A Democracy of Convenience
liberalslant.com By: Matthew Riemer - 05/06/03
The Bush administration's 2003 invasion of Iraq marks the fiftieth anniversary of U.S. interventionism in the Middle East, which began with the CIA's overthrow of Iranian Prime Minister Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh in 1953. These two events, both noteworthy in their own right, form the perfect pair of bookends for a large shelf of Washington's Middle East exploits -- from the bombing of Libya in 1986 to the first Gulf War in 1991 to involvement in Lebanon in the early '80s.
The '53 coup is significant because it was the first successful overthrow of a foreign government by the CIA. Its success showed just how much influence Washington could have in Eurasia, especially in regions on the doorstep of the Soviet Union. In short, it was a remarkable projection of power.
The most recent military action in the Middle East, "Operation Iraqi Freedom" as it's been dubbed by the U.S., represents a fundamental shift in how Washington chooses to achieve its policy goals -- now with increased unilateralism and nationalism. The policy of preemptive warfare has been both articulated and executed by the Bush administration in Iraq.
One of the most interesting observations regarding these two events though reveals a strange inverse relationship they seem to have, which possibly comments on broader policy intentions.
In both cases, the United States is carrying out "regime change." And in both cases, policy makers are concerned with how the oil industry is going to be run (nationalization/privatization). However, in the former case, the CIA removed an appointed leader and replaced him with a dictator who would then rule for 26 (1953-1979) more years. In the latter case, the opposite occurred as the U.S. removed a dictator who ruled for 26 (1976-2003) years and has replaced him with a U.S. civil administration, which will presumably attempt to foster some kind of democratic institutions.
This illustrates that the chief U.S. interest in both cases was resource security and regional hegemony/strategic positioning and not the freeing of people from the yoke of dictatorship. In Iran, the nationalization of the Anglo-Iranian Company by the Majlis threatened British and American oil interests by shutting foreign investors out of Iran's lucrative industry, which at the time, the BBC writes, "[was] the UK's largest single investment overseas." It also further distanced the U.S. and weakened its influence in a crucial Cold War state. So in this situation, it's dictatorship over democracy.
In 2003, the United States could no longer let Saddam Hussein -- a man who threatened U.S. interests and complicated Washington's plans just by his presence -- rule Iraq, which had become the epicenter of the world's most vital region and home to the second largest proven oil reserves. In this example, it's democracy over dictatorship.
When "democracy" (or, at least, non-dictatorship) happens to be Washington's goal (even rhetorically), it can make for a great sell, as was surely seen over the past several weeks. On the other hand, just because "dictatorship" can't be as readily sold to the public doesn't mean interventions that empower despotic regimes are off-limits. Forays like the CIA's in Iran aren't only for days gone by. In fact, the current situation in Venezuela resembles Iran fifty years ago quite uncannily: upstart leader connected to nationalization of the oil industry from a country with regional strategic importance is overthrown by a plutocratic/military class in the interests of corporations and foreign capital. And even though President Hugo Chavez was able to return to power, the pattern of regime change aimed at governments who resist globalization and the infiltration of their countries by foreign capital continued. So, in Venezuela, like Iran, it's dictatorship over democracy.
So democracy is only Washington's preferred political system when it happens to be one of convenience (coincides with policy). Such is the case with Iraq in 2003 because Washington's goals, to a degree, overlap with a democratic Iraq. But if Iraqi democracy produces the world's next Hugo Chavez, policy makers will very quickly have little use for such a system.
Matthew Riemer has written for years about a myriad of topics, such as: philosophy, religion, psychology, culture, and politics. He studied Russian language and culture for five years and traveled in the former Soviet Union in 1990. In addition to his work with Liberal Slant, he is also the Director of Operations at: www.YellowTimes.org as well as being in the midst of a larger autobiographical/cultural work. Matthew lives in the United States.
Find more articles by Matthew Riemer in the Liberal Slant Archives
Back to: Liberal Slant
The views expressed herein are the writers' own and do not necessarily reflect those of Liberal Slant www.liberalslant.com
2003-2002-2001-2000-1999-1998 LIBERALSLANT Web Publications. All rights reserved. liberalslant@entermail.net