#9
Russian Commentator: Iraq Crisis Has Become 'Crisis of Democracy'
Rossiyskaya Gazeta
18 March 2003
Article by Aleksandr Volkov:
"Without Trial or Investigation. Is It Possible to Install Democracy by Nondemocratic Means?"

On 11 September 2001 a new confrontation revealed itself, and it showed immediately that it could be just as destructive as the previous one -- between the two sociopolitical systems.

What happened is well known: A dark force attacked the United States of America, which was accustomed to tranquility and considered itself safe against any attack. And in a state of shock, frankly, without properly understanding what had happened -- or, more important, why -- that country immediately launched a mighty wave of retaliatory violence against those whom it considered necessary to blame for its misfortune.

At first other peoples only felt sympathy for the Americans. They agreed and still agree that terrorists are bad, because you must not kill your fellow human beings who happen to come to hand, even if you are aggrieved and humiliated, even if you are suffering and consider somebody is to blame for it.

But now a wave of mass protests against the expected US attack on Iraq has swept and is sweeping through the major cities of five continents. Most remarkably, in Britain, whose government is the most consistent ally of the United States in the planned war, demonstrators carried placards reading "Not in our name!" And an opinion poll showed that one Briton in three sees the greatest danger not in Iraq, but in the United States. What has happened?

I think it is simply that homo sapiens has woken up and remembered that in the everyday life of a democratic state you do not punish suspects before you complete the investigation. You do not accuse them without having examined the substance of the case, and on the basis of the presumption of innocence you do not sentence them to punishment without a trial where certain standards and procedures are observed. And most importantly: Even if their guilt is proven, you do not necessarily shoot them. But here they have decided to shoot a people without trial or investigation. It is not a question of Saddam Husayn alone, whatever we may think of him. And in addition it has become clear to many people that it is not only a question of Iraq, either. The suspicion has arisen that the United States, under the banner of combating terrorism and fighting for democracy, is trying to establish new rules of the game in the international arena, rules that are based not on law but on strength, assigning some special role to itself. The Iraq crisis has grown beyond local borders and turned into a crisis of the entire system of present-day international relations and a crisis of democracy. People took to the streets not simply from fear of war, but also because they do not agree with the kind of democracy where they are not taken into account when such vital matters as unleashing war are being decided.

Some people may see in the US actions salvation from unpredictable actions in the international arena by undemocratic regimes that have acquired means of mass destruction. Restricting the capabilities of such regimes is necessary, the battle for the nonproliferation of nuclear weapons is a sacred cause, and even certain actions aimed at the democratization of currently totalitarian or authoritarian regimes may be necessary and justified. But what actions, by whose will, by what means -- that is a question of principle. It seems to me that there is a growing understanding, though it is still not sufficiently established in the public consciousness, that antiterrorist actions should not turn into the preventive annihilation of suspects, or into the establishment of democracy by undemocratic, violent means, still less into something more permanent, namely hegemony or world domination by one country. Acquiring the features of a world order that you could call international totalitarianism.

The question has proved to be even bigger and wider: Is mankind in the modern world, which in the 20th century experienced two global military disasters and was more than once on the brink of the third, capable of tackling the problems of international life without the use of weapons, by peaceful means. This question -- concerning the means of resolving conflict situations -- has already become not merely a subject of debate, but even the cause of a split in the world community, in the United Nations, in the Security Council, even in NATO. It is assessed in different ways by different social and political forces within each country, including Russia.

The idea that force can only be opposed by force, that the only response to terror is terror, that in response to being threatened with a gun you shoot, is probably still too deeply entrenched in the consciousness of our citizens, and of the citizens of many other countries. But it is not only a question of the response. "Shoot first, Freddie!" I was struck by what Margret Thatcher said in her book "Statecraft," a review of which was published recently by Rossiyskaya Gazeta (21 February): "Foreign policy and security means first and foremost the use of force and might to achieve your own aims in relations with other states. As a Conservative I am absolutely unafraid of that assertion. Let others try to achieve the desired results in international affairs without relying on force."

That looks like the sober opinion of a realistic politician. But once you admit that, you no longer have the right to fight for the nonproliferation of nuclear weapons: After all, everyone, if others have those weapons and describe them as a deterrent, wants to have them too. Once you admit that, you no longer have the right not only to look for means of mass destruction in another country, but even to condemn anyone -- even Saddam or Kim Chong-il -- who, like Thatcher, apparently believes that without modern weapons, without the use of force and might, it is not possible to "achieve your own aims in relations with other states," that it is inconceivable to "achieve the desired results in international affairs without relying on force." Or then again, do you consider yourselves good people and them bad people, and that is the reason why you apply different standards to them and to yourselves? Is that the only reason you are prepared to start a war?

I will not paint apocalyptic pictures, which in fact many people have already painted. But it is obvious that if the United States attacks Iraq without the sanction of the Security Council and against the will of other peoples, the point of the existence of the United Nations Organization will simply be lost. The entire system of international relations will collapse, the system that was built up with such difficulty and at such length in the last century, after World War II, which prompted us to seek ways of preventing similar global tragedies. And, most important -- how will the world exist in the future if it cannot withstand this test today? Will the peoples be left with any trust in each other at all, even a grain of faith in the fruitfulness of collective peacemaking, in the very possibility of preventing war? It is no accident that Pope John Paul II has stated repeatedly that war on Iraq would be a "defeat for humanity."

It is also beyond doubt that the war will affect the internal lives of nearby countries, including Russia. I am not only talking about economic consequences. The war will inevitably push those whom it affects one way or another into curtailing democracy, into making their regimes tougher and more authoritarian. The signal to curtail freedom of speech has already been given in the United States: It is forbidden to mention the war at the ceremony to present the Grammy prizes...

BACK TO THE TOP    #249 CONTENTS    NEXT ARTICLE