Home • Lunch Lectures • Meetings • Film Series • Newsletter • Purpose • Links • Contact MPAC

Bringing Democracy to Iraq

MPAC Newsletter, November 2003

By Jeff Lowell

There are many things wrong with the attack on, and occupation of, Iraq. However there was supposed to be one good thing to come out of it: the democratization of Iraq. It seems that this too has joined the long list of mistakes made in Iraq.

How does one bring democracy to another country? Peter Burnell, Senior Lecturer in Political Science at Warwick University, gives three considerations which seem to make sense:

Democratic advance must be the primary purpose of democracy assistance (although not the only one).
Democracy assistance must be peaceful.
The terms of the assistance should not be for profit, although they can be contracted out to for profit companies.

These are not a recipe for democratization. They are general guidelines that should be considered when rendering democracy assistance. Let's look at these considerations.

Clearly in Iraq the main purpose was not democratization. First, it was weapons of mass destruction. These weapons are, of course, nowhere to be found. But in the beginning, that was the rallying cry. We're in danger! We need to defend our country! It's the war on terror! Go out and buy duck tape and an SUV!

After the "major military operations" were over (read: we got control of the oil), the administration changed its tune. Now it was all about the poor Iraqi people and how they had suffered under the brutal dictatorship of Saddam Hussein (and 12 years of U.S. backed sanctions). We must bring democracy to Iraq, so that they can be a beacon of democracy in the Middle East! All of this despite the fact that a quick look at U.S. history finds that the U.S. does not have a history of bringing democracy to other countries (Guatemala, Iran, Chile). So clearly the primary goal of the United States was not democracy.

This second consideration, well obviously we dropped the ball on that one. The destruction and occupation of Iraq cannot in any way be considered peaceful democracy assistance.

Looking at what the United States has done since the end of "major military operations" ($87 billion for minor military operations?), it is clear that we Bush and Company have not lived up to the third consideration either. First, Bush and the rest of his cronies give the contracts to rebuild Iraq to Halliburton and Bechtel. Halliburton, who has been caught overcharging the government before, is put in charge of the oil, indefinitely, Dick Cheney gets his $1,000,000 check every year from Halliburton, were he just happened to be CEO before he was selected for the Vice Presidency, and everyone is happy, right? No. Bush then appoints a governing council in Iraq with virtually no real power except to make 100% ownership of business by foreigners okay. This is something unheard of in the Middle East, and in fact, the rest of the world.

If all of this wasn't enough, our own beloved University (UMaine) has now joined the ranks of war profiteers. They have joined the looting in Iraq. The postponed conference was to be held on November 13 of 2003, 150 miles away from the University at the posh Black Point Inn, was cosponsored by the University's College of Business. This conference was intended to discuss how American businesses could best profit form the "opportunities" in Iraq. They are still planning on holding the conference in the Spring and if you can afford the $850.00 per person registration fee, you'll get to listen to reputed hawk, Casper Weinberger, who was Secretary of Defense under Reagan and has been one of the top officials for Bechtel, discuss the best way to profit.

It is clear that the U.S. intends to privatize everything in Iraq and that American companies, whose CEOs just happen to be good friends with, and major financial supporters of the President, are going to be the big winners.

I am left with this question: How can invading a country, occupying it, and putting your buddies in charge of the business climate be seen as anything but war profiteering? If the real reasons that the United States invaded a sovereign nation and created a new doctrine of preemption to do it were self-defense, the war on terror, and democratization, and not oil, revenge and profit, this administration should be going out of its way not to profit from the democratization of Iraq. Let the United Nations administer Iraq and let the Iraqis decide who gets the contracts. Not only would this allay the fears of the rest of the world that the sole remaining superpower is going to war to commodify the world, it would surely bring money and troops from other countries. This would lessen the burden on the U.S. troops and the U.S. taxpayer. What could be the motivation of this administration to keep its troops in a more dangerous situation that costs us more money? It can only be that they intend to profit from this war. Combine this with the Bush administration's doctrine of preemption and you have a dangerous mix.

The College of Business and the University need to rethink their involvement with war profiteers. In the long run it will only tarnish the University's reputation much as it has tarnished the reputation of the United States.