Tuesday - April 06, 2004
Freedom of the Press in Iraq and Russia
The United States recently shut down a newspaper
in Iraq, enraging followers of Muqtada al Sadr, for inciting violence against
the occupation. I think I'm not unlike most Americans in that I was shocked
that the US would do such a thing. We regard freedom of speech and freedom of
the press as the holiest of holy ideas of our nation. But there are two
questions to ask in this case in judging whether this was a wise act or not.
First, was there an abuse of freedom of speech that warranted shutting down this
newspaper? Second, will shutting down newspapers that abuse freedom of speech
end in favorable results?
I've been
pondering this for a while and I think the answer is not as straightforward as I
initially thought. An instructive example is Russia.
First, let's look at whether Al Sadr was abusing
the right of freedom of the press. He is living in a society which is still
under martial law following the forceful end of a despotic and violent regime.
The nation is hardly a nation and there is still daily violence and threats to
the safety of the people. Dissent is permissable, but calling for violence
against those who, for better or for worse, are attempting to attain peaceful
conditions is dangerous to all. Most Americans and most people would cheer for
anyone resisting a despotic regime, and many in Iraq probably think that they
are resisting an unjust occupation by attacking the Coalition Provisional
Authority.
But now comes the
follow-on question that many who have no moral compass are troubled by: Are
these resisting Iraqis correct? Is the CPA an unjust occupying force that must
be resisted by violence? If the CPA were heavy handed, unjust, torturous, or in
any other way oppressive, violent resistance would be the right thing to do.
But you have to examine the "if" in that statement, and one can only justly
conclude that the CPA is promising to hand over power this summer to the Iraqis
and they have shown every indication that they will keep to this schedule.
Additionally, they have been instituting law and order and introducing freedom
to a people that have not seen it in a long, long time. Resisting the CPA is
not only unjustified morally, it is simply stupid if peace and prosperity are
your goal.
So I can only conclude that
in a violent place, where there are forces seeking to instill freedom and peace,
that calling for violence against the CPA and the US military is an abuse of
freedom of the press. It is irresponsible and dangerous behavior in a time of
great danger. The decision to shut down this newspaper is morally justified
without question, even though the gut reaction of most Americans including
myself is that it was wrong.
So it's
justified. Big deal. Was it a smart thing to do? Will good things result from
it in the short term or the long
term?
In the short term, the voice of
the violent will be partially silenced. The Shiite radicals who want to create
their own oppressive theocratic Islamic state will have to find other ways to
spread their word. It also caused a modest sized uprising in Saddam City, a
neighborhood of Baghdad where Al Sadr's goons, many of whom are trained and
serving as members of the Iraqi Police rioted and stole weapons and otherwise
looted key control positions and armories. It's too early to say what else will
result. Some have dismissed these riots as insignificant, but if the goal was
only to seize weapons, then it succeeded. Al Sadr may have just armed himself
for another day.
This happened at the
same time as an uprising in Fallujah, and it is natural to wonder if the two are
somehow related. I have no sources of info to tell me one way or another, but I
suspect that Al Sadr's Shiites are not cooperating with the Sunnis in Fallujah,
who are mostly Saddam loyalists. Al Sadr was most likely reacting to events and
is taking advantage of the uprising to further weaken the US Marines' ability to
respond to his actions.
So, in the
short term all we can perceive are tactical results of some unknown magnitude
for or against a violent movement. What about the long term? Again, the gut
reaction of an American is to suspect that trampling freedom of the press is
like pulling out the base card in a house of cards. Freedom is a delicate
construction that cannot accept violations of rights without corruption and
eventual oppression or civil disorder, maybe even civil
war.
But is that really the case? Does
squashing the press ever result in effective results? Sadly, it does, and
perhaps in this case it will have a good end. Let's look at what's happened in
Russia as an example of controlling the
press.
History is filled with examples
of the sword successfully controlling people, and we even have recent examples
in the past ten years of how shutting down the press can create a cow-like
people that elect a government that silences any dissent. I'm speaking of
Russia.
Russia, who so recently freed
itself from over seventy years of horror, oppression, and communism, is a well
educated society. They have demonstrated that many among them have no lack of
entrepreneurial creativity when released from the anti-capitalist ideology they
were oppressed by. But the rise of Vlad Putin, a former leader in the Soviet
Secret Police, shows that even educated people who so recently achieved their
own freedom can bovinely submit to allowing a leader to shut down all
dissenting, peaceful voices and happily re-elect the only politician that got
any press at all, Putin himself. With no one to say otherwise, Putin's
treachery was unknown and he was merrily retained in power. One political
opponent was threatened, framed, and run out of the
country.
So shutting down the press
works, and works well, and works perpetually. In this case, it works against
freedom. Can it work for freedom?
Shutting down freedom of the press to
save a nation for freedom is like burning down a village in order to save it
from communism. But if, and this is a big if, intelligence is used to only
silence dangerous voices advocating violence in a time of martial law, then
perhaps this will have a good end.
I
have to confess that I fear human nature and its tendency to abuse power. I
fear that the CPA, once tasting censorship, will use it more frequently and with
less reason. Let's hope this doesn't happen. I don't see an alternative at
this time. The Iraqi people must be protected from those advocating violence.
They cannot attain their own freedom if those who would use force are not
restrained.
Go Back to the Start, Do Not Collect $200 Send me your two cents
|
