Nation building and the idea of Iraq

Recently, the term nation building that came to describe the creation of nation states in the 19th and early 20th century, has begun to take on a new meaning. A dozen of years ago at the University of London, I was taught that nation building was the unification of Germany under Bismarck or the unification of Italy led by Garibaldi and di Cavour. This also occurred in Czech areas and in other new countries that arose from the fall of the Habsburg Empire. Nation building also took place in Estonia, where the National Awakening and the dissolution of the Russian Empire led to the creation of the Estonian nation. The story of nation state building and the term nation building belonged to the European nationalistic narrative. Nation state building sometimes received its impetus from political shocks, primarily wars. World War One indirectly accelerated the creation of many new countries. Middle class intelligentsia and civil servants, who began thinking nationally, normally led this so-called “original” nation state building. It has been argued in works on European history, whether nations were created first in the heads of the literate intelligentsia who convinced the people that they were a nation or whether nations were created as a result of societal development processes and that the nation builders simply used materials that already existed to create their nations.
In the 1960s, the term nation building was used in a different way; namely as a term for the new nations being formed in Africa and Asia following decolonization. Where the so-called “original” nation building in Europe was a spontaneous process with its own internal logic, then the nation building that followed decolonisation involved significant external influence. On one hand, the developed world led the creation of various international aid and development organisations, which were to help the freed colonies in developing their economies, state and political structures. Nation building is a large part of the UN’s work as well as that of the UNDP, the OSCE and the IMF.
On the other hand, this period of massive sovereignty for the colonies brought a battle between “the first” and “the second” world, the free world and the communist world, over influence in the developing world (third world). The United States along with other leading Western nations and the USSR helped to build these nations. The shaping of grateful and obedient allies through nation building was an associate goal of the former and the main goal of the latter. Where the Western countries normally helped develop economies and sometimes even helped improve political systems, the USSR managed to rapidly devastate the economies and corrupt the governments of the recipient nations.
It is true that the USSR did not regard the export of revolution to be nation building in the sense in which it used today. The USSR thought or at least claimed that it supported the natural historical process, where the proletariat would gain power everywhere and create a new world order. Thus, objectively the USSR’s goals in supporting Cuba and Angola were just as much nation building as the US role in Vietnam or England’s role in Malaysia. Luckily, in the mapping of this phenomenon, the communist nation building model would be placed at the same level as the Neanderthal in the development of man. It is interesting to note that Russia, who has taken over the USSR’s mentality, seems to have completely lost its nation building ability and has set to gain influence over other countries by destabilising them.
When the 19th and early 20th century nation building was primarily a process within a culture or a language room led by local leaders, the nation building in the third world was, at least for the West, something totally different. This was seen as a long-term strategy rather than only developmental process. In the 1950-60s, it was thought, on the assumption of the modernisation theory, that for the successful building of third world nations based on the Western model certain political preconditions needed to be established. These preconditions included a working government as a generator of change, the integration of society inside of national borders and the overcoming of tribal and clan based societal relations. Therefore, this type of nation building was and is to certain extent today a strategy for economic and policy development.
Especially since the end of the cold war, nation building has adopted a wider or even a more aggressive nature. When nation building is spoken of today, then we think of post-conflict reconstruction programmes, the construction of political and bureaucratic structures and procedures along with the guaranteeing of political stability by foreign militaries and/or civilians. Nation building is for example the undertakings of the USA, NATO or foreign powers in Haiti 1994-1996, the last ten years in Bosnia, the work in Kosovo starting in 1999, Afghanistan as of 2001 and of course the last two years in Iraq.
According to today’s conception of nation building, it is no longer a social process or even a development strategy, but rather a project that is subject to modern management theory where the main role is played by foreign powers. Where in the original nation building the main factor was the people and in the post-colonial nation building the people played a major role with the assistance of foreign powers, then the new nation building consists mainly of the undertakings of foreign powers and the people are simply the building material.
Of course, one can ask whether the work of the coalition forces and civilians in Iraq is actually nation building. Looking from the outside it seems like it has very little to do with the German unification process or the creation of Ghana in the 1960s. At the same time, “Nation building in Iraq” has been the favourite topic of political science articles and conferences over the last two years. For example, the RAND Corporation released its book “America’s role in Nation-Building. From Germany to Iraq” already in 2003. This book looks at seven cases of armed intervention in the development of countries; all the cases are treated as nation building. These cases are Germany and Japan 1945, and the aforementioned Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo and Afghanistan. Since the Iraqi operation was only in its beginning stages at the time when this book was written, it offers various suggestions as to how this project could be better operated. Bremer called it “a good handbook on nation building”.
The trouble is that the term nation building is not used only in its direct definition, the evolution of the 19th century phenomenon to its contemporary form, but also as a purely political term. The US Government and media misuses this term in describing the decisions made by foreign powers for Iraqi state structures, personnel and codes of conduct. Here, nation building is defined as the very active political intervention in the forming of another nation, while using this terminology to legitimise these actions.
Even if we see through this legitimisation attempt, we still do not want to claim that nation building is not taking place in Iraq. The multiple definitions of this term must be considered to avoid confusion. If nation building were as easy as developing government institutions to your own liking, all nations ought to have been functioning long time ago.
German political scientist Jochen Hippler has stated that for nation building to occur in the empirical sense (not the political-legitimating sense) – for creating effective nations where they previously did not exist – the presence of three connected, but different processes is required. First, an ideology uniting the nation state needs to be created or needs to emerge, which justifies and explains the state’s identity. Second, an integrated society needs to be built. Third, a working state apparatus must be created.
Every nation state needs a nationality to which the state belongs. The corresponding society has to have a unifying identity, a national self-purpose explaining why their state represents this group of people. As long as the members of a society identify themselves primarily with an ethnic group (for example Bavarians, Arabians or Kurds) or a denomination (for example Shiite or Orthodox) it is difficult to build them a nation state (for example Germany, Iraq or Russia). A uniting ideology or the idea of the state does not have to replace older ideologies, but it must be convincing enough to make nation states believe that they have this as a common component that means something, is important and separates them from other groups. For example, why should Iraq’s Arab Shiites feel closer to Iraq’s Sunni Kurds than to Kuwait’s Arab Shiites? A uniting ideology can be based on many different things (language, religion, race, citizenship, history), but a national identity must exist as the basis.
In addition to an identity and an ideology, nation building requires societal integration at a practical level. Communication, economic relations, public debate and media must exist at a national level. It is important that the people communicate at a national level and not only between regional groups. A nation state can be created when the national economic sphere and national communication becomes at least as important as regional or community communication and association.
The third process must launch the effective building of a state apparatus. To achieve this, political unity must be established. The unity must be equipped with a practical and working system. Tax collection is needed for the state and not for the clan, church or officials loyal to the village etc. Of most importance, this system has to be accepted by the people.
When Estonia restored its independence, the idea of a restored nation state was strongly supported by a clear majority of citizens. The restoration of the Estonian nation, the re-establishment of historical justice, the right to live and be free and returning to Europe were the slogans, which made the importance of societal integration, economic rebuilding and the creation of an effective state apparatus understandable to all.
When we look at Iraq, it is clear that the coalition has concentrated on the last two of the three key processes.
In the spring of 2003 immediately after the end of the military operation, the coalition began rebuilding and enlivening the Iraqi economy. Attempts have been made to restore or renovate the infrastructure: electricity supply networks, roads, railways and telephone networks. A new mobile telephone network has been built. Several new media publications have been established. The integration of the society at a practical level has not progressed sufficiently, but the process is advancing at the initiative of the foreign powers and Baghdad’s central government. Monetary resources are sufficient for quick results. The main part of the USA’s and other countries’ aid is being directed towards such undertakings.
No good answers can be found, yet, for questions like, how can Kurd and Arab areas be integrated to allow communication at a national level between the two groups or between all of Iraq’s ethnic groups? Today, the Shiites and the Sunnis, too often, speak to each other with Kalashnikovs rather than in Iraqi Arabic. The political process, the election of Kurds to Parliament and the inclusion of Kurds in government Institutions are only helping to create such communication. However, it is not sure whether participating in the government in Baghdad, helping govern Iraq and serving in the Arab led army is enough of an ideology to replace the idea of a Kurdish state without Arabs. The only things that unite the Kurds to Iraq are the promise of a broad autonomy as a part of Iraq and the more hostile stance of neighbour states Iran, Turkey and Syria towards Kurd self-government. Is this enough for a united state? Only time will tell. At the moment, Kurdish autonomy seems to be too much for the Arabs and too little for the Kurds.
The aforementioned RAND study on nation building concluded that a democratic and effective state could be created more or less anywhere as long as there are enough financial resources and the will for long-term actions. The fact that out of all the studied nations only Germany and Japan have been able to create effective nations can be explained by the fact that these were long-term projects, more powers were involved and the USA’s contribution was larger. The study does state that for example Kosovo has received four times more financial assistance per habitant than Germany received after World War II. Also, as of 2003, 25 times more money and 50 times more forces per capita were put into Kosovo than into Afghanistan. The survey put the blame of the failure of creating an effective state in Kosovo on the lack of foreign efforts.
“Nation building is not only rebuilding an economy, it is more a political transformation”, write leading US political scientists in the aforementioned study. And indeed, the building of the state structures, the ministries, the court system, the military and security structures in Iraq is progressing with the help of the coalition as fast as the conditions will allow. The aforementioned third process of nation building has begun. This process is being financed and manned, if not sufficiently, than at least significantly better than Iraq would be able to on its own. In addition to the efforts of the coalition, NATO has joined to help train the military. The UN has helped compose Iraq’s political calendar.
It can be stated that two of the three most important nation building processes have been put into operation with the help of foreign powers and are progressing despite setbacks. But what is the idea that unites Iraq, Iraq’s national cement?
Of course, we can argue that Iraq as a state according to today’s borders has existed since 1932, and Iraq’s nation state and Iraq’s nationality is a historical fact that does not require a separate ideology. In this case, we cannot call what is taking place in Iraq, nation building. In this case, it is simply an extensive security operation running in parallel to an aid programme. Nevertheless, the majority of people who deal with this topic are convinced that nation building is what is taking place in Iraq. The noted professional journal Military Review in the summer of 2004 published an article calling on the US Military to begin training officers and non-commissioned officers in nation building. Nation building is something that has become more and more relevant on mission, especially in Iraq. Again, nation building is equated to ensuring stability, developing state structures and economic rebuilding. The idea of building a nation state is missing. Once again, citing the RAND study, “Nation building is not only rebuilding an economy, it is a more political transformation”. Here, the uniting ideology that is needed for nation building fails to be mentioned.
What could be the idea of Iraq? The coalition, especially the US, has offered democracy and freedom as Iraq’s uniting ideology. We have heard hope that Iraq could become the first veritable Muslim democracy in the Middle East. The developments of the last two years in Iraq have shown that it will not be very easy to unite Iraq along these ideas. Even though January’s elections can be considered to have been relatively successful, the bringing of freedom by foreign forces remains unacceptable for many Iraqis. It is possible that we are too impatient in awaiting results. It is possible that the coalition’s presence, which currently assures the implementation of the political calendar agreed upon in the UN up until the ratification of the constitution and until the democratically elected Government takes office, will induce the Iraqis to accept democracy as their unifying idea.
However, it seems that this will not be enough. If Estonia’s only ideology for restoring independence had been the building of a democratic nation, it would have clearly been too weak. The term restoration of independence already carries its own ideological message. Iraq regards itself as the descendant of Mesopotamia, Babylonia, Assyria and the Saladin Empire. The Iraqis believe, believe it or not, that British traditions have to a large degree leaked into modern Iraqi statehood. Many Iraqi perceive the British mandate that followed World War I to have been the good old days, when Baghdad was a civilized Middle Eastern centre. One of Iraq’s unifying nation building ideas could be the reconstruction of the old, pre-Saddam Iraq. What of it if it is the restoration of an illusory grace and refinement?
The establishment of justice and the reparation of the sufferings from the Saddam regime could be a uniting theme for most Iraqis, but here they must be careful to avoid isolating Sunni civil servants. However, the respecting and overcoming of common sufferings is something that could create solidarity among all Iraqis.
Pan-Arabism has existed in the Arab world for years and it plays a major role in Iraq, but a pan-Arabic nation would be unacceptable to the Kurds. Pan-Arabism does not really suit the Shiites either, that has always been more of a Sunni hobby. Their traditional common enemy, Iran, unites the Sunnis and the Shiites in Iraq the most at this time. The Iraq-Iran war of 1980-88 has left a very deep impression. In addition to the suffering, the war meant the shoulder-to-shoulder fighting of Iraqi Shiites and Sunnis against a Shiite Persian nation. The war significantly strengthened Iraqi togetherness. Iraq considers itself to be the Arab world’s sanitary cordon to the Persian Empire.
The military has always held an important place in the Iraqi society. The creation of the Middle East’s best military that protects its people not regimes could be another nation building ideal.
It is possible that the Iraqi people will eventually accept democracy as the unifying and Iraqi ideology. However, this will not be enough.
The Iraqi case can attest to the fact that most important is not how or how much, but rather why. What is the idea behind rebuilding Iraq? In addition to this question, the Iraqis ask – why is the coalition (read USA) doing it? As long as they believe that the coalition is not building the nation for the same reason as the people, it will be almost impossible to build an Iraqi nation based solely on democracy. It will probably be impossible to build it at all.
Translated by Daniel Eerik Schaer