Fostering Democracy in the Middle East: Defeating Terrorism With Ballots
Kucinich gave the following speech in Congress on May 17, 2005
Statement to House Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations (NSETIR) as Ranking Minority Member
May 17, 2005
"Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and good morning to the distinguished witnesses that are here today for this important hearing. We have much to learn from the experts who are here with us, and we must listen and use this knowledge to correct the disastrous foreign policy road that this Administration has embarked upon -- a policy which has already taken the lives of over 1,600 U.S. soldiers and wounded thousands more. Congress can help save many more lives by changing these failed policies immediately. As the journalist Thomas Friedman wrote recently, 'you can't build a decent society on the graves of suicide bombers and their victims.'
"Our policy is greatly misguided and also misrepresented. During the President's 2005 State of the Union address there were Iraqis in the audience who held up ink-stained thumbs in a symbol intending to convey that democracy had reached finally reached Iraq -- thanks to the U.S. Their hope was to send the message that even though WMDs were never found, the victory of bringing democracy to Iraq was worth the cost in blood and treasure.
"But before we congratulate ourselves, I must admit that I am skeptical of the Administration's policy of promoting democracy. The United States does not have a history of bringing democracy to nations out of pure altruism. Rather there is usually something we have to gain by overthrowing a nation and the promotion of democracy is the excuse we use to do it. Or in the case of Iraq, it was our fall-back excuse. The war to eradicate WMDs quickly transformed into the war to bring democracy to Iraqis -- once the world discovered that WMDs did not in fact exist in Iraq.
"Perhaps the greatest argument against this vision of pure altruism is that when it is in our interest to leave undemocratic governments alone, we do.
"Examples of this argument are the Central Asian states of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan. These countries have well-known horrendous human rights records and have serious impediments to democracy. According to the State Departments 2004 Report on Human Rights Practices,
'Uzbekistan is an authoritarian state with limited civil rights ... the December 26 elections fell significantly short of international standards for democratic elections ... the executive branch heavily influenced the courts and did not ensure due process ... Government's human rights record remained very poor ... police and National Security Service forces tortured, beat, and harassed persons ... the Government restricted freedom of religion and movement ... the Government severely restricted fundamental worker rights.'
"These conditions are more or less present throughout the other Central Asian states. Yet the U.S. has not taken firm steps to encourage reforms. There have been provisions to condition aid based on progress in democratization and respect for human rights, however when the State Department decided to cut aid to Uzbekistan {or failure to meet these conditions (equal to $18 million), the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff announced that Uzbekistan would receive an increase of $21 million in military aid. Furthermore, the aid condition in Kazakhstan is allowed a presidential waiver.
"This 'soft-line' approach is probably in large part to the strategic location of these states. The Central Asian states offered overflight and other support when the U.S. went into Afghanistan. Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan have hosted coalition troops and provided access to airbases. In 2003, Uzbekistan endorsed coalition military action in Iraq and Kazakhstan provided about two dozen troops for rebuilding.
"Our policy is convenient, not consistent. We talk about building democracy in the Middle East out of one side of our mouth, while we keep authoritarian regimes in power on the other side.
"The world is watching closely what the U.S. does in Iraq, and we are hopeful that a legitimate democracy will flourish there and throughout the region. I am hopeful other Arab nations will eventually hold elections. But it must be on their timetable, not ours.
"Our presence in Iraq is only slowing any hope for genuine democratization. Violence against Iraqis is only increasing as time goes by. The country is becoming even more destabilized. But this Administration has not yet presented an exit strategy or any kind of timetable of bringing our troops home. Instead, we are pouring billions of dollars into the probable construction of long-term military facilities in Iraq so that we can have a permanent presence there, as well as in the surrounding countries, none of which could be called democratic.
"So, Mr. Chairman, I hope that this hearing will go beyond self-congratulation and beyond merely illuminating the desire for democracy by people in the Middle East. Rather I hope that this hearing will illuminate how our missteps are hindering democracy, so that we can correct a failed policy."
Subscribe to this blog's feed