These leaders will have engaged in a war against those that voted them into office. Alongside the many lives sacrificed, leaders of democratic nations--such as the USA, Turkey, Britain, other European nations such as Spain and Italy and even perhaps France will compromise from the ultimate goal of democracy--to give the people a voice.
All around the world people cry against the war. The New Research Center 2002 reports that "favor" for using force to remove Saddam is as low as 33 percent in France, 26 percent in Germany, 12 percent in Russia, and 13 percent in Turkey [Turkish respondents were asked about the use of Turkish bases by the USA and it allies.].
According to the same research, the support for the war goes only as high as 62 percent in the USA and 47 percent in Britain--countries where leaders have been obsessed about Saddam.
The support in the USA and Britain seems to have declined further in 2003. A Sunday Times poll in the aftermath of British Prime Minister Tony Blair's recent appearance in a talk-show on BBC indicates that 68 percent of the British public remain unconvinced that Saddam is"sufficiently dangerous to justify war."
The New York Times mentions that support for the war in the USA is also waning. What is surprising is that in Britain and the USA, governments and media channels voicing pro-war opinions have engaged in an aggressive media campaign to mould public opinion in favor of the war. Such campaigns have not been forceful enough to detract publics' attention away from domestic troubles, such as employment. And, yesterday's UN Security Council speech by Colin Powell has so far failed to recruit a high number of converts to war.
Despite public's growing discontent with the plans for war, the war will most likely happen. It may at best go down in history as a tale about the Anglo-American axis. The axis which has failed to indulge in drafting alternatives to war. From day one, they have tried to represent military force as the only alternative.
In contrast, European leaders, such as Schroder, have not only catered to their publics but also relied on the emphasis the EU places on negotiation to deny support for the war. The other European heavyweight, France, has not categorically denied it would join the war.
French politicians should focus on keeping the Franco-German axis strong as not only an ethnical NO to war, but also as an investment in a more coherent European foreign policy identity. Turkey, the other leading actor of the pre-war spectacle, was reluctant to give away its bases and soldiers for use. But, the government's willingness to leave the bargaining table open led to yesterday's declaration that Turkey will support the USA.
The stakes for not supporting the USA are too high, Prime Minister Gul realized "after sleepless nights." Did he sincerely believe he could end up with a foreign policy with more character when he was visiting Turkey's Arab neighbors?
What happened to the ruling party AKP's leader Erdogan's "no, not enough"s to the 2-4 billion US dollars on offer for Turkey's compensation for participation? The public has not been informed yet. And the Europeans caved in too.
Now the public opinion can be at fault easily. Politicians know better and they have access to intelligence reports and the deep dark secrets of political dungeons...the counter-argument goes. But, in war it is always the ordinary people that suffer, not the occupants of high-seats and low-dark dungeons. And, it is at least the publics' rights all over the world to have better access to why war, and not anything else, is the best way to topple the evil dictator.
And why now? Colin Powell's forceful speech to the UN Security Council provided more evidence but did not touch upon the timing of the war. One sentence in his speech suggested that the war is inevitable now because we live in the post-September 11th world. Is the post - September 11th world one where publics will further be pushed to the backstage, as they suffer the gruesome economic and emotional costs of war?
Bush Jr has recently likened Iraq's non-cooperative behavior during weapons inspections, as a movie he has already seen and not interested in seeing again. If the opposition in the world reduces itself to reluctant acceptance of war to reap off narrow benefits of a potential military victory, we will have seen the repeat of even a worse movie: The USA bullies the world, without wanting to explore more constructive types of behavior, and sadly the world gets bullied.
What distinguishes the USA from the empires of the past is the ever-elusive link the US position in the world and national identity have to "democracy". Historical empires ruled without the consent of the governed (see Dominic Lieven's book Empire), but the US government, the argument goes, presides over a nation with, disputably, more freedoms than any other.
When the US governments intervene in the world, they use the pretext that it is all in the name of democracy. Their rationalization is that Saddam, as an evil dictator (dictator: one who disregards the wishes of his own people) possesses weapons of mass destruction that can threaten the peace and stability of democratic nations.
The world always remained skeptical to what extent US policing actions were for the name of democracy and freedom. Up to this point, when the US intervened in the world, the Americans more or less bought the democracy-freedom argument.
And, when they stopped buying it, for instance in the events leading up to the end of US peacekeeping operations in Somalia, American troops pulled out. But now Americans are increasingly opposed to a war on Iraq. They have, like the rest of the world, begun to disassociate the aims of toppling Saddam from redrawing the map of Iraq and eventually the whole Middle East.
It seems the war will happen despite the growing discontent of domestic opinion in the USA and world opinion. Democracy should strike back by toppling leaders who are convinced that this war will benefit humanity. Military victory or not, it will be the last war of democratic nations and the first war of new empires, gradual re-emergence of the ghosts of the past. (AK/NM)
