New prospects for stable democracy
Four years ago, the Iraqi national elections were riddled with fraudulent voting, sectarian boycotts, and insurgent attacks. Although the accomplishment of largely free and fair elections drew praise from onlookers around the world, the elections still suffered from violence and low turnout; this seemed to indicate how difficult, even impossible, the transition to democracy would be. But the emergence of stable democracy in Iraq no longer appears so far fetched. Robert Paarlberg, associate at Harvard’s Weatherhead Center for International Affairs, told the HPR that “Iraq is surprisingly one country in the region where the United States is seeing its objectives almost completely achieved.” Having endured a destabilizing regime change, civil war, and ethnic cleansing, Iraq has made significant progress toward becoming a stable democracy. The U.S.-Iraqi Security Pact and the recent provincial elections have signaled rising military consolidation and political stability over the past several months. If these trends continue along their current trajectories, the United States may be able to withdraw its forces from the country as soon as the planned 2011 departure date.
Ethnic Cooperation
Provincial elections in January saw a widespread increase in participation, particularly among the Sunni minority, with few large-scale boycotts or attacks. Nationwide voter turnout either increased or remained the same in all provinces; turnout in the Sunni-dominated Anbar province, which had boycotted the 2005 elections due to opposition to the American invasion, hovered around 40 percent. Participation by the Sunnis, who are a minority in most provinces, was a crucial demonstration of the political stability Iraq is gradually achieving. Previously, many Sunnis had not been incorporated into the policymaking process of the al-Maliki government. This political isolation had exacerbated the insurgency against the United States and hostility against the Shiites. With Sunni participation, larger interethnic coalitions can emerge and it is more likely that Iraq will have a government responsive to the needs of its diverse population.
However, the shift in voting patterns from sectarian to secular is perhaps the strongest indicator of the possibility of cooperation among the various ethnic and religious sects that inhabit Iraq’s 18 provinces. In the 2005 election, citizens voted primarily along sectarian lines. In this election, by contrast, the secular parties, including President Nouri al-Maliki’s Dawa Party, scored significant yields. Michael Knights, associate fellow at the Washington Institute of Near East Policy, explained in an interview with the HPR that this shift towards secular parties indicates growing Iraqi dissatisfaction with religious parties who have failed to govern effectively.
Military Consolidation
Security in Iraq has also dramatically improved since the escalation of civil violence in 2006, mostly due to the growing independence and strength of the Iraqi security apparatus and the Iraqi American Status of Forces Agreement negotiated last November. Meghan O’Sullivan, Deputy National Security Advisor to Iraq and Afghanistan in the Bush administration, told the HPR that this security pact was comprised of two main agreements: first, it provided the strategic framework for U.S.-Iraqi cooperation on non-military matters such as education and trade. Second, the agreement renewed the legal mandate for the U.S. military to operate in Iraq. Specifically, the Iraqi government called for a full withdrawal of U.S. forces by 2011, created Iraqi judicial panels with jurisdiction in cases over U.S. service members, placed restrictions on American combat operations, and barred the United States from launching attacks on neighboring countries while stationed in Iraq. These new restrictions reveal an Iraqi government increasingly assertive about its sovereignty, and increasingly intent upon reducing reliance on the United States for military support.
While one should be wary of succumbing to a “mission accomplished” mentality, better cooperation among ethnic groups and improving security forces are promising signs of the stability and spirit of independence required for democracy to flourish. The new security pact, O’Sullivan noted, was also an important symbol of Iraq’s increasing independence in the Middle East. “The Iraqi Security Pact was a positive regional statement … as Iraqis were able to state the terms of the agreement and decide upon the future horizon for U.S.-Iraqi relationships.” If progress continues the way it has in the past several months, the success of democracy in Iraq appears well within the realm of possibility.
An Obama administration may be most effective in its ability to counteract anti-American sentiment around the world. Obama’s cooperative style of leadership and symbolic value as America’s first black president, some argue, will undermine traditional anti-American arguments. Stephen Walt, professor of International Relations at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, told the HPR that, simply by virtue of his heritage and path to power, Obama’s election will undermine those “who portray [America] as a racist, unfair, bully nation.” This change in international perceptions could have meaningful effects on American foreign policy. Steven Levitsky, Harvard professor of Government and Social Studies, told the HPR that “Obama as President will make it harder for leaders like Hugo Chavez to employ anti-American rhetoric to gather popular support at home. In many ways, the Bush presidency was a gift from God for such leaders.” The old arguments depicting America as an imperial, closed-minded nation may no longer hold water.
Signs of such a shift are already coming from the Middle East. For the first time in at least thirty years, Iran sent a congratulatory letter to the incoming President. Emad Shahin, an professor of Government at Harvard, told the HPR, “many people in the Middle East are hopeful that this message of change can reach the Middle East.” Yet, while the suggestion that anti-American sentiment is waning is promising, real change in the Middle East will depend more on America’s actions than on Obama’s image. “There are grounds for him to capitalize on,” says Shahin, “but there are still policies to be drafted.”
Process versus Policy
This problem of perception versus reality pervades all aspects of Obama’s diplomatic style. Obama certainly represents the end of George Bush’s unilateral foreign policy. However, while Obama’s message of “change” and “hope” has created expectations for greater international cooperation, geopolitical realities are unlikely to change significantly. Walt told the HPR, “there is no suggestion of any drastic revision of the foreign policy followed by Bush, except perhaps in the rhetoric and possibility of increased collaboration.” While global leaders hope that America will adopt a multilateral approach to international politics, current international issues, like that of security in the Middle East or the nuclear threat from countries like Iran and North Korea, are likely to persist regardless of Obama’s approach. In the end, Carlos Diaz-Rosillo, Harvard professor of Government, told the HPR, “there might be more emphasis on cooperation and decisions reached by discussion, but I don’t think there’s going to be a lot of change.”
Looking Inward
These concerns about Obama’s ability to deliver on his foreign policy promises are enhanced in the face of economic crisis. Walt notes that Obama’s “biggest challenge is obviously the economy,” suggesting that “foreign policy is likely to take a backseat at such a critical time.” The crisis will assuredly divert attention from dealing with political problems abroad. But despite these economic challenges, an Obama administration promises to revive American soft power and rekindle the belief that “only in America” could he have been elected. Joseph Nye, professor of International Relations at Harvard, told the HPR that “The very election of Obama has done a great deal to restore American soft or attractive power, which should help to create a more enabling environment for his foreign policy.” If Obama is able to successfully navigate the difficult domestic conditions and work with other nations, his presidency could do much to improve American engagement abroad.