Waging Wars to Save People

Producer: José Ramos-Horta
Source: 13 May 04, Asian Wall Street Journal

The new socialist government in Spain has caved to the terrorist threats and
withdrawn its troops from Iraq. So have Honduras and the Dominican Republic.

They are unlikely to be the last. With the security situation expected to worsen before it improves, we have to accept that a few more countries -- who do not appreciate how much the world has at stake in building a free Iraq -- will also cut and run.

No matter how the retreating governments try to spin it, every time a country pulls out of Iraq it is al Qaeda and other extremists who win. They draw the conclusion that the coalition of the willing is weak and that the more terrorist outrages, the more countries will withdraw.

As a Nobel Peace Prize laureate, I, like most people, agonize over the use of force. But when it comes to rescuing an innocent people from tyranny or genocide, I've never questioned the justification for resorting to force. That's why I supported Vietnam's 1978 invasion of Cambodia, which ended Pol Pot's brutal regime, and Tanzania's invasion of Uganda the following year, in order to oust Idi Amin's despotic dictatorship. In both cases, those countries acted without United Nations or international approval -- and in both cases they were right to do so.

Perhaps the French have forgotten how they too toppled one of the world's
worst human-rights violators, without waiting for U.N. approval. I applauded
in the early 1980s, when French paratroopers landed in the dilapidated capital of the then Central African Empire and deposed "Emperor" Jean Bedel Bokassa, who was renowned for his cannibalism. Almost two decades later, I
applauded again as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization intervened -- without a U.N. mandate -- to end the ethnic cleaning in Kosovo, and liberate an oppressed European Muslim community from Serbian tyranny. And I rejoiced once more in 2001, after the U.S.-led overthrow of the Taliban liberated Afghanistan from one of the world's most barbaric regimes.

So why do some think Iraq should be any different? Only a year after his overthrow, they already seem to have forgotten how hundreds of thousands
perished during Saddam Hussein's tyranny, under a regime whose hallmark was
terror, summary executions, torture and rape. Forgotten too is how the Kurds
and Iraq's neighbors lived each day in fear, so long as Saddam remained in
power.

Those who oppose the use of force at any cost may question why overthrowing
Saddam was such a priority. Why not instead tackle Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe, the military junta in Myanmar, or even Syria? But while Mugabe is
a ruthless despot, he is hardly in the same league as Saddam -- a tyrant who used chemical weapons on his own people, unleashed two catastrophic wars
against his Muslim neighbors, and arrogantly defied the U.N. with impunity. Saddam's overthrow offers a chance to build a new Iraq that is peaceful,
tolerant and prosperous. That's why the stakes in Iraq are so high, and why
extremists from across the Muslim world are desperately fighting to prevent
it. They know that a free Iraq would fatally undermine their goal of purging
all Western influence from the Muslim world, overthrowing the secular regimes in the region, and imposing stone-age rule similar to that which existed in Afghanistan under the Taliban. And they know that forcing Western countries to withdraw from Iraq would be a major step toward that goal, imperiling the existence of moderate regimes -- from the Middle East to the Magreb and South and Southeast Asia.

If those regimes were to fall, hundreds of thousands of Muslims who today
denounce the "evils" of Western economic and cultural imperialism would flock to Europe, the U.S., Canada, Australia seeking refuge. As in Iran, Muslims might have to experience the reality of rule by the Ayatollahs before they realize how foolish they were not to oppose these religious zealots more vigorously.

Fortunately that remains a remote scenario. If we look beyond the daily TV
coverage of the carnage in Iraq, there is hope that Washington's grand vision of transforming Iraq might still be realized. Credible opinion polls show that a large majority of Iraqis feel better off than a year ago. There is real freedom of the press with countless newspapers and radio stations mushrooming in the new Iraq. There are thousands of computers and unhindered Internet access. Non-governmental organizations covering everything from human rights to women's' advocacy are beginning to emerge. In short, Iraq is experiencing real freedom, for the first time in its long, bloody history. And that is exactly what the religious fanatics fear.

By and large, Iraq's Shia majority has acted with great restraint in the face of constant provocation by extremist elements in the Sunni minority, Saddam loyalists and al Qaeda and other foreign mercenaries. The coalition authorities would be wise to cultivate responsible Shia clerics more closely, and ensure that their historical and legitimate concerns are met. While a Shia-dominated regime might not meet America's goal of a secular, Western-style democracy, it is still far preferable to risking the return to power of Saddam's thugs and other Sunni extremists.

The U.S. must reiterate again and again that building democracy in Iraq will
not marginalize the role of Islam. Democracy and Islam happily coexist in
countries like Indonesia, Malaysia, Bangladesh, while Israel offers an example of a state built on a single religion. That could be the case in Iraq too, as long as it is led by wise and compassionate clerics who are able to deliver freedom, tolerance, justice and good governance. The most probable contender to fill this role is Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, who has emerged as Iraq's most respected cleric and the national leader that the country needs to keep it together. He may not be a democrat in the Western mold, but it is too much to hope for a Jeffersonian democrat in today's Iraq. The U.S. needs to cultivate him, and provide whatever support is required to ensure that he emerges as ruler of the new Iraq.

The U.S. also needs to take decisive action to repair the damage done by the
revelations of mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners. While it's important to remember that those involved only represent a tiny fraction of American servicemen in Iraq, the fact remains that the pattern of abuse and cruelty was allowed to continue for many months after organizations such as the normally secretive International Committee of the Red Cross first sounded alarm bells. Only a thorough investigation, including action against those responsible for the abuses, can restore America's standing in Iraq.

Now is the time for Washington to show leadership by ensuring that the U.N.
plays the central role in building a new Iraq. As an East Timorese, I am
well aware of the international body's limits and weaknesses, having seen at
first hand its impotence in the face of Indonesia's 1975 invasion of my
country. The U.N. is the sum of all our qualities and weaknesses, our
selfish national interests and personal vanities. And for all its shortcomings, it is the only international organization we all feel part of, and should be cherished rather than further weakened. While the U.S. will continue to play a critical role in ensuring security in Iraq, a U.N.-led peace keeping force would enable many Arabs and Muslims nations to join in, and help isolate the extremists.

In almost 30 years of active political life, I have supported the use of force on several occasions and sometimes wonder whether I am a worthy recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize. Certainly I am not in the same category as other recipients such as Mother Teresa, the Dalai Lama, Desmond Tutu, or Nelson Mandela. But Mr. Mandela too recognized the need to resort to violence, in the struggle against white oppression. And the consequences of doing nothing in the face of evil were graphically demonstrated when the world stood aside and did nothing to stop the Rwandan genocide that killed almost one million people in 1994. Where were the peace protesters then?

There were no street marches and they were just as silent as they are today, in the face of the barbaric behavior of religious fanatics.

Some may accuse me of being more of a warmonger than a Nobel laureate, but I stand ready to face my critics. It is always easier to say no to war, even at the price of appeasement. But being politically correct means leaving the innocent to suffer the world over, from Phnom Penh to Baghdad. And that is what those who would cut and run from Iraq risk doing.