Jump to content

Who gave Iraqis the freedom to protest?


rexbo

Recommended Posts

Who gave Iraqis the freedom to protest?

Who gave Iraqis the freedom to protest?

By Boris Johnson

(Filed: 20/11/2003)

It's the call every Telegraph columnist has come to fear. "Trefgarne here," said the power-crazed new comment baron, and I sprang to attention. "You've got to write about the anti-Bush marchers," he said. "Get out into the streets and get some colour. There must be thousands of them! Go, paras, go!" Yessir, I said, and ran out into Whitehall. Helicopters whirred above.

Thousands of yellow-jacketed policemen dotted the deserted streets, like dandelions sprouting from concrete. Riot fencing ran in ribbons round Westminster. But where were the rioters?

Don't tell me, I thought, that the polls were right, and the majority of the British public, in its magnificent apathy, rather approves of a visit by the leader of Britain's closest and most important ally.

Could it be that the whole business had been hyped by the anti-war coalition? At last, I saw an obviously counter-cultural figure. She was young, good-looking and enraged. It turned out she was called Zoe, and she was, would you believe it, a reporter from The Daily Telegraph.

"It's incredible," she said. "I can't find any protesters either! There were three up by Trafalgar Square, but they've gone now. There's not even anybody protesting against Bush, and he's speaking now in the Banqueting House."

Don't worry, Zoe, I said. I told her I knew how wretched it was when an editor sends you out on a cold story. I'll give you a quote, I offered.

I'm an MP, you know.

I told her that I thought Bush should, on the whole, be welcomed. America had kept the peace in Europe for the past 50 years, and had fought for freedom everywhere from Guadalcanal to Omaha Beach, not forgetting Bosnia, where western Europeans had apathetically connived in slaughter…

But I noticed a glassy look had come over Zoe, and her pen had ceased to move across the page. OK, I said, let's go and find some protesters. We scoured the streets. Inside the Banqueting Hall, Bush was by all accounts being quite charming. Outside, at last, we found three people carrying a Bush effigy and wearing badges. They were the three that Zoe had already noticed in Trafalgar Square, but never mind. We fell on them, as an Atkins diet victim might fall on a chocolate cake.

Are you protesters? I asked, keen to show Zoe that I had not forgotten the essentials of journalism. "Yes," said their leader, a gingery cove called Ewan McKellar. Fantastic, I said.

Now I have a question for you. Here you are, protesting on the streets of London. The Metropolitan Police is showing you every possible kindness and consideration. The British taxpayer is coughing up a fortune to allow you to vent your spleen against the leader of the free world. Do you not think it paradoxical that, until April this year, the people of Iraq couldn't exercise the very freedom you are now enjoying? Do you not think it ironical that you are now demonstrating against the very man who gave the people of Baghdad that freedom to demonstrate?

Ewan looked at me in puzzlement, but I ploughed on. Do you think it a good or a bad thing that the people of Iraq are now free to demonstrate?

"Yeah, but Bush broke international law!" said Ewan. Perhaps he did, and perhaps he didn't, I said. But what about answering the question: is the freedom to demonstrate a good thing or a bad thing?

"Yeah", said Ewan, "but what about Uzbekistan? Don't you know that Bush and Blair are currently supporting Uzbekistan, which is responsible for gross abuses of human rights?" I know, I know, I said. That is reprehensible, and we should do something about Uzbekistan. But just because you can't do everything, that doesn't mean you shouldn't do something. And I repeated my question. Was it a good thing or a bad thing that people in Iraq were now free to take to the streets and insult their rulers, just like people in London?

"Well, freedom is a good thing," said Ewan at length. "Yes," agreed May-King Tsang, who was holding the Bush effigy and the badges. "It is good that they are allowed to demonstrate." What do you think? I asked the woman in the middle, a nice person with a French accent who refused to give her name.

Shouldn't we just say thanks to Bush? I looked up to see the Bush mask leering sightlessly down on us. It seemed rude to be talking about him in the third person. Thank you, Dubya! I said, raising my arms in sacerdotal appreciation of the effigy. Thank you for giving the people of Baghdad the first glimmerings of freedom.

Don't you think we should all say a big thank-you to Bush? I asked the woman with the French accent. "No," she said, and no, unlike her colleagues, she did not think it was necessarily a good thing that the Americans had brought this essential democratic freedom - the freedom of assembly - to Iraq. "It is not up to us," she said. "It is not up to us to impose democracy. It is up to them to protest if they want."

Hang on, I said: you mean it was always up to the Iraqi people to take to the streets and protest, even if that meant that they would be inevitably tortured and killed by the Mukhabarat?

"It was nice to meet you, anyway, Boris," said May-King, and we parted in polite and mutual incomprehension. They can't understand how I can fail to grasp the obvious: that Bush is a Texan warmonger, who has made the world more dangerous by his arrogant unilateralism.

I can't understand how they can fail to see that the world was already proved hideously dangerous on 9/11; that inertia was a counsel of cowardice and despair; and that, whatever the faults of his government - from Guantanamo Bay to steel tariffs - Bush has rid the world of a tyrant, who deprived his people of freedoms taken for granted in London.

Boris Johnson is MP for Henley and editor of The Spectator

Link to comment
Share on other sites





That's it, that's all you got? 24 million Iraqi people have freedoms today, of speech, religion, assembly, etc, and you think they are more glad for their freedom to attack Americans!!??? You really have missed the boat on this whole 'democracy in the Middle East' thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally am waiting for the day when the average Mohammed in the street truly realizes that he is free to express himself how he sees fit, and free to live his life without fear of a death squad, and will think that maybe blowing up the people that made this possible (not just Americans, but Brits and coalition forces too) is not such a good idea. If the average Mohammeds took back their streets and cities and told the terrorists where to get off, just think of the true sense of freedom and independence those people would have! I realize that a heavily theocratized culture and society is not likely to think this way, but oh, if they did... I wonder what it would take to make the average person lose their fear of retribution?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honest question, Jenny. In a heavily theocratized society, what type of democracy do you see growing in Iraq? Do you think they'll truly have freedom as we know and love here? Or will they have traded one tyrant for another? (Not implying Dubya here!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honest question, Jenny. In a heavily theocratized society, what type of democracy do you see growing in Iraq? Do you think they'll truly have freedom as we know and love here? Or will they have traded one tyrant for another? (Not implying Dubya here!)

Turkey is a Muslim country, and they are a democracy - the only legitimate one in the Middle East. I think the real challenge for Iraq is to base a model on what is working in Turkey. Israel is another example that a heavily theocratized society can also be a democracy. So I don't think the two are mutually exclusive. Any democracy they develop will still be based in Islam, which is fine - the differences will have to be freddom of religion and religious tolerance for all, and equal and civil rights for all, including women, neither of which is totally inconsistent with the Koran, but is inconsistent with some radical interpretations of it. We founded our nation based on Christianity in general, not one sect of Christianity versus another.

That is the other problem with creating a democracy in Iraq - despite the fact that Islam is the basic religion, the different sects are at odds with one another. It would be like trying to govern the US based on Baptist, Methodist and Church of Christ - all Protestant religions, but very different ideologically. Democracy usually means majority rules (unless the Democrats don't get their way... sorry, couldn't resist ;) ) But the problem in Iraq is that the Shites are the majority, and have been repressed by the minority Sunnis for decades - think Hutus and Tutsis without machetes. So now the Sunis are worried about democracy and repercussions... and that leads to chaos.

The Middle East correspondent for Newsweek, Fared Zakaria, has a good article about the Sunnis and the Shites in Iraq that is worth a read. I am still posting it because even tho it is not even complementary to Bush :P , it spells out a few of the problems they will be dealing with.

Solve The Sunni Problem

I do not for one minute believe they will ever have anything remotely comparable to the freedoms we enjoy in this country, altho anything is an improvement over what they had under Hussein. But few democratic countries inthe world DO have the level of freedoms we enjoy, and they are still free, successful, and democratic. But if we do not stay the course, if America withdraws and leaves the Iraqis holding the bag, a new tyrant will certainly emerge - maybe even Sadaam. That is what scares me about the Democratic position regarding Iraq - we cannot leave this undone, which is what many in your party seem to advocate. Not trying to make this political, but we have GOT to finish the job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a heavily theocratized society, what type of democracy do you see growing in Iraq? Do you think they'll truly have freedom as we know and love here? Or will they have traded one tyrant for another? (Not implying Dubya here!)

TigerAl, President Bush addressed your comment already in his speech in London. Note particularly the last sentence.

Perhaps the most helpful change we can make is to change in our own thinking. In the West, there's been a certain skepticism about the capacity or even the desire of Middle Eastern peoples for self-government. We're told that Islam is somehow inconsistent with a democratic culture. Yet more than half of the world's Muslims are today contributing citizens in democratic societies. It is suggested that the poor, in their daily struggles, care little for self-government. Yet the poor, especially, need the power of democracy to defend themselves against corrupt elites.

Peoples of the Middle East share a high civilization, a religion of personal responsibility, and a need for freedom as deep as our own. It is not realism to suppose that one-fifth of humanity is unsuited to liberty; it is pessimism and condescension, and we should have none of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, rexbo, but your point is lost on me. I don't want to assume or guess what you meant, so, could you clarify it for me? Thanks! :ph34r:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, rexbo, but your point is lost on me. I don't want to assume or guess what you meant, so, could you clarify it for me? Thanks!  :ph34r:

You said "Do you think they'll truly have freedom as we know and love here? Or will they have traded one tyrant for another?" Implying, I think, based on all of your previous arguments rejecting the action we have taken for Iraqi freedom, that you don't think they can create a democracy.

Bush said "It is not realism to suppose that one-fifth of humanity is unsuited to liberty; it is pessimism and condescension, and we should have none of it."

Or, I have I missed something, do you think the Iraqis can create a true democracy in the heart of the Middle East? And if so, why are you so opposed to the US bringing that about?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's it, that's all you got? 24 million Iraqi people have freedoms today, of speech, religion, assembly, etc, and you think they are more glad for their freedom to attack Americans!!??? You really have missed the boat on this whole 'democracy in the Middle East' thing.

Freedom of Speech? American soldiers put duct tape around a protestors mouth, put him in handcuffs and threw him in the back of their Hummer. THAT'S Freedom of Speech? The link is in this forum. There have been many other attrocities and I'll start posting some for you if you want to see them? No, "The Spectator" is merely a Bush propoganda machine, along with the Republican Congressmen visiting Baghdad and describing how they're cheered in the streets. If you want the REAL news, look at the international press.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, rexbo, but your point is lost on me. I don't want to assume or guess what you meant, so, could you clarify it for me? Thanks!  :ph34r:

You said "Do you think they'll truly have freedom as we know and love here? Or will they have traded one tyrant for another?" Implying, I think, based on all of your previous arguments rejecting the action we have taken for Iraqi freedom, that you don't think they can create a democracy.

Bush said "It is not realism to suppose that one-fifth of humanity is unsuited to liberty; it is pessimism and condescension, and we should have none of it."

Or, I have I missed something, do you think the Iraqis can create a true democracy in the heart of the Middle East? And if so, why are you so opposed to the US bringing that about?

Hey Rex, where's the WMDs? Where's the links to Al Queda? Where's the evidence of the reasons that Bush and co. gave for going to war in Iraq. I know it gives Conservatives a fuzzy and warm feeling to spin the reasons we're in Iraq, but the plain truth of the matter is Bush lied about the reason we went to war. If he were a Democrat, the hypocrites that now control Congress would have already impeached him. They also would have had a special investigator finding out which top administration officials leaked a CIA's name to the press and they'd be prosecuting them as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...