Exporting freedom

In our efforts to bring Iraq 'freedom' and 'demcracy', the US is sure banning a lot of things. So far, we've banned guns, declared we will not accept an Islamic theocracy (even if that turns out to be what the Iraqis want), forbidden people who were in the top four tiers of the Ba'athist party to have government jobs (which are about the only jobs to be had right now), decreed that images of Saddam are not allowed in public places or government office, and even decided that the citizens of Najaf weren't ready to hold elections, despite the fact that they'd already been scheduled and candidates had been campaigning.

And now? Now we've decided that true free speech is a bad thing for the Iraqis, too. Any expression that incites violence against the American troops has been forbidden, and we're going so far as to include raiding newspaper offices if we don't like what the paper is saying.

Last week the US-led coalition authority brought a strong hand down on the hurly-burly collection of new voices that have cluttered Iraqi newsstands, virtually absent of any advertising, since Saddam Hussein fell. The new law bans incitement of violence against American troops or against any religious, ethnic, or gender group, and prohibits any publication that promotes a return of Saddam Hussein's Ba'ath Party.

US officials insist the law applies only to material that undermines civil order that is necessary for a free and democratic Iraq and that it is meant to prevent violence.

''It's not designed to be restrictive,'' said Charles Heatly, a coalition spokesman. ''We welcome the emergence of a free press, and we have no intention of stifling free speech.''

The act, which carries fines and prison sentences, has spawned resentment among members of the new media class, who argue that newspapers restrained from criticizing the American forces hardly constitute a free press.

''Would you agree to be constrained by a decision of President Bush?'' asked Mohammed Abdul Hadi, whose organization, the Supreme Council to Liberate Iraq, helps publish and distribute Sadda-al-Auma. ''Why do you apply these constraints on Iraq when they are not applied on Americans?''

I'm sure the Iraqis are wondering what, exactly, freedom for them will look like. We may not be anywhere near as cruel as Saddam Hussein was, but even if our suppression is benign, it is still suppression. Before the war began, we promised the Iraqis freedom and a better life, yet all we seem to have done so far is trade one set of restrictive rules - Saddams - for another - ours. We're telling them what parties can exist, when they can hold elections, how they can express themselves and that they're not allowed to have guns - all things which we, in America, would never tolerate as part of our own freedom.

I have no doubt that those in charge of Iraq feel that they are increasing safety for both the US military personnel and the Iraqi civilians; and that they believe they are making the transition to freedom "easier". Yet we should remember from our own history that freedom isn't always pretty, it isn't always safe and it isn't always easy.

Sadly, the Bush administration has already shown it's propensity for repression here in the states, so it's not surprising that they act as though some form of repression or another is the best solution for any problem. The Iraqi people have spent years under the thumb of a cruel, tyrant. We promised them liberation, and those who are trying to retroactively justify the war cite "liberation" as their reasoning. When, exactly, do we plan to let them have it?

Posted by thorswitch at June 20, 2003 11:16 AM | TrackBack