DEMOCRACY AMERICAN STYLE
This presidency may be judged as having achieved something many would have previously have thought of as impossible. The USA, which despite its less than full respect for human life, and uneven record on domineering foreign policy - Central and Latin America in particular come to mind - had managed to hold to an image as a model of what democracy could be, a beacon of light for an oppressed world. Because this coincided with being the militarily most powerful nation on earth, the leader of the winning side in the cold war, America could be and was represented as being the national equivalent of the moral high ground. There was always an ugly side, but by straight comparison with that half of the world led by the USSR, given the balance of good versus evil in the rival systems, the US was then undoubtedly a long way ahead. But Bush/Cheney have radically altered this perception of America.

The differences could have been characterized in those days by what America could rightfully boast: the law of habeas corpus, the right to jury trials, torture being illegal and a fully transparent justice system. Elections were designed to be inclusive, open and fair, excluding bribery and any administrative obstruction to the exercise of the universal franchise. Every significant political office had to be elected - thus the jokes about dog-catchers. Sounds good? Comparatively it was. Of course there were always the Mayor Daleys, the political 'machines' and bundles of money changing hands. But on the whole, it was infinitely better than the communists, with nominated placemen moving up to positions of power through the pyramid of the only legal party; a criminal code where defence lawyers did not always bother to attend court because their clients, by virtue of being charged with a crime, must therefore be guilty. Then there were the prisons. The infamous gulags where conditions were so severe that prisoners were as likely to die there as to ever be released. They were for criminals certainly, but also for 'enemies of the state,' political prisoners who had no appeal. Even now we shudder at the fate of so many victims, that had managed to give offence to someone powerful enough to put them away in such unbelievable hell-holes.

But fifteen years after the end of the cold war and six years into Bush/ Cheney, how does the American system now compare with what is described above? The criminal justice system is a major casualty. There is no longer impartial habeas corpus - the US (unlike Russia), has now got a Soviet-style gulag system of remote prisons where the administration decides who are enemies of the state, who may then be imprisoned without trial, incarcerated and tortured, without offending US law. There is a semantic question here about torture. Cheney refers to water-boarding as a little 'dunking' (like dipping a donut in coffee). The CIA protest that they 'do not do torture', but do admit via their own inspector's report, to water-boarding. The Gestapo used this technique in WWII on French Resistance prisoners, and Pol Pot employed it in his death camps in Cambodia. In medieval times the Holy Inquisition, licenced by the church to torture, were forbidden to draw blood or to smash bones. So they played 'pain games,' raising and dropping a prisoner on a rope attached to his arms bound behind his back; they used the rack to stretch limbs out of their joints; and they put a prisoner's basted feet to roast over a slow fire, whilst they 'put the question'. But this could not be torture, because it did not breach the Pope's rules. There are obvious parallels.

There is a familiar argument that any method of interrogation is justified to acquire important knowledge, or by a further short step, to get evidence of a crime. But if that is accepted as legitimate, then we turn the clock back by centuries. The achievement of an international standard on the treatment of prisoners like the Geneva Conventions, goes out of the window. Thereafter, your own people when captured in conflict, or even civilians arrested on the street in some unfriendly country, may be treated diabolically without any recourse to protest or to international law. You have to set the standard and for the democracies, Geneva was it.

HAS US DEMOCRACY LOST ITS WAY?
In the field of US elections, on recent form it appears to the outside world that in order to get the presidential nomination of one of the two parties of power, it comes down very largely, not as one might expect to a declared policy program, but to the campaigning money that a candidate can deliver. That is either because he or his family are personally ultra-rich, or because his name is dynastic, or otherwise has a resonance with the voters (the new cult of celebrity is relevant here), who as a result will contribute the money. The reason for the big money is that the key to success with an electorate is TV advertising, so it is possible that one candidate could have zero hours of political advertising, whilst his opponent could have mega-hours. Yeltsin in Russia, with US campaign managers, won his second term that way. Advertising exists because it works, but it is a free market product and in the US, political slots have to be paid for. An interesting revelation recently was that Donald Rumsfeld intended to run for president back in '86/'87, but had to give up that aspiration because he couldn't raise the money!

The UK system is that the candidates must have equal time for their free TV and radio commercials. The broadcasters are bound by law to provide this (and are carefully monitored). This, more or less is the norm in European democracies, precisely to avoid the critical criterion in election for high office, to be favouring the candidate with the most money. [The present US presidency is the best example of what you get if the qualification is a famous (family) name backed by mega- bucks and a highly (paid) professional team to manage the campaign].

Because the elections are conducted on a collegiate basis, the presidential candidate favoured by the popular vote does not necessarily win. Leaving aside the shady business in Florida, it is not disputed that Al Gore had nation-wide, totaled hundreds of thousands more votes than Bush in the 2000 election, but to no avail. The Electoral College takes representatives from all of the states, each mandated to vote according to the results in their own state. The nature of self-interest being what it is, the opposing political parties have gerrymandered electoral boundaries to the point where the great majority of constituencies are likely to remain entirely predictable, so apart from the ballyhoo, the actual contest is fought out in just a handful of states and there, in just a small number of constituencies. The skills of the professional election managers and the unlimited resources available for such swing-states, means that the winner of the most powerful office in the world may then be determined by the clever manipulations of the election hucksters, of whom Karl Rove is the apotheosis.

The USA with 300 million citizens, with a pre-eminent military, the leading economy and seemingly imperial pretensions, is never going to be insulated from problems. Surely the President as Chief Executive for at least four years, probably eight, no matter from which party, should come from the ranks of the brightest and the best; a first class mind - a man or woman who has already 'achieved', in a competitive world? There is in the US an abundance of such tried and talented individuals available (all presidential cabinets are put together this way). Proven judgement and executive ability in the president including the choice of his team, are the most important factors, but as long as the candidate is chosen by the criteria of raising the TV campaigning war-chest, then the system has indeed lost its way.

The US has led the world for half a century but as detailed in our recent report WANTED A WORLD LEADER, has signally failed to provide leadership in several critical areas since Bush-Cheney came to power. Until the end of the Clinton presidency, many US allies and friends to large extent, like it or not, saw the leader of America as also 'their' president, their leader when it came right down to crunch world issues. Exercising the kind of authority that for example took hold of the Bosnia horror and dealt with it, whilst the Europeans were not acquitting themselves very well! Similarly, the tough decisions of taking-on Serbia direct, to liberate Kosovo. That was leadership! Republican or Democrat, since the collapse of communism at any rate, the world had come to expect, in a crisis, something admirable from US presidents - but no more!

Clearly Bush / Cheney are not the only presidential team that have failed, but it had not previously been US practice to go to war with a nation which did not attack or threaten them, or their vital interests, nor (unlike Afghanistan), have any connection with the international terrorists that had so grievously assaulted the US homeland. Saddam certainly terrified his own people,and regionally he was a menace, but as to international terrorism, there is no evidence that he was engaged, apart from supporting the Palestinians in their dispute with Israel - as do most Arab states.

Iraq was not involved with al Qaeda nor indeed with any islamic militant movement, who were certainly then not permitted in secular Iraq. Once Saddam had gone, as we can see, the foreign islamists from many nations poured in, suicide bombers and all, for their jihad. It was they who became the most destructive of the insurrectionists, since they had no political objectives other than to turn Sunni against Shia, and vice-versa, and to train a new generation of terrorists in war conditions.

To be sure it was a thoroughly despicable regime but not actually posing any threat to America. It has turned out badly, whatever the spin, and by reference to the objectives listed, it can be seen how far short the US administration are of their own set goals.

Just occasionally GWB departs from his prepared positions and ad libs. Visiting Vietnam, answering reporters questions he spoke of Iraq thuswise: " … sometimes you have to stay for the long haul - we saw that in Vietnam, we'll succeed unless we quit ". What, one wonders was in his head? Does he not know that the US had to leave Vietnam because they had lost! They left ignominiously at the end - the last out leaving the only way possible by helicopter from the roof of the barricaded embassy, from a city already fallen to the successful Vietcong. Did GWB imply that the US should not have left, but stayed even longer with even more 'surges' of new troops to be placed in harms way? Or does he simply know little of his own nation's recent history?

When President George W Bush talks about achieving victory in Iraq, it should be
measured against:


*THE US OBJECTIVES IN IRAQ
These were the objectives presented to the president and the National Security Council just prior to the invasion.

• Iraq's territorial integrity is maintained and the quality of life is improved visibly.

• Iraq is seen to be moving towards democratic institutions and serves as a model for the region.

• The US and coalition maintain freedom of action to carry out the global war on terrorism and WMD capture and destruction activities.

• Obtain international participation in the reconstruction effort.

   

• Obtain the support of the Iraqi people.

• Obtain the political support of the international community including regional states, preferably through a UN Security Council resolution.

   

• Place as many Iraqi faces in positions of physical authority as quickly as possible.

   

• Accomplish the above urgently.

As a commentary on the above, apart from the lack of success after four years, it is significant that in speaking of the 'Iraqi people' or 'Iraqi faces,' there was no concern about the lethal divisions between Shia and Sunni suppressed in Saddam's Iraq yet waiting to explode; and of the distinctly separate Kurds. They do not see themselves primarily as 'Iraqi people' (Iraq, formerly three Ottoman provinces only came into being after WWI), but in their age-old identities of Sunni, Shia and Kurd.

The US State Department has no shortage of outstanding 'arabists,' and has an ambassador in most of the surrounding countries, many of whom are career professionals, but probably few are neocons. Surely if their counsel had been given its due weight, knowing as they must have done what might be expected to happen in post-combat defeated Iraq - with some 200,000 unpaid trained fighting men demobilized, but still holding weapons suddenly on the streets; with the state breaking down and people reverting to family, clan and religion, much human misery and a great loss of life might have been avoided. But in the final analysis, it is now clear that nothing was going to stop the neocons from having their war.