it’s big trouble for all of us,’ Mr Lee told an annual symposium here whose theme this year was on laying the groundwork for Asia’s regional integration. He made the remark in the context of Spain’s decision to recall its troops from Iraq after terrorists killed nearly 200 train commuters in Madrid earlier this year. He pointed out that despite the Korean and Vietnam wars and another war between Vietnam and Cambodia, East Asia had known peace and stability since 1945, thanks to the US security umbrella. He therefore urged East Asian nations to support US efforts to bring stability back to Iraq. ’Let’s try and help the Americans in whatever way we can to solve this problem, because if they get into serious trouble and cannot maintain the framework of security and stability in East Asia, we are in trouble,’ said Mr Lee. ’They have brought us, since 1945, through 60 years of peace and stability. Let’s keep it.’ The Senior Minister noted that even US Senator John Kerry, the Democratic Party presidential candidate, had not called for the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq. ’This is not Vietnam. If you withdraw, the Vietnamese are happy to see you leave and they leave you alone. If you withdraw (from Iraq) with your tail between your legs, they will chase you wherever you go,’ said Mr Lee. ’So the Americans, willy-nilly with their coalition, have got to establish some semblance of order and transfer authority to the Iraqis, then gradually withdraw and leave the Iraqis in charge.’ As to how long the process would take, Mr Lee suggested that it would depend on who wins the US presidential election in November. He cautioned however that no matter who won, if the Americans showed a lack of will in Iraq, they could land themselves and everybody else in trouble. Mr Lee said that although instability in the Middle East would have a direct impact on Europe, East Asia would also be badly affected in terms of the disruption of oil supplies and the effect on Muslim terrorists operating in this region. But Mr Lee said he did not think the US would be able to bring about democracy in Iraq. ’I do not believe, with the time that the Americans have at their disposal to stay in Iraq, that they can bring about democracy in Iraq. I think that will be very difficult,’ he said. He noted that it took the US more than 10 years to bring democracy to Japan after World War II, and similarly in the case of post-war Germany. I tend to agree with Lee that we wont see democracy in Iraq for a while, but I would settle for a sensible strong man. Someone like King Hussein of Jordan. |
| Posted by:Phil B |
| #11 Actually I'm not familiar with Rummel, it was more an observation on my part that autocrats seem to fight eachother constantly, democracies fight with autocrats relatively often... but I can't think of an instance of 2 true representative gov'ts going to war. It's pretty compelling to me... Also, who named the USA is to be the driving democracy spreading force in the world We did in 1900 when we became the most powerful nation in the world. Twice we neglected our new responsability and twice the world was thrown into chaos and millions died. Under our leadership the world has gone from so few democracies that you could count them on your fingers to half the world practicing at least a limited form of democracy. and who are the American families who will make the sacrifices for this pie in the sky dream of a more peaceful world 100 years from now? I don't understand the question. It will be those that choose to. I believe all people have equal capability, more or less... individuals are obviously smarter etc but over a large population it averages out. The problem in my view is culture. I believe the culture of democracy and capitalism is more powerful and more viral than any other culture. I'm very confident that we'll win, because of our superior culture will spread and dominate. My fear is the cost in human lives the dying gasps of our enemies will bring on us... especially in the world of nukes, bio and chemical attacks. The quicker we convert them the less likely we are hit with an attack that kills millions. |
| Posted by: Damn_Proud_American 2004-06-04 9:51:33 PM |
| #10 Democracies don't start wars with each other Are you quoting R J Rummel's theory? If so, it's a bit pre-mature to make that judgment. The period Rummel studies is 1946-1986 during the Cold War, when Communism was a common binding thread for democratic nations. I don't see that unity today against Islam. Without Britain and Australia in Iraq, the other nations are mere window dressing to the word" coalition." Rummel assumes that it's okay for a democractic nation to wage war on other nations to force democracy on them, which seems a major stretch of what is morally/ethically acceptable foreign policy. Also, who named the USA is to be the driving democracy spreading force in the world and who are the American families who will make the sacrifices for this pie in the sky dream of a more peaceful world 100 years from now? Rummel assumes that all nations have equal natural resources and equal people talents to be able to successfully compete in a capitalist driven international economy. He's wrong. Rummel evolved from being a socialist to a libertarian - he honestly believes the Tutu native in Africa and the Taliban fighter in Afghanistan and the middle class educated suburbanite in Dallas all have the same capabilities and possibilties for responding to the benefits of democracy. He's wrong. Good luck applying Rummel's philosophy to defeat the hold of Islam in the ME or communism in Communist China. And remember to use your kids not mine to do the heavy lifting in "spreading democracy" around the world. |
| Posted by: rex 2004-06-04 7:57:21 PM |
| #9 "Let's get real. We have greater danger from terrorists as a result of our open borders than whether or not there is a perfect Jeffersonian democracy in Iraq" Until the entire world is democracies there will be conflict. Democracies don't start wars with eachother. It's in our long term national interest to change the governments of then entire world into capitalistic democracies. |
| Posted by: Damn_Proud_American 2004-06-04 6:53:31 PM |
| #8 "Doesn't long term occupation by the USA fly in the face of the freedom of Iraqis to choose what government they want? " There's a correct amount of time for us to stay. I can't tell you what it is, we'll just have to play it by ear. But we were in Japan for 10 years and that turned out ok, no? I don't expect it will take more than 2 more years for Iraq to be well on we'll be able to substantially reduce our footprint. "Since 3/4 of Iraqis are practising Muslims, and Islam is a "totalitarian" mindset" Democracy and captialism are far more powerful... which our enemies are about to find out. " Also, who said democracy is the magic cure all for the world's ills?" Democracy combined with captilism is. Btw, you don't see democracies fighting eachother very often now do you? "Democracy's track record in Latin America and Asia has been abyssmal. " Really? I think they're doing FAR better than they were before... silly me. "Why do we think democracy is the only option for Iraq?" Because every other system has been proven to fail... none excluded. |
| Posted by: Damn_Proud_American 2004-06-04 6:51:48 PM |
| #7 If we have the will to stay then I have no doubt about a democracy flourishing in Iraq. Re: #6 Doesn't long term occupation by the USA fly in the face of the freedom of Iraqis to choose what government they want? Since 3/4 of Iraqis are practising Muslims, and Islam is a "totalitarian" mindset, there is a very good chance that mullahs will exert tremendous power in Iraq whether their names are on the ballots or not. American GI's babysitting Sunni and Shiite Iraqis for the next 50 years may prevent a civil war but they will not prevent the power of mullahs taking hold of Iraq. In fact continued occupation by our GI's may cause the Iraqis to cleeve more closely to their mullahs. Also, who said democracy is the magic cure all for the world's ills? Democracy's track record in Latin America and Asia has been abyssmal. Why do we think democracy is the only option for Iraq? #5 after more Americans are killed on US soil, we will become inured to the sacrifice that we will have (in many cases personally) to endure in order to destroy those who seek to kill us I suspect that people who have draft age children would disagree with you, especially since we all see that our politically correct politicians have no desire to demolish the enemy and win a war. The last time we enjoyed a resounding win on the battlefield was WWII, before Geneva Convention IV and the International Court as well as all the other nonsensical legalist rules of war were in place. Puhleaze. At this very minute, the State Dept. is bribing Third World countries to extend for another year an exemption for our soldiers from prosecution for "war crimes." This will be an annual bribe-a-thon, whose outcome will be iffy each year. Pretty soon our GI's will be required to offer water and band-aids to the enemy before they are given permission to shoot at them... along the same lines that our border gaurds offer water and medical assistence to illegal aliens who challenge our sovereignity. If you think people will become "inured" to sacrifing their sons and daughters to fight hand-cuffed for your security, you are a dreamer. Let's get real. We have greater danger from terrorists as a result of our open borders than whether or not there is a perfect Jeffersonian democracy in Iraq. Our arrogant rigidity about what kind of government emerges in Iraq combined with our blase attitude about protecting our own nation's sovereignity are very worrisome to me. It's "the will" of our own politicians to be honest about the "enemy" and to do whatever it takes to defeat it is what's in question. |
| Posted by: rex 2004-06-04 1:39:52 PM |
| #6 There will be democracy in Iraq in short order. Either that or complete chaos. There will not be an autocrat. If we have the will to stay then I have no doubt about a democracy flourishing in Iraq. If we pull out early Iraq falls into civil war and the mullahs will probably end up running the place. |
| Posted by: Damn_Proud_American 2004-06-04 11:53:54 AM |
| #5 Liberalhawk: iraq isnt Germany or Japan. We dont have the luxury of waiting that long. Actually, we do. And perhaps, after more Americans are killed on US soil, we will become inured to the sacrifice that we will have (in many cases personally) to endure in order to destroy those who seek to kill us. It's good to set high standards, but these are artificially high standards, standards that no one has ever lived up to. If America's craving for instant gratification leads to a pullout and in the future, a deferment of sacrifices to defuse threats to America's national security, the results, when war comes to America's shores again, will be catastrophic. Remember Byzantium (the Eastern Roman Empire), whose inhabitants fought amongst themselves even as the Muslim hordes assembled at their gates. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2004-06-04 11:21:45 AM |
| #4 iraq isnt Germany or Japan. We dont have the luxury of waiting that long. |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-06-04 10:34:57 AM |
| #3 Mr Lee gets it. And he lays it out so...simply. Why can't the Phrench understand it? |
| Posted by: AllahHateMe 2004-06-04 9:10:07 AM |
| #2 Mitch H: Given that Lee himself is a strongman semi-dictator, you have to take his pronouncements on democracy with a lot of condiments. Singapore does have an authoritarian government that muzzles the press (or at least any of its left-wing pronouncements), but it does hold regular free and fair elections. Note also the context in which he said democracy would not be achievable: ’I do not believe, with the time that the Americans have at their disposal to stay in Iraq, that they can bring about democracy in Iraq. I think that will be very difficult,’ he said. He noted that it took the US more than 10 years to bring democracy to Japan after World War II, and similarly in the case of post-war Germany. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2004-06-04 8:24:24 AM |
| #1 Given that Lee himself is a strongman semi-dictator, you have to take his pronouncements on democracy with a lot of condiments. That being said, Lee's about as harmless as strongmen semi-dictators get. |
| Posted by: Mitch H. 2004-06-04 7:41:45 AM |