During almost five years in office, President Clinton seems to have found several themes that resonate with voters. Even Republican members of Congress find it difficult if not impossible to fault the president on democracy. To Clinton, democracy means free elections and universal suffrage. Dwelling on the next and distinctly different but closely associated concept has so far eluded Clinton in his public discourse. In his article in Foreign Affairs, Fareed Zakaria, its Managing Editor, has taken the next step "liberal or illiberal democracy." By this he means free and fair elections and universal suffrage with the bundle of rights we all take for granted because of our Constitution's Bill of Rights. As Mr. Zakaria puts it, "...this latter bundle of freedoms what might be termed constitutional liberalism is theoretically different and historically distinct from democracy..."

Zakaria continued: "Constitutional liberalism, on the one hand, is not about the procedures for selecting government, but rather government's goals. It refers to the tradition, deep in Western history, that seeks to protect an individual's autonomy and dignity against coercion, whatever the source state, church, or society....In almost all its variants, constitutional liberalism argues that human beings have certain natural (or inalienable) rights and that governments must accept a basic law, limiting its own powers, that secures them. It was on June 15, 1215 that England's barons forced the king to abide by the settled and customary law of the land. This was the Magna Carta. In 1789, the framers of the Constitution presented it to the Congress in Philadelphia for ratification. Two years later, Congress was requested to ratify the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the Constitution. The Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791. It could be said that the Constitution without amendments was merely the structure designed to establish the separation of powers, create a Congress, elect a president, and establish a judicial system. Then Congress provided the bundle of rights of individuals. The First Amendment established freedom of speech, the press, religion and assembly. Congress attempted to protect individuals from unreasonable search and seizure but failed. Chief Justice Rehnquist, Justices Thomas, Scalia, Kennedy, and occasionally Justice O'Connor were heavily influenced by those who protected the police when they over enthusiastically obtained evidence without benefit of a warrant. Thus, constitutional liberalism does not always follow a straight line; the ideal model is best symbolized not by the mass plebiscite, but the impartial judge.

In Central Asia, elections, even when reasonably free, as in Kyrgistan and Kazakhstan, have resulted in strong executives, weak legislatures and a weak judiciary, and few economic and civil liberties. In Kyrgistan. Askar Akayev, elected with 60 percent of the vote, proposed enhancing his powers in a referendum that passed easily in 1996. His new powers included appointing all top officials except the prime minister, although he can dissolve parliament if it turns down three of his nominees for this post. In Kazakhstan, Nursultan Nazarbayev was elected with a heavy percentage of the popular vote. One of his first moves was to authorize the expenditure of $400 million to build a new capital, Akmola, abandoning Almaty. In this city, temperatures routinely drop to 40 degrees below zero. Those present at the unveiling of the new government buildings were appalled at the waste and described them as Potemkin villages complete on three sides only. Complaints about cost were merited in Akmola, a city about to have a Red Cross soup kitchen. Belurusan president Alexandr Lukashenko was popularly elected but announced he would tolerate no criticism. He also maintains an effective security force to guarantee he doesn't have to listen to criticism.

As the dust settles in Iraq and the UN Inspectors expect to renew the search for weapons of mass destruction, Washington should reassess its position. The 1990-91 coalition politics that allowed President George Bush to put a coalition together was a demonstrable failure in 1997. It included Syria, Egypt, and Kuwait plus active forces from the Persian Gulf states. Normally, the Arab states would not combine against another Arab state, in this case, Iraq. Then Secretary of State James Baker promised the Arabs he would pressure Israel to settle differences in the Arab-Israeli conflict. In fact, the first meeting of the coalition began in Madrid in October, 1991. Two years later, the world sat up in surprise, when Yitzhak Rabin, the Prime Minister of Israel, produced the so-called Oslo Accord. By this agreement with the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO), it accepted a settlement that in effect committed Israel to withdraw from agreed areas of the West Bank and turn them over to the PLO. Gaza, Jericho, and Hebron were the first areas traded for peace, and there the Oslo Accord stumbled on Benjamin Netanyahu's iron will to guarantee peace for all of the West Bank and the failure of Yasser Arafat's attempt to deliver security to what was left of Israel. President Bill Clinton has tried to blame Israel for the stagnating Oslo Accord. Clinton publicly denounced Netanyahu, not by name, but by position. He told the world he wanted a credible withdrawal by Israel, but asked for nothing from the PLO. No independent state should have such a public whipping from the President of the United States. Israel doesn't deserve such arrogance in a matter where Washington publicly committed itself to a role as honest broker and nothing more. Israel had even foreseen what Clinton might do after Clinton's reelection in 1996. Israel's Foreign Minister, David Levy, has been cultivating relations with Turkey's military. As of 1993, Israel and Turkey had made considerable progress when the discovery of oil in the Caspian Sea Basin offered Israel a way out of getting its oil from the Persian Gulf. Furthermore, the Arab world has problems of its own making.

Saudi Arabia is ruled by a monarchy not at all willing to share its oil wealth. Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrein and the United Arab Emirates are all in the same boat with democracy, not even close. Iraq is the enfant terrible of the Middle East, and Iran shows no signs of willingness to tolerate the United States. Does Clinton think he can rule the international roost by appealing to the Arab world at the expense of the only democracy in the Middle East, Israel? In fact, the Clinton Administration endorsed the concept of reciprocity over two years ago . Reciprocity means that both Israel and the Palestinian Authority accept mutual obligations. Now, some Assistant Secretary of State has denounced Israel for insisting on it. The Arab world broke up the wartime coalition, because Netanyahu refused to surrender to Arab demands on the one hand and, on the other hand, he refused to abandon insistence on a peace resting on reciprocity. Nowhere in the Arab world is there any evidence of constitutional liberalism, the body of law that protects individuals from abuse by the state. The United States needs a new foreign policy, one that recognizes its friends and clobbers its enemies. Our policy regarding Iran needs revision in view of the possible bombing of Iraq.

In Turkey and Iraq, ongoing activities might lead inevitably to peace with the division of Iraq. Effectively, Iraq has been divided since 1991. There are three zones, the North and South No Fly Zones and the unnamed zone between them. Iraq's boundaries were wholly artificial, and the state was established by Great Britain in 1923. It conducted a referendum on the question whether Britain's handpicked candidate, Emir Faisal, be approved as king. He was approved, and Iraq was born, carved out of the Ottoman Empire. Turkey was a loser in World War I and paid a price. It lost access to the oil of what is now Iraq. Great Britain transferred Mosul to this new state, even though it was a Kurdish vilayet or province.In fact, the Royal Air Force bombed a village in Iraq. Its inhabitants were mostly Kurdish who refused to pay taxes to King Faisal newly installed in Baghdad by the British. The British also needed Iraqi oil for their navy. To that end, the British collaborated with Iraq in restoring stability by supporting Iraq's persecution of the Kurds.

Events in Iran (Persia) followed a similar path. Dr.Muhammed Mossadeq authorized nationalization of the Iranian National Oil Company in 1951. The British froze Iran's financial assets and Iran took the nationalization to the International Court of Justice, where Great Britain lost. The documents establishing the oil company were a "contract" and Iran had only to pay compensation. Great BritainĖs lien on most Iranian assets prevented payment. Britain's role in oil diplomacy in the Middle East was an exercise in military power. Even today, British oil imperialism has not been forgotten. Nor have the Kurds forgotten the ShahĖs betrayal of the Kurds after he signed a treaty with Algiers. Furthermore, Iranian assets frozen in 1951 and 1979 -- the hostage crisis at the American Embassy in Teheran -- are still frozen, but by the Clinton Administration. It has adopted the dual containment policy that believes in isolating both Iran and Iraq. Washington persists in claiming Iran sponsors terrorism. Until the election of 1996, when Iran elected a moderate, President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani failed to deal with the very real possibility that IranĖs clergy funneled money to terrorists. The clergy who have access to vast sums within Iran command their own network. One of the bitter disputes within the Islamic Republic of Iran was whether the Koran believed in the ownership of private property or Islam recognized the state as owner of all property. The clergy were quick to see the advantages of private ownership and installed themselves as owners of vast fortunes protected by the state. When or if the Clinton Administration abandons its insane policy of isolating Iran, that country will not join the United States in undermining Iraq or even joining American troops in attacking Iraq in its present dispute with the United Nations over inspection consistent with Security Council Resolution 687.

Persia had been at war almost constantly with the Ottoman Empire. Iran was once Persia with an aristocratic social structure fatally undermined by the democratization brought about by Islam. In Turkey, Ataturk, the father of modern Turkey made certain that the government and the ruled were secular.With the passage of time from 1925 to 1997, Muslims steadily infiltrated the Turkish government. The army was determined to prevent an Islamic majority. In 1997, the army forced the resignation of Necmettin Erkaban. The president of Turkey named Mesut Filmaz to succeed him. In the meanwhile, government officials in Ankara pursued the Kurds and their supporters with unrivalled savagery.

Filmaz has tried to arrest this drift toward Islam with the help of the Turkish army. This army is locked in an ugly war with Kurdish guerillas at a cost to Turkey of $5 billion a year. Hardly anyone sees this war as a solution; it must be brought about by diplomacy. On February 10, 1998 Turkey announced it had established an eight-mile zone inside Iraq to prevent Kurdish refugees from fleeing to Turkey. Some 2.5 million Kurd refugees fled into Turkey in 1991, when Saddam Hussein initiated genocidal action.The Kurds have been betrayed by just about everyone, including the Shah of Iran, Henry Kissinger, and Richard Nixon. Even earlier -- they were encouraged by Articles 62-64 of the Treaty of Sèvres of 1920 -- the Allies promised the Kurds a home, but in renegotiating this treaty, the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923 omitted any reference to Kurdish autonomy.

In 1990, Iraq invaded Kuwait, annexing it as IraqĖs 19th province. This led to the Persian Gulf War which ended when President George Bush prematurely authorized a cease fire and armistice. In the period from 1980 to 1988, Iraq and Iran were locked in an ugly war in which both countries lost an estimated 750,000 combatants each. Iraq launched its attack against Iran on September 22, 1980. Until 1990, the United States has been ambivalent about Iraq, authorizing American companies to export so-called dual-use equipment. Helicopters, for example, were described by Baghdad as being for civilian purposes. Then, Saddam used them as gunships to kill Kurds. Presidents Reagan and Bush supported this dangerous policy. President William Clinton's Administration adopted a dual containment policy in which both Iraq and Iran were effectively banned from trade with the United States to the dismay of European leaders. Congress enacted the Iran Sanctions Act in 1996, and Iraq was made subject to a United Nations-sponsored inspection of sites in Iraq thought to be engaged in the manufacture of weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The Security Council adopted Resolution 687 on April 3, 1991. For the last few months, Iraq has sought to end the United Nations inspections of Iraqi sites, and Clinton has just about exhausted diplomatic solutions. In fact, he has sent three carriers and some 4,000 Marines to the Persian Gulf area. Great Britain has sent one carrier and an unspecified number of ground forces. Unless Congress delays use of a military threat without an end game, American armed forces will bomb Iraq.

Russia, still resentful of the NATO expansion eastward under Clinton, had something to say about any military strike. Defense Minister Igor Sergeyev bluntly warned his counterpart, Defense Secretary William Cohen, that a military strike against Baghdad would "affect Russia's vital interests and those of other states in the region." Privately, Iran seems delighted watching from the sidelines as its two worst enemies, the United States and Iraq are poised for military operations. Iranian President Mohammed Khatami, the current president of the Organization of the Islamic Conference and a moderate seems to be using the crisis to bolster his standing with his Arab neighbors as a regional statesman calling for peace. Iranians may watch with satisfaction if American bombs severely damage Iraq's remaining military capability, a goal the Iranians failed to accomplish in its war with Iraq from 1980 to 1988. Since then, Iran has bought arms on the international market to replace those lost during the war. Were Iran to abandon the neutrality of the Gulf War -- it specifically supported all Security Council resolutions, including Res. 687 -- it might end the current impasse and lead to a diplomatic solution.

Khatami could do just that by serving as an honest broker between Turkey, its Kurdish refugees on the one hand and its real enemy Iraq, on the other hand. In the post-Persian Gulf War, period, the United Nations authorized certain No-Fly zones approximately sixty miles in depth for the zone in the north. It is patrolled by American jets operating from Incirlik in Turkey. These aircraft were essential when Kurdish refugees fled north to avoid being killed by Saddam HusseinĖs army. Curiously, Kurdistan, the goal of all Kurds, includes the eastern portion of the Northern No-Fly zone. The area includes oil fields not yet fully developed and claimed by the Kurds. Supported by Clinton, Turkey could withdraw from most of Kurdistan and offer to help rebuild the shattered villages Turkish troops destroyed during the last eight years. Money from the sale of this oil would help pay for rebuilding villages. Finally, Turkey could offer amnesty to all Kurds in prison for criticizing the Turkish destruction of Kurdish schools and the damage done to Kurdish culture by Turks.

All contents © 1998 William M. Brinton