by Phyllis Bennis
Institute for Policy Studies
18 November 2003

Facing the most serious escalation in U.S. casualties in Iraq, with the New York Times proclaiming “Iraq Policy in Crisis,” and with the spectre of Viet Nam-style quagmire hovering over the 2004 elections, the Bush administration has issued two major policy pronouncements. One was the November 6 speech on democracy in the Middle East, the other a high-profile timetable for ostensibly turning some authority over to Iraqis.

Both statements are critical. The first lays out the administration’s official new rationale for the Iraq war � designed to public divert attention from the lies regarding weapons of mass destruction. The second is primarily the Bush campaign effort to convince Americans the U.S. will not be bogged down in Iraq by July 2004, just five months before the elections. The effect of the shift will be to abandon even the current claim of “democratization” in Iraq in favor embracing the Iraqization of the U.S. war.

Bush’s speech on November 6 called for a “forward strategy of freedom,” placing his claimed commitment to democratization in the Middle East on par with Reagan’s Cold War call for democratization in Eastern Europe. He acknowledged that earlier U.S. policies of accommodating repressive regimes in the region “did nothing to make us safe,” but offered no indication of an actual new approach.

Bush’s speech on democracy in the Middle East is thoroughly hypocritical. While acknowledging “sixty years of Western nations excusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East,” Bush’s “forward strategy of freedom” proposed nothing to actually change the lack of freedom. While repeating the usual threats towards Syria, Iran, and Palestine, Bush praised the king of Morocco and the Gulf petro-states for their small, and in many cases largely cosmetic steps towards democracy. He lauded close U.S. allies Saudi Arabia and Egypt for initial and potential democratic openings, but assured them that “working democracies always need time to develop,” thus alleviating any fear of serious pressure on Riyadh or Cairo.

Published: Fri October 17, 2003, by Phyllis BENNIS

The U.S.-driven UN resolution passed by the Security Council provides only an internationalist fig-leaf for Washington’s occupation ; the occupation remains illegal and in violation of the UN Charter. The new resolution will do nothing to change the fundamental problems of the U.S. occupation of Iraq — the occupation’s illegitimacy, its unilateralism, and its responsibility for so much destruction in Iraq and for the on-going crisis of violence in the country. The new resolution, designed as much for Bush’s domestic political gain as for international purposes, does nothing to make the occupation acceptable, and we remain adamantly opposed to it.

by Phyllis Bennis
Institute for Policy Studies

So What Should Be Done?

1) We should oppose any new UN resolution aimed at providing more legitimacy for the U.S.-UK occupation of Iraq. The UN should not endorse, and countries should not send troops or funds, to maintain or strengthen or “internationalize” Washington’s occupation. We should demand that the UN return to its earlier position in which for 8 ½ months the Council stood defiant of the Bush administration to defend its Charter mandate to “prevent the scourge of war.” That period, in which the UN was part of the international mobilization for peace, represented the global organization’s most “relevant” and most democratic moment. Continue reading…

The draft resolution Bush has presented to the Perm Five at the UN Security Council is clearly designed to prevent UN arms inspectors from beginning their work, to encourage Iraq to back away from its commitment to unfettered access for inspectors by significantly raising the bar of what would constitute compliance. It is crafted to make a U.S. or U.S.-British military attack inevitable and cloaked with some kind of United Nations imprimatur. As one European diplomat described it, “This isn’t a resolution for inspections. This is a declaration of war.” Read more…

A point for point response to Bush’s proposed war resolution. Though the text of the passed resolution differs slightly, this analysis remains current and extremely valuable. Read more…