Why don’t we hear echos of World Cup ‘95?
It’s been all over the blogosphere (see here, for example). Jubilation and unity in Iraq following their victory in the Asian Cup of football. Reminds me of the jubilation and unity when South Africa won the Rugby World Cup in 1995. This parallel with our own transition to democracy is yet another reason why I’m surprised South Africans aren’t more supportive of Iraq’s slow progress towards freedom. Anyone who saw our voting lines in 1994 should have seen a reflection in Iraq’s elections. Anyone who feared and fumed and fretted through those edgy years of Boipatong and Bisho, Codesa negotiations and the Boerestaat, Chris Hani’s murder and Vlakplaas revelations, would surely see that Iraq is no different. Why are most of us so eager to see the hopes of Iraqis dashed on the altar of political correctness, when we lived and realised those very same hopes ourselves?
On the upside, even the New York Times (link may need registration) surprised everyone with an editorial which opines that the war in Iraq can yet be won, that the surge strategy deserves support from Congress, and that precipitous surrender would now not be a good idea. In what amounts to a sudden about-turn, they call the political debate in the US “surreal”. The column is notable for its statement that “critics…seem unaware of the significant changes taking place”, and the unselfconscious admission that the authors - who by their own description used to be harsh critics - had not visited Iraq in almost two years. Hence their candid surprise.
Yet only a couple of weeks ago, the editor of the Financial Mail, Barney Mthombothi, wrote a harsh editorial, simply entitled Cut and run, in which he says “Iraq can never be stabilised”, and advocates withdrawal “regardless of the consequences”. Of all people, I’d have thought South Africans could see the need to support Iraq’s struggle for freedom.
A copy of my response to Mthombothi, which the FM declined to publish (perhaps because of its 700-word length), follows after the fold. Links added.
Celebrating dire consequences
Barney Mthombothi’s cover story in the Financial Mail of 13 July 2007 is perceptive, thoughtful and measured. In his editorials, he has earned a great deal of respect for the clarity of his thought and the courage of his convictions. The editor’s note in the same issue is an exception, however. He appears to surrender reason to emotion, which one wouldn’t expect from someone who surely does more than follow the popular press.
Mthombothi says Iraq can never be stabilised, and the US should withdraw regardless of the consequences.
The likely consequences include a propaganda victory for extremists and terrorists, the conversion of a battle front against terrorists into a base, and leaving the region vulnerable to oppressive theocrats and violent dictators. If none of this sounds too bad to contemplate, what about an orgy of sectarian revenge and death, such as the recent discovery near Baqubah of decapitated women and children and boobytrapped bodies? Withdrawing now would precipitate cruel disaster, whether or not you believe the war was justified in the first place.
For a South African, the view that Iraq cannot be stabilised is especially disturbing, however. Our own liberation was marred by large-scale sectarian violence, particularly in Kwazulu Natal and some townships. The daily death toll was measured in double, sometimes triple digits. Security forces took sides and precipitated massacres such as Boipatong and Bisho. Extremists staged attacks, including terrorist bombings. There were political assassinations, the explosive potential of which only remarkable moral leadership could defuse. The transition to a stable democracy involved many breakdowns in negotiations, sometimes leaving us on the brink of civil war. It took five years before we even got to our first democratic election. Several more to write a constitution and achieve reconciliation. Many South Africans paid in blood, yet it was a “peaceful” transition. Indeed, we called it a miracle when we celebrated freedom.
It may prove even more difficult in Iraq, of course, where the oppressor was overthrown by military force four years ago. That country is now going through the very same reconciliation, constitution-writing, power-sharing and democracy-building exercise we did. It is doing so in the same atmosphere of uncertainty. It is hard, but mixed progress is not “awful” or “senseless”, as South Africans should well appreciate. Iraqis already turned out to vote, and did so in their millions. That anyone who witnessed the voting lines on 27 April 1994 can turn around and tell those Iraqis that they cannot expect our continued support in their struggle for freedom and democracy, “whatever the consequences”, beggars belief. History teaches us exactly what kind of consequences we’d be condemning them to.
There are significant errors of fact in the editorial, too.
Even if you were to accept that Bush and Blair lied – i.e. deliberately misrepresented known fact – the whole world did not know it. All intelligence agencies, including those of nations opposed to intervention and indeed the UN itself, were of the opinion that Saddam did possess WMD programmes. He sure acted guilty as sin. That was also not the only reason cited for the invasion. Either way, the past cannot be wished away.
Equally mistaken is the view that 9/11 merely “unleashed the wrath” of a president with “his finger on the trigger”. Bush had been elected as a classical isolationist. He opposed Clintonian internationalism, preferring to focus on domestic affairs. He was turning his back on the world, to much global dismay. Many feared a weak, isolationist US far more than a strong US engaged in the world.
The giveaway is the coarse (and rather puerile) description of Bush as a “meathead”. This not only contradicts the image of Bush as manipulative genius, but such emotional prejudice undermines the rationality of the conclusion it is meant to support.
Whatever one’s emotional feelings towards Bush, or one’s views on the wisdom of the Iraqi invasion, the only way out is the way forward. I’d have thought someone who experienced firsthand the joy of freedom and democracy and knows the price by which they are earned would give a little more thought to the meaning of “whatever the consequences”.
Ivo Vegter
Northcliff
The rugby win in ‘95 was fantastic, and Madiba appearing in a Springbok jersey did more for national reconciliation than any speeches or policies could achieve. The African Nations Cup win in football similarly showed all South Africans that we could play and win and celebrate together. I hope the Iraqis get things sorted out, and become a united nation independent of foreign oppression. Maybe their football win will inspire them to resolve their differences.
I couldn’t agree with you more, Alwin. Whatever people might think about the invasion, its justification, its strategic value, or how the war was conducted, wishing for failure, advocating surrender, or otherwise leaving Iraq to its fate strikes me as pretty callous. I still get goosebumps when I recall our own election in 1994. How despite all the arguing and stalled negotiations and compromises and walkouts and bloodshed, we made it through. I sincerely hope ten or fifteen years from now, Iraqis can feel the same about their own liberation.
What would our democracy look like now if our cities had been bombed flat in the period 1990-1994, the infrastructure destroyed, and an occupying army still in place?
Fair comment, and one I mentioned in a previous post. If South Africa’s “peaceful transition” was so hard, and came with so many casualties, how much harder is it for Iraq, where the tyrant had to be removed by force?
That said, the collateral damage is often overstated. Your phrase is a case in point: “if our cities had been bombed flat”. They haven’t. The accuracy of weapons used by the liberating coalition in this war far exceeds that of any previous war. Granted, the opposing insurgency hasn’t been quite as considerate, and there’s clearly a lot of damage that must be repaired. But that’s why the “occupying army”, as you call them, is aiding with reconstruction. I wonder how many Iraqis will, ten years from now, claim that the damage done to infrastructure wasn’t a price worth paying for being rid of the corruption and oppression of the Ba’ath Party.
I doubt many black South Africans during the PW Botha years would have even noticed, let alone mourned, the loss of infrastructure that only the whites benefited from. In fact, the South African liberation struggle for many years was focused on sabotage. They were bombing vital infrastructure, such as government facilities, police stations and the electricity grid. They clearly felt damage to infrastructure was a price worth paying for freedom. Same goes for Iraq.
Have you ever read a book called Vortext, by Larry Bond?
If what was described in that book had taken place, that would have been a valid comparison of South Africa with Iraq. But it didn’t happen like that, so the comparison does not work.