A Nobel for Sistani

NY Times ^ | 3/20/04 | THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

[Valin]

As we approach the season of the Nobel Peace Prize, I would like to nominate the spiritual leader of Iraq's Shiites, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, for this year's medal. I'm serious.

If there is a decent outcome in Iraq, President Bush will deserve, and receive, real credit for creating the conditions for democratization there, by daring to topple Saddam Hussein. But we tend to talk about Iraq as if it is all about us and what we do. If some kind of democracy takes root there, it will also be due in large measure to the instincts and directives of the dominant Iraqi Shiite communal leader, Ayatollah Sistani. It was Mr. Sistani who insisted that there had to be a direct national election in Iraq, rejecting the original goofy U.S. proposal for regional caucuses. It was Mr. Sistani who insisted that the elections not be postponed in the face of the Baathist-fascist insurgency. And it was Mr. Sistani who ordered Shiites not to retaliate for the Sunni Baathist and jihadist attempts to drag them into a civil war by attacking Shiite mosques and massacring Shiite civilians.

In many ways, Mr. Sistani has played the role for President George W. Bush that Nelson Mandela and Mikhail Gorbachev played for his father, President George H. W. Bush. It was Mr. Mandela's instincts and leadership - in keeping the transition to black rule in South Africa nonviolent - that helped the Bush I administration and its allies bring that process in for a soft landing. And it was Mr. Gorbachev's insistence that the dismantling of the Soviet Empire, and particularly East Germany, be nonviolent that brought the Soviet Union in for a soft landing. In international relations, as in sports, it is often better to be lucky than good. And having the luck to have history deal you a Mandela, a Gorbachev or a Sistani as your partner at a key historical juncture - as opposed to a Yasir Arafat or a Robert Mugabe - can make all the difference between U.S. policy looking brilliant and U.S. policy looking futile.

Mr. Sistani has also contributed three critical elements to the democracy movement in the wider Arab world. First, he built his legitimacy around not just his religious-scholarly credentials but around a politics focused on developing Iraq for Iraqis. To put it another way, says the Middle East expert Stephen P. Cohen, "Sistani did not build his politics on negating someone else." Saddam Hussein built his politics around negating America, Iran and Israel. Arafat built his whole life around negating Zionism - rarely, if ever, speaking about Palestinian economic development or education. The politics of negation has a deep and rich history in the Middle East, because so many leaders there are illegitimate and need to negate someone to justify their rule. What Mr. Sistani, the late Lebanese Sunni leader Rafik Hariri and the new Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas all have in common is that they rose to power by focusing on a positive agenda for their own people, not negating another.

The second thing that Mr. Sistani did was put the people and their aspirations at the center of Iraqi politics, not some narrow elite or self-appointed clergy (see: Iran), which is what the Iraqi election was all about. In doing so he has helped to legitimize "people power" in a region where it was unheard of. In Lebanon, Egypt and Palestine - where Hamas recently said it would take part in parliamentary elections - the ballot box and popular support, not just the gun, are showing signs of becoming real sources of legitimacy. Both Hezbollah and Hamas will have to prove - with turnout, not terrorism - that they are entitled to a larger slice of power.

Third, and maybe most important, Mr. Sistani brings to Arab politics a legitimate, pragmatic interpretation of Islam, one that says Islam should inform politics and the constitution, but clerics should not rule.

The process of democratizing the Arab world is going to be long and bumpy. But the chances for success are immeasurably improved when we have partners from within the region who are legitimate, but have progressive instincts. That is Mr. Sistani. Lady Luck has shined on us by keeping alive this 75-year-old ayatollah, who resides in a small house in a narrow alley in Najaf and almost never goes out the door. How someone with his instincts and wisdom could have emerged from the train wreck that was Saddam Hussein's Iraq, I will never know. All I have to say is: May he live to be 120 - and give that man a Nobel Prize.

[thoughtomator]

It would be a good idea, if a) George Bush were not a much more obvious and compelling candidate for any prize awarded for the promotion of peace; and b) the Nobel Peace Prize had not long since become an insult to all men of good will.

[Valin]

I was thinking pretty much the same thing.

[nopardons]

The making of "SAINT MANDELA" was and still is a sick joke.

[nuconvert]

While I'm not opposed to Sistani being nominated, the fact is, if President Bush hadn't made the first move, Sistani wouldn't be in the running.

A shared Prize would be appropriate : Bush, Allawi, Sistani.

[kralcmot]

and, wan't it Sastani, who brokered the deal that stopped the rebellion by the Shite followers of Sadr and their occupation of Najaf?

[Valin]

Well in his defence he did have the sense to drop Winnie like a bad habit. There was/is a real piece of work.

[Crazieman]

Imagine DU if Bush gets the peace prize =]

[nuconvert]

Maybe they'd finally make good on their threats to leave the country?

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

Peace Prize this week - stabbed in the back next week

Give it a few years.

[nopardons]

But that was ONLY after she had been outed and convicted of crimes;crimes which he sanctioned.

[Valin]

MY My! Now there's a pleasent image.

[quantim]

President Bush will deserve, and receive, real credit for creating the conditions for democratization there

He deserves it, and the next one too, except for the correct vexing point in #2.

[Andy from Beaverton]

How about the prize go the terror-rat Arafat? He's finally brought peace to Israel now that he's dead.

[spyone]

Well said thougtomator! Although, you know better than get your hopes up....only liberals qualify for Nobel Peace Prizes.

[PzLdr]

"ABB": 'Anybody but Bush'- The mantra of the left.

[spokeshave]

Yeah.......and he can invite the Peanut Nobel to come on over and build some houses.

[Milhous]

Yet another goofy opinion offered up from a barking Moonbat Series Media (MSM) outlet.

Sistani hated al-Sadr and wanted him and his army destroyed - by the Americans. Although he privately encouraged the Americans to do so, it was clear that once the fighting was done, Sistani would turn around and condemn the U.S. for its actions. He was prepared to act quietly in concert with Americans, even use his forces to control al-Sadr in places. But he was setting up the U.S. to both do the bulk of the work and take the blame for it, while Sistani picked up the support that al-Sadr had by savaging the United States.

...

In a stunning move, on April 11 the United States announced a cease-fire - not with Sadr's group, but with the guerrillas inside of Fallujah. For the first time in the Iraq campaign, the U.S. had entered into negotiations with the Sunni guerrillas, who had been treated with contempt only shortly before. There was a military reason for this: The guerrillas were well dug in in Fallujah and the Marines did not relish the prospect of digging them out. But there was a political reason as well: It was a clear message to Ali al-Sistani that he had overplayed his hand, and a message to Ahmed Chalabi that his skillful manipulation of American policy in favor of the Shiites was at an end.

...

Sistani assumed the United States didn't understand that he had more to fear from Sadr than did the Americans. It turned out that the Americans did understand. From Sistani's point of view, he was trapped in the worst of all worlds. First, he was dealing with Sadr, and the Americans were not taking care of the problem. Second, the Americans were demonstrating unprecedented flexibility. Instead of ramming their heads into the wall over and over again, they were engaged in a much more sophisticated process than had ever before been seen. Instead of Sistani holding the balance of power between Americans and Sunnis, the Americans controlled the balance of power.

America's Secret War

[California Patriot]

Sistani deserves enormous credit. We and the Iraqis are lucky indeed to have him there.