SPEAKING
FREELY Put Mahathir in charge of
Iraq By Todd Crowell
Speaking Freely is an Asia Times
Online feature that allows guest writers to have their
say. Pleaseclick hereif you
are interested in contributing.
SEATTLE - In a speech last month at Westminster
College in Fulton, Missouri, a place made famous more
than 50 years ago when Winston Churchill delivered his
famous "Iron Curtain" speech, the presumptive nominee of
the Democratic Party outlined what he would do in Iraq
if he were president of the United States now. John
Kerry repeated his recommendation to get the
international community more involved.
But Kerry
also said he wanted to appoint a high commissioner for
Iraq, some internationally respected figure who could
work with the US, with the Iraqi interim government and
with the world community to pave the way for elections,
the drafting of a new Iraqi constitution and
reconstruction. Is there anyone better qualified to fill
such a post, if such a post were ever created, than
Malaysia's former prime minister, Mahathir Mohamad?
If the goal is to create a stable, prosperous
and democratic Iraq, who better to do that than the
former leader of the most prosperous and democratic
Muslim country in the world today? Mahathir served 22
years (1981-2003) as Malaysia's fourth and most
successful prime minister. During those years he
transformed a nation dependent on rubber and palm oil
into a regional high-tech, manufacturing and financial
powerhouse. Malaysia's economy often grew at 10 percent
a year and living standards rose 20-fold.
Moreover, Mahathir successfully governed a
country divided, like Iraq, on racial, ethnic and
religious lines. Where Iraq comprises Arabs, Kurds and
Turkomens, Malaysia is made up of Malays, Chinese and
Indians, not to mention other minorities in East
Malaysia. He has fostered affirmative programs that have
created a sizable and stable indigenous middle class,
essential for democracy, without alienating the minority
races.
The Malaysian political model offers
lessons for building democracy in Iraq. The principal
vehicle is a broad, big-tent coalition of racially
denominated parties grouped together under the umbrella
of the Barisan National Front. All races in the country
thus have a stake in the government. That this is a
winning combination was demonstrated once again in the
general election held this year. Mahathir's successor
and protege, Prime Minister Abdullah Badawi, scored a
smashing victory for progressive Islam, and easily
rolled back the more fundamentalist parties.
Where the Islamic fundamentalists have been
willing to play by the rules of electoral politics, they
have been allowed to advance their ambitions for
creating an Islamic state, either by winning seats in
the national parliament or, more important, capturing
the governments of several Muslim majority states such
as Kelantan. (In the last election they lost
Terengganu.) In those states they are able to apply, not
impose, Sharia laws on a public that generally supported
them through free elections.
At the same time
Mahathir has no qualms and has never hesitated to crack
down heavily on violent Islamists. Less than two years
ago he detained 70 militants believed connected with the
bombings in Bali, Indonesia, under the country's
Internal Security Act, which allows for indefinite
detention for national-security reasons. His actions
bring forth some grudging appreciation from the
Americans, who otherwise tend to shun him. He is hardly
shy about using state power to suppress opponents.
It is unfortunately true that Mahathir is known
in the West, if he is known at all, for his remarks at
the meeting of the Organization of Islamic Conference
(OIC) in Kuala Lumpur, where he suggested that the Jews
controlled the world. That and similar remarks he's made
from time to time cause many to write him off as an
anti-Semite. Whether or not he is viscerally
anti-Semitic (not to mention anti-British,
anti-Australian and probably anti-American) is a
question. The important thing is that his steadfast
support of the Palestinians over the years would stand
him in good stead with most Iraqis, if not the
neo-conservatives in Washington.
Putting
Mahathir in charge would pave the way for greater
participation in Iraq's postwar life by the OIC states.
It is unconscionable that the OIC has played absolutely
no role in the reconstruction of Iraq. US leaders
prattle on about trying to "internationalize" the
situation, they talk about bringing in the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization or begging the French or
Germans to send troops, yet ignore the world's largest
organization of Islamic states, which stands on the
sidelines impotently sniping and complaining. It would
also be the key to having any Muslim nations send
peacekeepers to Iraq.
If the real US goal is, as
many believe, really to create in the middle of the
Middle East an Israel-recognizing,
US-military-base-welcoming and pliant oil-producing
client state, or if the goal is to turn Iraq into a
model for conservative free-market and
"Russian-shock-style", foreign-investor-dominated
economic policies, then Mahathir would be obviously
wasting his time.
Mahathir firmly believes in
what is often called the Asian model of guided economic
development and its application in other countries, such
as Iraq. What better model for the development of Iraq's
oil industry for Iraq's people than Malaysia's
state-owned Petronas, often described as the
best-managed oil company in Asia, if not the world? His
policies have been fairly criticized for fostering
cronyism and inefficiencies and lack of competitiveness,
but this has to set in the context of a country that is
economically flat on its back. And in any case,
corruption and cronyism have been an inevitable
side-effect of Mahathir's long rule. Presumably, the
78-year-old Malaysian's tenure in Iraq would be
relatively brief.
Mahathir offers the
opportunity for an effective transition from US
occupation to a genuinely sovereign Iraq, one that
presided over by a genuinely neutral but widely
respected and deeply experienced Muslim manager who
would be nobody's puppet, certainly no foreigner's
puppet. The irony is that Iraq may in fact become more
truly sovereign under the temporary stewardship of a
foreign Muslim leader than it would under almost any
interim native leader anyone can imagine being named
after the June 30 transition.
Speaking Freely is an Asia Times
Online feature that allows guest writers to have their
say. Pleaseclick hereif you
are interested in contributing.
