I don't think anybody argues that one must have a perfect human rights record to promote human rights or that one must solve all the world's problems in one go.
But does it not become just a little bit... discordant, shall we say, when democracy is promoted not in those countries where The West(TM) has most leverage and the human rights situation is most appalling (think Colombia and Saudi Arabia) but in countries where The West(TM) has little leverage and the human rights situation is not nearly as bad (think Venezuela).
If one did not know better, one might almost be tempted to conclude that the principal motivation for "democracy promotion" a la Iraq is to be found less in a sincere desire to promote democracy and human rights than in a desire for geopolitical dominance.
This analysis is what underpins the conclusion that Washington (and their European fellow travellers) do not have democracy and human rights as their primary objective in Iraq - or anywhere else.
I will leave it to the reader's judgement whether this stance is pragmatist or utopian.
I think that what is needed is more sincere advocates of democracy. And rather fewer damning-with-faint-praise "advocates" who use "democracy promotion" as a thin veil for otherwise naked colonialism. Because the latter kind give democracy a bad name.
Again, I will leave it to the reader's judgement whether this stance is pragmatist or utopian.
- Jake If you only spend 20 minutes of the rest of your life on economics, go spend them here.
You and others spend words trying to convince me, or someone, that the US cannot possibly be sincere about human rights or democracy in Iraq. I of course disagree, but it would take us way off-topic to go into why. Based on the other comments on this diary, you seem to be preaching to the choir. I suppose you and others have to assert your bona fides out of fear you'll be attacked by your supporters for responding to me. My supporters do that too sometimes. But none of it addresses the topic at hand: what should Europe do in Iraq?
I think that what is needed is more sincere advocates of democracy
Sounds good to me. Meanwhile, "On hidden agendas, I don't think the EU has credibility to convince anyone it doesn't have one." says Migeru. What is your response?
Forget about what you call Washington's "European fellow travellers". Pretend you are the EU President, you speak for a majority of the EP, AND have the ear of the Commission and the Council, and that no European national governments are in a position to block your policies. What is your plan to convince Iraqis that you are a sincere advocate?
Once you've convinced them, what do you propose to actually do to advance the cause of human rights, in Iraq specifically?
I categorically reject the idea that the powerful, prosperous countries of Europe, and the many learned diplomats who, unlike Americans, are dedicated students of world geography and culture, are somehow impotent in this matter. If the answer is, nothing can be done, then we are back to Utopianism, aren't we? __ I am the most conservative Unitarian-Universalist you will ever meet.
You and others spend words trying to convince me, or someone, that the US cannot possibly be sincere about human rights or democracy in Iraq. I of course disagree, but it would take us way off-topic to go into why.
I would be very interested in such a diary. And I am certain that I am not the only one.
Based on the other comments on this diary, you seem to be preaching to the choir.
I was responding to your comment. Specifically, I was challenging an assumption made in your comment. The reasoning underpinning this challenge can be found elsewhere as well, but I thought it courteous to provide a summary, as you are new to the site and may not be familiar with all the idiosyncrasies of the regular contributors.
But none of it addresses the topic at hand: what should Europe do in Iraq?
Paying war reparations would be a good start. In cash or in infrastructure, whichever the Iraqi people prefer.
Of course, finding out which the Iraqi people prefer is not necessarily easy, since the invasion and subsequent civil war seems to have done a fairly comprehensive job of smashing Iraqi civil society.
I think that what is needed is more sincere advocates of democracy Sounds good to me. Meanwhile, "On hidden agendas, I don't think the EU has credibility to convince anyone it doesn't have one." says Migeru. What is your response?
I think Mig's assessment is substantially correct. Mostly because Europe as currently configured does have several not-so-very-hidden agendas in the Mideast, none of which have much to do with democracy and human rights.
And even if we were to reform ourselves completely tomorrow and start promoting democracy and human rights with complete sincerity and irregardless of dirty colonialist interests, it would likely take a while before we had convinced the rest of the world that we were sincere. Trust once lost, and all that.
How many decades do I have?
Snark aside, transparency would probably be a good place to start, as would asking the locals what they would like to happen in their area. If they want a hospital, then set up a hospital. If they want a school, then set up a school. If they want to bug out, give them safe transport to wherever they want to go to. If they want us to fuck off, then leave.
Of course, in a society as smashed as the Iraqi, precisely who to ask what "the local community" wants is no simple task in and of itself. But going door-to-door and asking "what can we do for you" and "who would you trust to represent you in the community" might be a way to get a handle on it.
Also: Use local labour, use local materials, use local designs, unless the locals specifically ask for foreign stuff or manpower. The locals probably know how to build things for the local climate better than foreign contractors. And even if they don't, it's their place. If they prefer local designs even though they may be somewhat less efficient, then that's their decision.
And if they decide to change their minds midway, don't get all huffy. It's their project. They can cancel or rearrange it midway if they like.
The trickiest item to handle will probably be security, because at some point security is going to involve hitting someone over the head with a big stick. I'd like to keep the stick-hitting to an absolute minimum, though, partly because not everyone in the local community will agree on who needs to be hit over the head and how hard, and partly because so far hitting people over the head doesn't seem to have worked all that well.
At least some of the violence in Iraq is undoubtedly due to simple gangster activity. To an extent, gangsters can be bought off, and we should do that as far as it goes. Give them honest work to do (remember the part about using local labour?) and pay them a more than honest wage. That should solve most of the gangster problem. There will probably still be organised crime rings in Iraq many years from now who will trace their origins to the present civil war, but I think that vast improvements are possible with relatively little effort.
Equally undoubtedly, some of the violence is political in nature. I will leave it to those more qualified than myself to give a prescription for how to best resolve political conflicts in a society where the social contract has collapsed and the political factions do not trust one another to honour agreements. I can think of several templates, but none of them are particularly appealing.
However, assuming that the political actors are reasonably sane and are motivated primarily by material grievances - such as a desire to have reliable access to water, control natural resources, have credible guarantees that they will not be murdered in their sleep, etc., it should be possible to hammer out compromises. Especially if the rest of the world is willing to pony up enough money and resources to make political negotiations a positive-sum game.
Oh, and while I am discussing how to improve the image of Europe in the eyes of the world in general and the Iraqi people in particular, I would also point out the positive influence of an international criminal court and an international war crimes tribunal. Once we started actually prosecuting prime ministers and presidents and generals and war profiteering fatcats from Western(TM) countries, it would send a powerful message that human rights violations are not merely a pretext for colonial wars or a standard that only brown people and Russians have to adhere to.
I am also a big fan of truth and reconciliation. There has been so much death and so many crimes and so many years of war that almost everybody in Iraq is going to be a criminal in some way or another in somebody's eyes. Even if you believe that the best way to get to the truth and provide closure for the victims is a full dress trail (I don't, incidentally), the sheer scale of the devastation will make it impossible to carry out consistently in post-bellum Iraq.
One thing that we should object to - nay, condemn in the strongest possible terms - is any sign that the victors from the civil war start making kangaroo kourts and imprison/execute the losers wholesale simply for the crime of losing a civil war.
But ultimately, how Iraq - or whatever states might form from it as the result of a peace agreement - is going to deal with its victims and its executioners must be up to the Iraqi people. We can cajole, we can commend, we can recommend, we can support, we can condemn or we can argue. But if we impose a "patent solution," it would probably backfire.
Well, once we've brokered a stable peace, helped them rebuild their country, brought most of the higher echelons of our own war criminals to trial, midwifed a truth and reconciliation process, there are a variety of ways in which our grandchildren could promote democracy, liberty and human rights.
Cultural exchange programmes, scientific conferences and presenting an open society that allows Iraqis to experience a society based upon equality, liberty and democracy (of course, that requires that we have such societies to embed them in, should they accept the invitation...), just to name a few of the measures at our disposal.
We may not convince them. We may not convince their children. Or their children's children. But enlightenment has a lot going for it, and it is not going to go away (well, it might, but then we have bigger problems than how to get Iraqis to trust us...).
If the answer is, nothing can be done, then we are back to Utopianism, aren't we?
Not necessarily. The situation might reach the point where nothing can be done to salvage the situation because there is literally nothing left to salvage. If Iraq is turned into a smoking, glass-rimmed crater, for instance. I would hardly call that scenario Utopian, however. Maybe Dystopian, though.
