Arabian Springtime?
Historical revisionism over Iraq has begun in earnest
“"I was cynical about Iraq. But when I saw the Iraqi people voting three weeks ago, eight million of them, it was the start of a new Arab world. The Syrian people, the Egyptian people, all say that something is changing. The Berlin Wall has fallen. We can see it."
These were the comments of Walid Jumblatt, the Druze leader in Lebanon, after thousands of anti-Syrian demonstrators swarmed onto the streets of Beirut on March 7th, demanding the end of Syrian interference in their country and the resignation of pro-Damascus Prime Minster Omar Karami – a resignation which was swiftly delivered.
Jumblatt isn’t the only one to proclaim a New Dawn across the Middle East. Commentators and politicians from across the spectrum have hailed recent events as the beginnings of a much wider democratisation, linked intrinsically as a direct result of the US-engineered invasion of Iraq. In a speech to military scholars at the National Defence University on March 8th, George Bush proclaimed that “the trumpet of freedom has been sounded, and that trumpet never calls retreat”. Meanwhile, his erstwhile companion Tony Blair described a “ripple of change” running through the region. Whilst it is not difficult to imagine the chief architects of the Iraq war seeking some justification actions, even some who opposed the invasion are re-examining their earlier positions. Jonathan Freedland writes of a “silver lining” to the Iraq war, and urges other similarly opposed people to recognise that what is flowering across the region is in fact the first steps towards a nascent democracy.
There are two responses to this proposition, which is rapidly gaining credence. The first one hardly needs to be looked into, as it has been picked through in some detail in the aftermath of the war. Throughout 2002, we were warned of the precarious danger posed by Saddam’s regime: the “clear and present threat” in President Bush’s language, the “45 minutes to destruction” claims propagated (and then spuriously denied) by Downing Street. The introduction of democracy, and its spawning across the wider Middle East, were simply never put on the table. Whilst it may have occupied the thoughts and dreams of some of the war’s neo-conservative architects, it was never presented to the public as a viable justification for military intervention, and has only now – in the grim realisation of the paucity of Saddam Hussein’s fractured regime – become a convenient fig-leaf of moral duty.
The second response is that, quite simply, those who are suggesting that the Middle East is on the verge of a monumental democratic revolution are wilfully reading too much into events that are (outside the minds of serial conspiracy-theorists) largely coincidental. The death in November of Yasser Arafat has resolved a previously insurmountable problem – the refusal by the United States and Israel to negotiate with a man they both considered an obstacle to peace. The election in January of Mahmoud Abbas has certainly brought renewed hopes for peace, but it is stretching the realms of the imagination to suggest that a resolution is near. During the supposed ceasefire, some 31 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli soldiers; meanwhile a suicide bomber struck at the heart of Tel Aviv, killing four young Israelis. To the credit of both sides there has since then been a relative lull, but there is little point in assuming that the successful election of a new leader means that the so-called ‘road map’ is back on schedule.
Meanwhile in Lebanon, the assassination of Rafik Hariri – and the subsequent anti-Syrian protests in Beirut – have swiftly been followed by a 500,000-strong Hizbullah-organised rally and, on March 10th, the re-instatement of Omar Karami as Prime Minister. If this was a revolution then it was a rapid one, and in keeping with the true meaning of the word. Reporting from the scene, Robert Fisk describes amongst the sea of bodies a poster proclaiming that “America is the source of terrorism”. Perhaps Bush is right in saying that the Lebanese people want to be free of foreign interference; however he surely must include the US and Israel in that list. More anti-Syrian demonstrations on March 14th further show how precariously balanced Lebanon remains.
Elsewhere in the Middle East, the announcement of cosmetic changes to the upcoming Egyptian elections by Hosni Mubarak has been seized on as further proof of the irrevocable slide towards democracy. Having been the victor in four consecutive single-candidate referendums, many are hoping that Mubarak will be good to his word and allow multi-candidate elections. The reality is that Mubarak, at the age of 76, will simply be fostering the illusion of free elections in order to hand over power over to his son, Jamal. Saudi Arabia, too, has promised democratic reforms – including the enfranchisement of women – although this will have to be seen to be believed.
Meanwhile, Iraq remains largely ungovernable. The election of late January already seems a distant memory, a single moment of sanity in an otherwise chaotic and fear-ravaged country. President Bush has suggested that this deeply troubled nation is the “example” for other nations in the region; yet I cannot imagine too many individuals looking towards the carnage in Baghdad and Fallujah – the daily ordeals of kidnappings by the insurgents, or shoot-first tactics of the US marines – and wishing it on their own country.
There is, of course, the chance that this Arab spring will manifest itself in the way that some have described; and five years down the line, confronted with a harmonious Middle East, a sovereign Palestine, a stable Iraq and a newly-enfranchised Egyptian population, many could regret sounding their earlier caution. However, those who engage in this wilful re-writing of history before it even happens are guilty of trying to see conjure a euphoric revolution that simply isn’t there.
“"I was cynical about Iraq. But when I saw the Iraqi people voting three weeks ago, eight million of them, it was the start of a new Arab world. The Syrian people, the Egyptian people, all say that something is changing. The Berlin Wall has fallen. We can see it."
These were the comments of Walid Jumblatt, the Druze leader in Lebanon, after thousands of anti-Syrian demonstrators swarmed onto the streets of Beirut on March 7th, demanding the end of Syrian interference in their country and the resignation of pro-Damascus Prime Minster Omar Karami – a resignation which was swiftly delivered.
Jumblatt isn’t the only one to proclaim a New Dawn across the Middle East. Commentators and politicians from across the spectrum have hailed recent events as the beginnings of a much wider democratisation, linked intrinsically as a direct result of the US-engineered invasion of Iraq. In a speech to military scholars at the National Defence University on March 8th, George Bush proclaimed that “the trumpet of freedom has been sounded, and that trumpet never calls retreat”. Meanwhile, his erstwhile companion Tony Blair described a “ripple of change” running through the region. Whilst it is not difficult to imagine the chief architects of the Iraq war seeking some justification actions, even some who opposed the invasion are re-examining their earlier positions. Jonathan Freedland writes of a “silver lining” to the Iraq war, and urges other similarly opposed people to recognise that what is flowering across the region is in fact the first steps towards a nascent democracy.
There are two responses to this proposition, which is rapidly gaining credence. The first one hardly needs to be looked into, as it has been picked through in some detail in the aftermath of the war. Throughout 2002, we were warned of the precarious danger posed by Saddam’s regime: the “clear and present threat” in President Bush’s language, the “45 minutes to destruction” claims propagated (and then spuriously denied) by Downing Street. The introduction of democracy, and its spawning across the wider Middle East, were simply never put on the table. Whilst it may have occupied the thoughts and dreams of some of the war’s neo-conservative architects, it was never presented to the public as a viable justification for military intervention, and has only now – in the grim realisation of the paucity of Saddam Hussein’s fractured regime – become a convenient fig-leaf of moral duty.
The second response is that, quite simply, those who are suggesting that the Middle East is on the verge of a monumental democratic revolution are wilfully reading too much into events that are (outside the minds of serial conspiracy-theorists) largely coincidental. The death in November of Yasser Arafat has resolved a previously insurmountable problem – the refusal by the United States and Israel to negotiate with a man they both considered an obstacle to peace. The election in January of Mahmoud Abbas has certainly brought renewed hopes for peace, but it is stretching the realms of the imagination to suggest that a resolution is near. During the supposed ceasefire, some 31 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli soldiers; meanwhile a suicide bomber struck at the heart of Tel Aviv, killing four young Israelis. To the credit of both sides there has since then been a relative lull, but there is little point in assuming that the successful election of a new leader means that the so-called ‘road map’ is back on schedule.
Meanwhile in Lebanon, the assassination of Rafik Hariri – and the subsequent anti-Syrian protests in Beirut – have swiftly been followed by a 500,000-strong Hizbullah-organised rally and, on March 10th, the re-instatement of Omar Karami as Prime Minister. If this was a revolution then it was a rapid one, and in keeping with the true meaning of the word. Reporting from the scene, Robert Fisk describes amongst the sea of bodies a poster proclaiming that “America is the source of terrorism”. Perhaps Bush is right in saying that the Lebanese people want to be free of foreign interference; however he surely must include the US and Israel in that list. More anti-Syrian demonstrations on March 14th further show how precariously balanced Lebanon remains.
Elsewhere in the Middle East, the announcement of cosmetic changes to the upcoming Egyptian elections by Hosni Mubarak has been seized on as further proof of the irrevocable slide towards democracy. Having been the victor in four consecutive single-candidate referendums, many are hoping that Mubarak will be good to his word and allow multi-candidate elections. The reality is that Mubarak, at the age of 76, will simply be fostering the illusion of free elections in order to hand over power over to his son, Jamal. Saudi Arabia, too, has promised democratic reforms – including the enfranchisement of women – although this will have to be seen to be believed.
Meanwhile, Iraq remains largely ungovernable. The election of late January already seems a distant memory, a single moment of sanity in an otherwise chaotic and fear-ravaged country. President Bush has suggested that this deeply troubled nation is the “example” for other nations in the region; yet I cannot imagine too many individuals looking towards the carnage in Baghdad and Fallujah – the daily ordeals of kidnappings by the insurgents, or shoot-first tactics of the US marines – and wishing it on their own country.
There is, of course, the chance that this Arab spring will manifest itself in the way that some have described; and five years down the line, confronted with a harmonious Middle East, a sovereign Palestine, a stable Iraq and a newly-enfranchised Egyptian population, many could regret sounding their earlier caution. However, those who engage in this wilful re-writing of history before it even happens are guilty of trying to see conjure a euphoric revolution that simply isn’t there.
posted by DN at 11:17 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home