Dangerous Self Delusion

President Bush's recentremarks at the 20th anniversary celebrations of the National Endowment for Democracy have been seen by thedominant media as a bold and new statement on the Middle East. In fact, it is a text that drips with therhetoric and passion of the erstwhile Cold War -- a war that was cold only in the homelands of the USA and theUSSR, and not in the many lands, such as Vietnam and Angola, where it was fought out. And it presents the samedangerously self-deluding perspective that we have heard him propound many a time before in similar triumphaltones.

Before examining what he said regarding the Middle East, let me briefly point out what he said about Greece,for his two overt references to that European nation are quite instructive taken together. The first comesearly in his speech: "In the early 1970s there were about 40 democracies in the world. By the middle ofthat decade, Portugal and Spain and Greece held free elections." A few pages later, he states, "Asin the defence of Greece in 1947 . . . the strength and will of free people are now being tested before awatching world."

Now, if liberty and democracy were valiantly defended in 1947, why were the Greeks not able to enjoy freeelections for the next thirty years? Was it remotely because of the colonels that several Americanadministrations staunchly supported until finally the Greeks themselves managed to get out from under theiroppression? Such questions do not occur to him, to his speech writer, or to his close advisers who provide himall the "objective" information he needs.

Turning to the Middle East, no one doubts that the present Arab states, from Morocco to Iraq, and Iran do nothave democratic governments. The Arabs have long talked about it but nary a whisper was heard from the WhiteHouse. The report -- "Arab Human Development Report 2003" --  that President Bush cites tobuild his case was prepared under the auspices of the United Nations, and not the National Endowment forDemocracy where he spoke. And it was not the first statement of the kind; Arabic newspapers and journalpublished in Europe and in Kuwait (before 1991) have been saying similar things for some time. They areignored by President Bush, just as he ignores the al-Jazeerah satellite TV, only because they have also beenhighly critical of policies and actions of the United States.

President Bush's comments are based on the history of the region over the past sixty years. It is only forthose years that he puts the responsibility on the Western nations. "Sixty years of Western nationsexcusing and accommodating the lack of freedom in the Middle East did nothing to make us safe, because in thelong run stability cannot be purchased at the expense of liberty." The myopic and self-serving spiritthat permeates the key portions of his speech is fully evident in this one sentence. History for him begins in1943 (the year FDR met with King Ibn Saud and obtained exclusive rights to Arabian oil); the Western nationshave been neglectful but indulgent parents, and bad results have followed only for "us", andnot the Middle Eastern nations. His advice to the latter is to stop "dwelling on past wrongs and blamingothers". To get a sense of what President Bush ignores or distorts as he mendaciously blames the victims,we need only to examine what actually took place in Iran and Iraq during the colonial and the cold warperiods.

In 1914, Great Britain already held extensive control over the small states on the Persian Gulf, and so itquickly took hold of Iraq at the start of WWI. It also found willing allies against the Turks in the localcommunities of Sunni and Shi"ah Arabs and the Kurds. The direct British control continued even after thewar ended in 1919, but eventually a constitutional monarchy-the king was chosen by the British-emerged in Iraqin 1921. This constitutional polity, indirectly controlled by the imperial Britain was allowed to functionuntil 1941. Then the British again occupied Iraq for the next four years.

Subsequently, the overlordship of Great Britain continued, and Iraq became an early victim of the Cold War.It joined hands with Turkey, Great Britain, Iran, and Pakistan in what was first called the Baghdad Pact andlater, in 1955, came to be known as CENTO or the Central Treaty Organization after the United States joined asthe new overlord. Iraq's constitutional monarchy changed into a left-leaning republic in 1958 after a coup bysome radical army officers. A Baathist coup five years later eventually led to the coming to power of SaddamHussein. Forty years of tyranny followed, during which time the Baathist dictator received ample patronagefrom the Western nations so long as Iraqi oil was flowing and Western arms and armaments could be sold. If theIraqis were not able to achieve a "regime change" it was only due to the support that their tyrantreceived from abroad.

Iran was a monarchy with some semblance of constitutionalism during the first two decades of the 20thcentury, though with extensive overlordship of the British and the Russians at different times. In 1926, thechief of the Iranian army, Riza Khan, took over the reins of the state and named himself the Shah, withautocratic powers. Under him the British gained control over oil exploration while the Germans made headway inother areas of the country's economy. In 1941, the Allied armies invaded Iran, divided up the country undertwo zones of authority, the Russian and the Anglo-American. Gradually more power returned to the Iranians,i.e. the Iranian Parliament that now contained a forceful nationalist/socialist element. The latter becamestrong enough to nationalise the oil industry.

The result was as expected. A CIA instigated coup in 1953, fully described by its organizer, KermitRoosevelt, in his 1979 book Countercoup, brought back the Shah's autocratic rule, which grew moreoppressive with time. The CIA helped the Shah build his infamous secret police SAVAK. To get a sense of whatwas involved, we need only note that in the first year after the coup, the United States gave close to $85million to Iran. It is more than ironic that President Bush mentioned Saddam Hussein's desire to revive Iraq's"ancient glory" but didn't mention the mad fantasy of the last Shah of Iran at Persepolis in whichan American President -- Jimmy Carter -- participated.

The United States played no role in the ouster of the Shah; it was happy when the Islamic elements crushedtheir leftist allies in the popular movement, and for many years willingly helped the new rulers in the waragainst Iraq. It may sound incredible now but for many years after the Islamic Revolution in 1979, Israelsupplied arms to Iran against Iraq, while the Arab nations gave financial and logistical support to SaddamHussein. And both actions had the approval of the Reagan administration at Washington!

Only a deluded and deluding man can call the American policies in Iraq and Iran as policies of "excusesand accommodation". They were intrusive, distorting and corrosive. President Bush and his advisers inWashington know it, but they also know which side of their bread is more buttered. That becomes clear in hisown smug call: "Instead of dwelling on past wrongs and blaming others, governments in the Middle Eastneed to confront real problems and serve the true interest of their nations." Blaming others? The onlycountries that are most blamed for what happened in the Middle East during the sixty years of President Bush'sconcern are the United States and Israel. Most tellingly, in this major statement on the Middle East, Israelis not mentioned even once. The doctrine of "fairness", just recently invoked to veto a SecurityCouncil resolution condemning Israel and to vote against a resolution in the General Assembly, was readily putaside. Instead, the routine of blaming the victims was again repeated.

Near the end of his talk, President Bush announced the inauguration of "a new policy: a forwardstrategy of freedom in the Middle East". To most of us they may appear as vacuous words. After all, a fewhours after they were spoke, the White House made it clear, as the New York Times put it, that "itwas not threatening any consequences for his Arab allies if they failed to heed his warning." They are,in fact, ominous words. It is the same policy of "regime change" that he kept harping on beforelaunching the attack on Iraq, which in turn was no different from the cold war policies and actions of thepast. The Congress has now passed a bill asking for action against Syria. Is that where the first display ofthis "forward strategy of freedom" might be expected from the folks who brought us Desert Storms Oneand Two? The fear is real. Richard Perle recommended the same in his notorious report to Benjamin Netanyahu in2000.

C. M. Naim is Professor. Emeritus, South Asian Languages & Civilizations, University of Chicago