Based on what the US did, or rather, didn’t do, in Russia after the fall of the genocidal Soviet regime, there is good reason to doubt whether the US will help rebuild Iraq after Saddam is gone. Nation building is just too boring, and, though it saves lives, even American lives, it doesn't garner American votes. (We get the government we deserve.)
In 1991 the Soviet Union underwent a regime change that US politicians and generals could have only dreamed of. So what did the US do with this historic opportunity? Not much. America’s attention waned along with the fighting in the streets of Moscow. Most Americans were too busy with Christmas shopping to turn on the TV and watch the dreaded red flag with the sickle and hammer pulled down and the Russian tri-color rise above the Kremlin on the 24th of December 1991. To our credit, and unlike the French did to the Germans after WWI, we didn’t rub victory in the face of Russians, who, after all, were both the real victims of communism and the victors over it. To our discredit, we didn’t do much of anything to help the new Russia land on its feet. We treated Russia like a welfare case, giving kopecks at a time when we were drowning in our own wealth.
The reason Japan and Germany quickly became democratic after WWII was that America helped immediately and generously. Now Japan and Germany are the 2nd and 3rd largest economies in the world. Our generosity back then wasn’t pure altruism; it was motivated by enlightened self-interest.
To contain the spread of the Soviet Union, Japan and Germany had to be economically strong. So why, after 50 years of a tense, bi-polar stand off, were we so stingy with post-Soviet Russia? After all, wasn’t an economically strong Russia our best defense against the resurgence of a communist country with enough weapons of mass destruction to destroy, well, everything?
Perhaps it’s that we didn’t know what to support. I only wish we had had enough wisdom, and will, to pay the carpenter’s fees for rebuilding Russia’s courtrooms to support jury trials. For, although the Russian constitutional called for jury trials back in 1993, as this remarkable piece in the NYTimes points out, they are only now starting to take place. The delays being due to many things, but the most mundane and inexcusable is the legacy of Soviet courtrooms not having the physical space for juries. Also, if we’re feeling really generous, how about we subsidize the compensation Russian jurors receive (from $1.75 to $3.50 per day)?
After all, the limited use of jury trials has already brought down conviction rates from 99 percent to 88. This is a good thing if you think it is worse to imprison an innocent man than it is to let a criminal go unpunished.
In another, more recent, example of the US neglecting to win the peace after winning in war, This NYTimes piece describes President Karzai in Washington begging the US not to forget about Afghanistan if a war happens in Iraq. He also had to beg for money to pay the wages of troops that are going to defend the country from warlords after the US troops leave.
From the NYTimes:
Since shortly after 1917, when the new Soviet state outlawed juries, the fates of most accused Russians have been decided by three-member panels that served as judges, jurors and — sometimes — aides to the prosecution. As recently as 1996, the panels were grinding out convictions in 995 of every 1,000 criminal cases.
This winter — glacially, and sometimes grudgingly — their monopoly is starting to crack. An overhaul of Russia's criminal code, pushed through Parliament by President Vladimir V. Putin and adopted in July, gives defendants accused of the most serious crimes the right to demand a jury trial. It also guarantees them Western-style rights.
Much of that had already been written into Russia's Constitution in 1993. In 1999, after six years of fitful experiments, the nation's top court ordered the government to carry out the changes. But Parliament did not consider the legislation until last year. Even after the new criminal code became law, Parliament voted in December to delay the start of jury trials in 20 regions, including Moscow, because a decade's notice had still left officials unprepared.
In fact, there is a lot to prepare. By some measures, Russia's 20,000 judges are only half the number needed for the new system. Courtrooms must have jury boxes, microphones and other items. Juror lists must be compiled, and the jurors must be paid. Last year, an experimental trial in suburban Moscow stalled because the $1.75 per diem failed to lure jurors into the courtroom. The 2003 judicial budget was increased 25 percent $762 million.
Xander,
I believe you are correct in your concern that this country (the U.S.) will not be successful in rebuilding Irag after a war. However, I lay most of that blame at the feet of this and previous administrations (especially this one) rather than the voter. I would very much like to believe that if the urgency of beginning and sustaining a rebuilding effort was presented before the American people in a forceful and thoughtful manner that the effort would be heartily supported. Unfortunately, the first Bush administration did not do so in Russia, the Clinton administration did not do so in the Balkans, and this administration does not appear to be doing so in Afghanistan. We seem to be willing to spend billions on military actions, but unwilling to spend the required additional billions after the shooting is over. We the collective people do seem to have an incredibly short attention span, but the duty of a leader is to lead. Perhaps if, once war is over, we are as vocal about support for rebuilding as we have been about not going to war in the first place, a better result will be achieved.
Posted by: Terry Fisk on March 12, 2003 09:56 PMTerry Fisk - Yes! Your comments are well put and with a welcomed & optomistic suggestion for how our leaders could approach nation building.
It seems the lessons from the lack of nation building after the US's earlier ventures into Afganistan during the cold war as well as Germany after WWI could have inspired our leaders. Today's CNN news about the US's Administrations's surprise in finding the Shites in Southern Iraq fighting against, rather than joining the US soldiers leads further support to your point. The analyst pointed to the lack of follow up support to that region during and after the war. Those people who did rise up against Saddam during the first Gulf War found themselves vulnerable & without the assistance they had believed would be there. Building trust with consistency is crucial to bettering relations and building allies even within countries.
It is in the crucial period after the war when the dust settles that nations are ripe & needy. The psychological wounds of war along with the physical damages to the Country's infrastructure must be addressed in a sustained manner for the good of the world. Without proper support, crumbled nations can leave the US in a vulnerable position as resentment can turn into anger, and anger into fanatics becoming a fertile ground for tryanny and terrorism.
Xander, your blog is a quick & easy place to find concise & interesting information on Russia & some of its relations with USA. Thank you.
Posted by: Nohl on March 24, 2003 10:03 PM