Posted on 03/03/2003 7:53:32 PM PST by freedom44
In the midst of a heated transatlantic debate over Iraq, one crucial question is on everyone’s mind : how best to catalyze the implementation of an environment of trust, democratic legitimacy and accountability, as the minimal requirements for a functional region fit for the 21st century and global stability. The region in question is the Middle East. Second only to sub-Saharan Africa, despite its vast riches of fossil energy reserves and many other assets, the Middle East lags behind all other regions in all areas, from economic development to social well fare, individual liberties and democratic legitimacy (1).
A pillar of the region and key to its future developments, is Iran. Among the first non-western countries to endow itself with a Constitution, nearly a century ago, a model of fast pace modernization and anchor of stability under the Pahlavis I & II, Iran has consistently been a driving force for change. Resurrecting on the ruins of a "crumbling revolution" (5), forged by a century long struggle for modernity, reinvigorated in its national pride and culture through the coercion of a treacherous theocracy, Iran is ready for secularism and democracy. In the latest showdown of an ongoing civil disobedience movement of courage and political maturity, boycotting the theocracy’s electoral masquerade, the Iranian people sealed the illegitimacy of the entire system and its apologists, and opened the path for a restructuring referendum.
On the aftermath of this history making event in Iran, and on the eve of a regime change in neighboring Iraq, it is our pleasure to bring to the attention of our readers an interview with Dr. Michael Ledeen, a renowned National Review Online Contributing Editor. Dr Ledeen, resident Scholar in the Freedom Chair at the American Enterprise Institute, "is an expert on U.S. foreign policy. His research areas include states sponsors of terrorism, Iran, the Middle East, Europe (Italy), U.S.-China relations, intelligence, and Africa (Mozambique, South Africa, and Zimbabwe). A former consultant to the NSC and to the U.S. State and Defense Departments, he has also written on leadership and the use of power (2). His latest book is entitled The War against the Terror Masters (3)" (4).
He contributed his comments to these columns in an interview with our French editor, Ramin Parham.
Ramin Parham : The period that spans the latter part of the 19th century and the onset of the 20th century saw a history-making intellectual ferment which gave rise to the ideas that structured the world throughout the following decades. From the first human-carrying airplanes, to mass-produced interchangeable parts of automobiles, to fascism, examples are legion to characterize that era. What such major trends would you detect at this start of the 21st century? Could you please outline these trends and their most probable structuring impacts?
Michael Ledeen : I am only an historian, not a prophet. Moreover, while I am sure that we are at a major turning-point in world history, I am not at all sure that this means we will be seeing totally new ideas. I am rather inclined to believe that, with the end of the Cold War and the fall of the Communist vision, we may see another expansion of freedom in the world. As Bernard Lewis says, the current tyrannies in the Middle East are offshoots of fascism, rather than the outgrowths of Islamic thought or tradition. So the Middle East may well be transformed in the near future. You might call it "catching up" with the historical events of the late 20th century.
Ramin Parham : In January of 1943, at the Casablanca Conference, President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Churchill pledged that WWII would end only with the unconditional surrender of the Axis States. Where do you see the end of the War on Terrorism?
Michael Ledeen : It all depends if the United States and its allies see it through to the end, or settle for half a loaf. As I argue in "The War Against the Terror Masters" at a minimum we have to bring down the four regimes that constitute the engines of terror (Iran, Iraq, Syria and Saudi Arabia) and replace them with something more democratic and civilized. And of course we have to dismantle the terrorist infrastructure and arrest or execute the leaders. Then I think we will need to deal with countries like Libya, North Korea, etc.
Ramin Parham : On the aftermath of WWII, the United States used its military, political, and economic supremacy to catalyze the transition of a defeated Japan from a rigidly structured traditional society into democracy and modernity. Can today's Axis of Evil be transformed into tomorrow's axis of progress?
Michael Ledeen : There is no short and simple answer. Iran surely can. The Iranian people have shown themselves ready for such a transformation. I tend to be cautiously optimistic about the Iraqis as well. North Korea is a different story altogether, and I fear it will be a long time before those poor people can learn the habits of mind of a free society.
Ramin Parham : Democracy comes with a price. In 1910, less than 25% of Britons were registered to vote. It took a death toll of 9 million in Europe for that number to rise to 80% and include women, in 1919. What else does it take, apart from blood and suffering, for democracy to take root? Which country (ies) in the middle east seems ripest for a democratic change?
Michael Ledeen : I would say Iran and Iraq. Syria is a bit of a mystery (among other things it has the lowest level of internet usage of any Middle Eastern country).
I think that democracy has taken root most everywhere, albeit with enormous variations from country to country. In the last wave of the democratic revolution, the Reagan years and the immediate aftermath, many countries managed a peaceful transition from tyranny to democracy. Spain established the model after the death of Franco, and much of the world followed, first in Latin America, then in the old Soviet Empire. It’s clear that Iraq will shortly have to endure another war. I don’t think that will be necessary in Iran or in Saudi Arabia.
Ramin Parham : In your analysis of Machiavelli's teachings on leadership (2), emphasis is place on the virtues of "good laws, good arms, and good religion" for the proper functioning of a state. How would you describe the relationship between "strong leadership" and "individual liberty"? Can West and East meet on these issues, and where?
Michael Ledeen : If I knew the answer to that question I would be in the running for a Nobel Prize! However, Machiavelli’s insight, that strong leadership is paradoxically necessary for a free society, is still correct. And that concept is a very traditional one in the Muslim world, where the power of the leader has always been viewed as limited, and where leaders have always been reminded of their obligations. So in theory, at least, it should be possible to have democratic, Islamic countries. But theory doesn’t always dictate real practice, does it?
Ramin Parham : President Bush's repeated support for the people of Iran and their struggle for freedom has found a strong echo among Iranians. Is the US Administration's policy towards the Islamic Republic handicapped by a discrepancy between a Presidential strategy and the way this is being implemented?
Michael Ledeen : Yes, I agree with you that the US should have done more to support the Iranian struggle for freedom. I am sure this will be done, and sooner rather than later. But it is also true that Iranians, and especially Iranians living abroad, should also have done a lot more. If Iranians in the "Diaspora" were as engaged in the future of Iran as Jews outside Israel are engaged in the future of Israel, Iran would be a democratic country today.
Dr. Ledeen, thank you for your time and your insightful comments.
L
| To find all articles tagged or indexed using Bush Doctrine Unfold , click below: | ||||
| click here >>> | Bush Doctrine Unfold | <<< click here | ||
| (To view all FR Bump Lists, click here) | ||||
And since that time, we have been going the other way. :-(
That is true. There was a great involvement of Iranians living abroad in the overthrowing of the Shah, but since then?
Somedays, Carry, the world must want to scream. How can the major superpower elect someone of the stature of Reagan and then later vote in something like Clinton for eight years? Back and forth....
I am only an historian, not a prophet.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.