World on Fire - Brownstein, Michael [155]
Many Americans today are bewildered—outraged—at the depth and pervasiveness of anti-Americanism in the world today. “Why do so many people want to come here if we’re so terrible?” frustrated Americans demand. “What would France be doing if it were the world’s superpower?” “Why do they hate us?” These are reasonable points. But the fact of the matter is that because the United States is the world’s sole superpower, we are going to be held to a higher standard than everyone else—market-dominant minorities always are. (The Chinese in Southeast Asia and the Indians in East Africa have been those regions’ principal economic engines, generating enormous growth over the generations. Yet if you ask ordinary Indonesians or Kenyans on the street, they will insist that these minorities are “leeches” “sucking out the wealth of the nation” and the reason for their country’s poverty.) For this reason, it is in the United States’ own interest to avoid taking actions that suggest hypocrisy, look glaringly exploitative, or display lack of concern for the rest of the world, including of course the people of Iraq.
It is easy to criticize the United States, just as it is easy to hide behind facile calls for “free market democracy.” With the international community watching, I prefer to view this moment as a critical opportunity for the United States to surprise a skeptical world. One thing, however, is clear: The United States cannot simply call for elections and universal suffrage and at the same time support an economic system that is seen as benefiting only a tiny, privileged minority—whether an ethnic or religious minority or U.S. and British companies. To do so would be a recipe for disaster. Already, according to the director of one NGO in Iraq, “Anti-Americanism is growing here. There is a strong perception that U.S. companies plan to rape the country of its resources. This is particularly dangerous as there is currently no sense of control or ownership on the part of the Iraqi people.” Once basic services and order are restored, the single most important thing for the United States to do is to change this perception: to give the Iraqi people a sense of control and ownership over their own resources and destinies. Perhaps most important of all, it is vital that the United States remain true to our word and take visible, symbolic measures to ensure that the new Iraqi government—unlike Saddam Hussein’s regime—includes the Iraqi people in the benefits of Iraq’s oil wealth.
A final clarification. This book is not about blame, but about unintended consequences. My own view, for example, is that the results of democratization in Indonesia have been disastrous. But if forced to place the blame somewhere, I would point to thirty years of plundering autocracy and crony capitalism by Suharto. Similarly, in Iraq, overnight elections might well bring undesirable results. But that is not democracy’s fault. On the contrary, if anything, the blame rests with the cruelly repressive regime of Saddam Hussein. Nevertheless, this doesn’t take away from the reality that given the conditions that actually exist now in many postcolonial countries—conditions created by history, colonialism, divide-and-conquer policies, corruption, autocracy—the combination of laissez-faire capitalism and unrestrained majority rule may well have catastrophic consequences.
Amy Chua July 1, 2003 New Haven, CT
Notes
Introduction
1. My discussion of the kidnapping industry in the Philippines is based principally on a series of interviews I conducted in Manila during May 2001. Because law enforcement officials in the Philippines are generally thought to have close