| |
| Join Our Newsletter |
 Please Select sub-criteria |  |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
With the absence of WMDs proved conclusively, the only remaining justification for the continued presence of occupation forces in Iraq is the prospect of democracy rising out of the ashes of Iraq’s battered cities. Japan and Germany have been offered as examples of what can happen when America gets it right. But scrutiny of post-war events, and indeed of democratic societies in general, indicates that the chances of success in Iraq are marginal at best.
“Free governments respect the aspirations of their citizens and serve their hopes for a better life. Free nations are peaceful nations. And free nations in the heart of the Middle East will show what is possible to others who want to live in a free society.”i
With such aspirations resting on the success of his Iraq project, it is not surprising that Bush and his administration are presently unwilling to countenance any delay in the elections scheduled for January 30th in Iraq. This is despite the significant delays in voter registration, especially in the central provinces, the ill-equipped provisional government and the likelihood of a significant increase in insurgent activity in the days before the polls.
Almost two years after the invasion of Iraq, none of the main justifications for going to war advanced by Blair and Bush have been validated by the facts on the ground. The absence of weapons of mass destruction has been proved conclusively, so Bush and Blair are left to claim that, had sanctions been lifted, it was Saddam’s intention to resume weapons production. As for links between Saddam’s regime and al-Qa’ida and other terrorist groups, who could conceivably use such dangerous weapons in a cataclysmic attack, even Donald Rumsfeld has stated publicly that he hasn’t seen any convincing evidence of this. Thus, Bush and Blair have little to show for all of the months that they spent in attempting to persuade the world and their own publics that the war was a pressing need. Their sole remaining justification for the war is that in toppling the Hussein regime, they have given Iraq the possibility of a prosperous, democratic future.
Tony Blair in particular has repeatedly emphasised the need for all sides of the political establishment in the UK to put their efforts into backing the democratic project in Iraq, rather than dwell on past events, especially ones that might suggest that he was incompetent or mendacious in building a case for war to eliminate WMDs. On the whole, Bush and Blair have largely succeeded in convincing their publics that the main concern right now for everybody should be the success of democracy in Iraq and the opportunities that beckon for that country and the wider region.
Scepticism about this grand vision is still expressed by the anti-war movement, but not because they do not believe in the importance of democracy, or that it holds the key to a stable, prosperous and peaceful future for the region. As far as they are concerned the decision to go to war had more to do with the price of Brent crude than empowering the down trodden Iraqi people. In fact, they consider that the American/British joint venture cannot afford to allow the democratic expression of the Iraqi people’s will, since that would directly clash with their neo-liberal and imperialist ambitions. As Naomi Klein wrote in the Guardian in November 2004, “Mr Bush likes to paint the forces opposed to the US presence in Iraq as enemies of democracy. In fact, much of the uprising can be traced directly to decisions made in Washington to stifle, repress, delay, manipulate and otherwise thwart the democratic aspirations of the Iraqi people.” Klein and her fellow anti-war activists desire democracy for Iraq just as ardently as Bush and Blair claim to, but they consider that this goal cannot be achieved by what they see as colonialist methods, designed to fulfil colonialist ambitions.
The introduction of democracy has become axiomatic to discussion of how the developing world, and especially the Islamic world, will provide stability and prosperity for its suffering millions. For this reason it is obvious that the outcome of the invasion of Iraq will play a central role in discussion of world politics for a long time to come. This article will look at the reasoning and justification of those who have called for the USA and other Western powers to spread democracy around the globe, whether by peaceful or martial means, and attempt to analyse how strong these claims are.
| |
| |
| |
| |
1 2 3 > Last »
Page 1 of 6 pages
| |
|
|
