THE MIDDLE EAST: How to rethink the war on terror. By Douglass C. North.
As the Bush administration begins its second term, it
should concentrate on reducing the likelihood of terrorism, violence, and
war in the world. Accomplishing this will require a radical revision of
Bush’s policies from his first term. In this brief essay I address
only one part of this objective, which would be to convince the Muslim
world that the United States is not fundamentally opposed to Muslim
culture. The required policy changes entail
overhauling our blind support of Israel in its policies toward Palestine and undermining the Muslim
support for terrorism. Let me take each in turn.
The Muslim world is persuaded, with good reason, that
our support of Ariel Sharon in his policies toward the Palestinians is
convincing proof of our bias against Muslims.
We should be exerting pressure on Israel to settle the conflict with Palestine in a fashion that would permit both
political entities to thrive. Required as a minimum would be withdrawal of
Israeli settlers from Gaza and the West Bank; however, integrating the
Palestinian and Israeli economies is also necessary. A step in the right
direction would be for the United States to grant Israel, say, $4 billion,
of which $2 billion would be used to develop and integrate the Palestinian
economy with the Israeli economy, an essential requirement for the
Palestinian economy to prosper. Such a step is in the interest not only of
the United States but of Israel, if it is going to survive surrounded by
Muslim societies.
Undermining Muslim support for terrorism requires
fundamental changes in our Iraq policies. Certainly the creation of a
market-oriented democracy in Iraq would be a major step. Although we are
still far from understanding how to convert polities and economies to
democracies and market economies, we have learned some fundamental lessons
the hard way. Countries without a heritage of democracy or market economies
require a lengthy transition period to achieve them—a transition made
much more difficult when fundamental ethnic divisions exist as they do in
Iraq. Such a transition is even more difficult when imposed by outsiders,
as would be the case in this instance.
Going to war in Iraq detoured this country from its
ongoing efforts against terrorism in Afghanistan. The way that the
occupation has evolved has convinced many in Iraq, as well as in
neighboring countries, that our intentions are far from pure. The continued
occupation of Iraq can only lead to continuing loss of American and Iraqi
lives without accomplishing the Bush objective of creating a
democracy—something that would take decades. The idea that simply
having an election will turn Iraq into a democracy is based on simpleminded
reasoning that runs counter to a long history of experience in developing
countries. Creating a viable democracy is a lengthy process fraught with
uncertainty. It is very doubtful that the United States public has the
patience for such an undertaking, given the costs in lives and the
increasing U.S. indebtedness that it would entail.
There is no cost-free solution, but probably the most
sensible alternative would be to divide Iraq
into three autonomous self-governing regions of Kurds, Shiites, and Sunnis
and then to exit. Yes, two of them would undoubtedly be theocratic
governments and we would have to deal with Turkey with respect to Kurdish
autonomy. But those are better alternatives than an occupation that would
go on for many years.
Special to the Hoover Digest. Available from the Hoover Press is The New Terror: Facing the Threat of Biological and Chemical Weapons, edited by Sidney D. Drell, Abraham D. Sofaer, and George D. Wilson. To order, call 800.935.2882 or visit www.hooverpress.org. Douglass C. North is the Hoover Institution's Bartlett Burnap Senior Fellow. His current research activities include research on property rights, transaction costs, economic organization in history, a theory of the state, the free rider problem, ideology, growth of government, economic and social change, and a theory of institutional change. |
QUICK LINKS: TOOLS: |
