Democracy at gunpoint – take a closer look at the arguments of Condoleezza Rice

By: Hatto Fischer, Athens

---

Designed to convince people that the invasion of Iraq is justified by having not merely brought ‘democracy’ but by having, so her own wording, ‘unleashed the forces of democracy not merely in Iraq but in the Middle East’, the rhetorical fiction of the US administration reaches a new level of denial as to what is happening in Iraq. But to begin with from another angle, CNN had a funny banner running Sunday, April 2, 2006 underneath its usual picture of the studio with one of the anchor women reading the latest world news. It read ‘Rice and Straw in Baghdad’. Indeed, if the diplomatic efforts of the United States and Great Britain in Iraq is reduced to ‘rice’ and ‘straw’, then symbolically speaking such offer of food with a last gesture of straw as sign of hope to bring about a national government of unity may mean very little for those who have to suffer daily violence in the streets of Baghdad but for those living in the West such associations may evoke at least some further going political questioning.

After all Condoleezza Rice had just visited Jack Straw’s Blackburn constituency and offered, as reporters attest, some insights into how she thinks to continue defending the invasion of the US led coalition into Iraq. Of interest is here that most of the newspapers left out her most crucial reference to 9/11 insofar as she said in her interview to the BBC that if it is reduced to just a bunch of criminals who had hijacked the planes, then one would not understand at all the world wide deadly threat of terrorism. She added that they would kill for the sake of killing and therefore most difficult to stop.

Naturally her argumentation needs to be seen in terms of what could question the invasion of Iraq and thereby rob the US administration of any legitimacy whatsoever. By being vague and inclusive by calling terrorism a world wide phenomenon, she can skate around the usual criticism that Saddam Hussein was not involved in the 9/11 attack. A wider and more extensive interpretation of terrorism to encompass almost every threat to the power of the United States does mean the possibility to sweep under the carpet also such categories of threat whose nature is more of political defiance rather than actual military and terrorist power. Certainly a prime reason for wishing to dispose of Saddam Hussein was always the standard argument that he would not show sufficient willingness needed by the USA and Great Britain in terms of full co-operation and compliance – something only a dead man can give, but not one with a sense of political reality of his own. By not making such a distinction between different kinds of threats and by not explaining why the USA felt threatened by Saddam’s kind of definance, the Secretary of State can defend the decision to invade Iraq with the argument of democracy. It is, therefore, interesting what she had to say in Blackburn about that decision.

"I know we've made tactical errors, thousands of them, I'm sure," she said. "But when you look back in history what will be judged on is" whether the "right strategic decision" was made.

When asked a day later to give examples of the mistakes, Rice replied:

"First of all, I meant it figuratively, not literally. Let me be very clear about that. I wasn't sitting around counting," she replied. "The point I was making to the questioner ... is that, of course, if you've ever made decisions, you've undoubtedly made mistakes.

"The important thing is to get the big strategic decisions right, and that I am confident that the decision to overthrow Saddam Hussein and give the Iraqi people an opportunity for peace and for democracy is the right decision."

"The other point I was making to the questioner is that I'm enough of a historian to know that things that looked brilliant at the moment turn out in historical perspective to be mistakes, and the things that look like mistakes turn out to have been right decisions."

At this point she would emphasize that Saddam Hussein had become a ‘threat’ (e.g. for not obeying over ten years one UN resolution after another): “I believe strongly that it was the right strategic decision since Saddam (Hussein) had been a threat to the international community long enough.”

Rice said democracy in Iraq does not stabilize under shadows of guns. Rice said Saddam was overthrown with weapons but Iraqis did not go to vote in the elections under the shadow of the same weapons and added democracy’s birth may sometimes be difficult.

Going back to her acknowledgement that the United States had made "thousands" of tactical errors in Iraq, Rice insisted that these errors did not concern the strategic objectives which Washington had set itself when it intervened in Iraq. "Of course there have been mistakes. But it was not a mistake to overthrow Saddam Hussein; it was not a mistake to unleash the forces of democracy in the Middle East," she told BBC in an interview.

"It's not at gunpoint that democracy is taking place in Iraq -- at gunpoint Saddam Hussein was taken out of power but Iraqis did not go to the polls at gunpoint," she said, while conceding "the birth of democracy is sometimes difficult." Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, who has been playing host to Rice in his Blackburn constituency since Friday, shared her analysis of the situation in Iraq. "Not everything worked out afterwards as anticipated but I am absolutely clear that without that military action you would never have been able to unleash the forces of democracy not only in Iraq but ... Across the Middle East," he told the BBC.

Now let us trace the source of that metaphor ‘democracy at gunpoint’. It stems from a book written by the late Andreas Papandreou, PASOK leader and Prime Minister of Greece after his election victory in 1981. He had been arrested by the military junta which overthrow the government of Greece in 1967. It was thought that this pre-emptive strike to prevent an election victory of Papandreou’s father, George Papandreou could not have taken place without the backing of the United States. Once released from jail Andreas Papandreou resumed teaching duties at York University in Toronto, Canada (he had taught already at Berkeley) and there he wrote this book called ‘Democracy at Gunpoint’.

It is interesting that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice should pick up that title and apply it in a reverse manner to Iraq. For she argues Saddam Hussein was disposed by force but the people of Iraq could go to vote not at gunpoint but out of their own free will. This argument is hard to follow. Latest after Falluja and the sweep of that town by US forces, it is said that dead civilians do not vote. Moreover, three years after the invasion on March 21, 2003, violence has become a daily death toll. It is said that by now more than 30 000 Iraqis have been killed. Even though President Bush thinks these are sacrifices worth while on the way to democracy, it is hardly a justification of bringing democracy at gunpoint to Iraq and thereby destroying almost everything that society had in terms of cultural heritage, dignity and self governance even and despite of Saddam Hussein.

As a matter of fact Western Civilization had always prided itself to stand above human sacrifices thought to be only acts of extreme primitive societies. Hence for the president of one of the greatest democracy in the world and in history to say something stupid like this, namely that human sacrifices are worthwhile for democracy to be installed in Iraq, astonishes. Why the Western Press remains silence on this issue of ‘sacrifice’ may require some further analysis, but certainly in military and other heroic legends the term ‘sacrifice’ does make its appearance e.g. how many American GIs died to free Europe of the threat of Fascism. Still, to use this to belittle the death of innocent civilians who were meant to benefit from this democracy brought to them by a violent regime change, indicates to what primitive levels this US administration has sunk in terms of its ability to uphold and to safeguard human dignity at home and in the world. Given some of the arguments presented by Dick Cheney and Ronald Rumsfeld, it is conceivable that this primitiveness is due to ill conceived concepts they have about the nature of war and how they can deceive themselves, the President and the American people with allusions to forms of greatness when in reality even one death of an innocent civilian would be enough to realize something goes ‘wrong’. But like the statistical figures of the unemployed, the death toll is perceived as not amounting to much more than a dent in a Humvee. When one adds the latest news coming out of Iraq, namely that more than 40 000 people have been displaced countrywide as a result of ongoing sectarian violence, according to the spokesman Sattar Nawruz from the Ministry of Displacement and Migration, then Iraq is no where close to become a stable democracy, but quite the contrary on the best way to what Thomas Friedman has described (International Herald Tribune, Sat.-Sun. April 1-2, 2006, p. 7) under the title “The 11th hour of Iraq” a downward spiral of killing and vengeance. Add fear and the spiral will intensify the downward trend until people no longer know whom to trust, including those in uniform and pretending to be from the government.

If there is no government in Iraq to speak of, then because ‘regime change’ fails especially if done with violence even if in the name of democracy. It had always been the value premise of the West during the Cold War that democracy have something of value because changes in power occur ‘peacefully’. Democracies do not require violent overthrows if free and fair elections guarantee equality and justice for everyone – something having come increasingly into doubt even in the United States after the election by Bush in 2000 and 2004. If not voting machines that are rigged, Republicans have shifted boundaries of electoral constituencies to their advantage. But this was not the issue back then, during the Cold War, when the West saw how power struggles within Communist regimes meant conspiracies and back stabbing. Their leader(s) lasted as long as the First Secretary was not poisoned and until he could die a natural death. There was no such ruling as the President of the United States being allowed to serve only two terms in office.

Clearly that value premise was thrown overboard once the USA and Great Britain decided to invade Iraq after they had already got a taste of things after having overthrown the Talibans in Afghanistan. By all noble arguments to be doing this for the sake of freeing the people of a terrible dictator, one thing is repeatedly blended out in the case of Iraq. By invading, outer forces would supersede the people of Iraq and thereby rob them of the chance to make their own experiences in terms of emancipation from dictatorship. Democracy in Iraq is therefore not the result of political maturity as brought about by the Iraqis themselves but by what Adorno called ‘die Erziehung hin zur Unmuendigkeit’ – the education towards illiteracy. Like parents that rob children of very much needed experiences they need to make in order to grow up in a world not just a Walt Disney entertainment park but a reality filled with many different people and interest groups, the USA always thinks it can dictate time and pace of democratic developments in the world. It never seems to dawn on Condolleezza Rice that democracy requires the freedom to do things in one’s own time and this with such human measures as are appropriate to both the culture and experiences of the people of that land. Democracy is not doing things according to the dictates of someone else.

‘Democracy at gunpoint’ is, therefore, an apt metaphor to describe the real situation in Iraq. Reports coming out of Iraq describe the construction work going on at present military bases to make them become more permanent and endurable i.e. secure against all kinds of attacks, the best indication that no government in Baghdad can stay in power if it ignores the real power in those military bases. Contrary to the gossip of a troop reduction or troop removal the military presence is taking on a permanent feature as it did in Germany after 1945. And no wonder, after all, America is putting a lot of money into Iraq and they are not flimsy when demanding pay back at their terms and when the time is set to do so. There are the oil reserves more important to USA interests than anything else. It was also the oil ministry which was first occupied before anything else. That speaks a clear language and no public diplomacy can make people forget that any government in Baghdad will be at gunpoint. For the permanent US military bases in Iraq are directed at any pretence of democracy Iraqis may wish for even under these difficult circumstances.

The current Iraqis politicians intermeshed with the religious leaders cannot challenge openly the American dominance. They can do it only indirectly and crafty as they are, they will stall as much as they can in order to let time work for them. Here then the West has made a huge mistake. After all those brought to power in Iraq with the help of the American forces invading Iraq and toppling Saddam Hussein, they ascended not in agreement and by support of the people of Iraq but most of them came back to Iraq after having been in exile sometimes for more than 25 years, Oil minister Chalabi a prime example. He had been charged with corruption which forced him to flee the country. Since the West has its due share as to whom it supports, who not and what power games are being played (the President of Afghanistan was a former vice president in Dick Cheney’s company and therefore received practical training beforehand in how Western democracy works in the interest of large companies), one wonders what sort of democracy is meant when puppets are installed or those ousted who do not follow orders from Washington? By the same token, Chomeiny was protected by France while supporting at the same time the Shah in Persia due to his eagerness to buy more and more F 104 planes and to keep an expensive security force to suppress the opposition in Iran. This means the political game of supporting potential candidates for future reigns of power is at best contradictory and highly ‘immoral’, politically and philosophically speaking. The most apt term for all of this is the Western constant meddling in the affairs of other countries, something they would forbid anyone attempting to do likewise in their countries – see the prospects of US harbours being sold to an Arabic company or how many political rights immigrants are granted.

But let us come back to Condoleezza Rice’s admittance that the USA has made perhaps a thousand tactical mistakes even though the strategic decision to overthrow Saddam Hussein was a right one or at least so she claims. She added due to her analytical mind a sophism, namely that what may look right now as the right decision, may prove to be wrong once seen within a historical perspective. That means also vice versa what seems to be wrong right now may will prove to be right in the long term. By this she and with her Jack Straw mean ‘the unleashing of democratic forces’ and this with the explicit tool of using military action. As if soldiers could play the messenger boys of the West that finally democracy has come to their land. There is something highly naïve, but equally indicative when administrators (it should be kept in mind that Condolleezza Rice is not an elected politician but has been appointed by the US President and was ratified by Congress) use the word ‘unleashing’ to underline their basic misunderstanding of democracy. Democracy has nothing to do with force; rather it is a peaceful development requiring calmness and thoughtfulness as much as dialogue and plurality of opinions freely expressed before the most convincing arguments can be sounded out for their political future. The mistake of the USA is to think democracy can be installed at gunpoint. That is not talking to people, that is frightening them into submission if they wish to remain alive if they have survived the first rounds of attacks from first the air and then on the ground. By negating culture and dialogue and replacing it with all the military might such a superpower can muster, the USA could overran in very few days Iraq, but three years later that tool has proven to be deadly, poisonous and above all callous since it includes torture, violation of human rights and bribery leading on to still further corruption. Unfortunately the USA continues to think everyone has a prize, that is he or she can be bought in the end and thereby be won over. This cynicism has transformed the American version of democracy into a sellable commodity whose prize has to be accepted at gunpoint. It requires little imagination to know the only answer of the Iraqis to such kind of exchange democracy for weapons made in the USA is that of ‘no thank you’!