Across the Arab world, the fall of Baghdad on April 9 is seen as a day of shame, reminiscent of June 5, 1967, when Israel defeated the armies of three Arab countries, conquering the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem in a mere six days.
Arab intellectuals, and indeed the wider Arab public, are now busy trying to analyze and understand the lessons of the Iraqi earthquake. Meanwhile, supporters of the former Baathist regime in Iraq and others are now busy defending the same old totalitarian mindset. Their tactic has been to obstruct a clear review of the Iraqi catastrophe by suggesting that any criticism of former Iraqi president Saddam Hussin's regime is tantamount to supporting the US-led occupation of Iraq.
For example, Fahd al-Fanek, a former Baath Party member, is now a columnist for the Jordanian newspaper al-Ra'i. In April, he wrote that the end of Saddam's hold on power in Iraq "provided the opportunity for the enemies of the regime to shed crocodile tears at democracy and to denounce repression and dictatorship as an indirect gesture welcoming the American occupation." None of the anti-Saddam sentiment, Al-Fanek argued, was "intended to serve the cause of democracy, but to support the American position and justify the American occupation."
Interestingly, such retrospective support for Saddam and his dictatorial regime is now being met with growing indignation in the Arab World, because ordinary Arabs are only now learning of the crimes perpetrated by the Baath Party regime. Apologists for Saddam's rule are now facing some difficult questions.
There is precedent for such soul-searching in the Arab world. In the aftermath of Israel's 1967 victory, Sadeq Jalal Al-Azm, a well-know Syrian intellectual and a professor of philosophy, published a book entitled Self-criticism after the defeat, which sharply criticized many aspects of Arab political culture. Al-Azm's book became a sensation, stimulating a wave of reviews and polemical exchanges.
Back then, the paramount question was: How did a small state like Israel defeat the armies of three Arab countries and occupy vast areas of Egyptian, Jordanian and Syrian territory in a few days? This question still echoes through the decades, and the many answers have dwelled not only on military failings, but on broader questions concerning Arab political, economic, cultural, and technological development.
The prevailing response in the 1960s to Israel's triumph was that the Arabs should adapt the guerilla strategies pursued by the Vietnamese, Chinese and Cubans. Later on, the Soviet model became popular among nationalist and leftist movements fighting for independence when they seized power in Syria, Iraq and South Yemen. Demands for democracy, popular participation and political pluralism were shelved in favor of pan-Arab national slogans urging Arab unity, the liberation of Palestine and opposition to imperialism.
But looking back on the 1970s and 1980s, the socioeconomic failures of the despotic regimes that embodied this worldview are glaringly obvious. Their countries sank deeply into debt, with low rates of growth, endemic corruption and bloated public sectors. Prisons were overcrowded, and cultural expression was stifled. Unsurprisingly, these regimes viewed the slightest criticism as treason and subversion.
This was the stagnant context in which Iraq embarked on its military expansionism in 1991, aimed at the occupation of Kuwait. Although the Iraqi forces were quickly expelled from Kuwait, Saddam's overwhelming defeat did nothing to undermine his stature in the Arab world. The remnants of Saddam's army were not pursued within Iraq, allowing him to crush the popular insurrection staged in the south, and remain in power. Despite trying to annex an Arab neighbor, Saddam was able to claim the nationalist mantle against the Americans.
Today, the previously unknown crimes committed by Saddam's regime against numberless thousands of Iraqis are being revealed. Around the Arab world, people are comparing the nationalist rhetoric of the regime with the scope of its barbarism. Shame at the price the Iraqi people have paid for the false face of the Baathist regime can be detected everywhere. It is becoming clear that no achievement, regardless of how great it may be, can justify the human cost that the Iraqi people paid over the last four decades.
In the weeks since the overthrow of Saddam's regime, and despite the US occupation, Iraqis are exercising an increasing degree of control over their daily lives. They are choosing local councils, publishing newspapers, and organizing various political and social organizations. The reconstruction of Iraq, which has now begun, will continue.
The echoes of the Iraqi quake are being felt in every Arab capital, including those that put their faith in oil riches to protect them from popular discontent. Demands for political and economic reform are escalating. The winds of change will blow once again through the Middle East, which remains threatened by both religious fundamentalism and foreign pressure. The best alternative to both is a voluntary movement toward democratic openness and political pluralism, enabling citizens across the Arab world to participate in making the future of their countries.
Hani Hourani, a political analyst, is director-general of Al-Urdun al-Jadid, a research center based in Amman, Jordan.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers