Wednesday, May 14, 2003

In her brilliant study of the Paris Peace Conference of 1919, historian Margaret MacMillan concludes that flawed decisions had terrible consequences. In a halfhearted effort to rebuild a defeated Germany, the victorious allies pursued a policy of vengeance rather than a policy of justice. As Woodrow Wilson so wisely noted, "The only lasting peace is a peace among equals." Wilson, however, was outmaneuvered by Georges Clemenceau, the wily leader of France.

Clemenceau was guided by national self-interest. His ultimate objective was to pursue France's interests in the narrowest sense. In the process, he laid the foundation for a terrible peace that only served to set the stage for another horrific world war. Ferdinand Foch, who had commanded the allied armies during World War One, on learning of the terms of the peace Germany was compelled to sign, prophetically predicted, "This is not a peace agreement. Rather, it is an armistice for 20 years." Twenty years later, Adolf Hitler invaded Poland and World War Two began.

The lessons of history are important as the international community debates the future of Iraq after the demise of Saddam Hussein. On the one side are the nations who believe that the United Nations should play the leading role in the postwar reconstruction of Iraq. On the other side are the nations who believe that the United States and its coalition partners should reconstruct this society as a fledgling democracy with the UN as a supporting partner in this effort.

Before taking one side or the other, perhaps we should consider other successful efforts to rebuild war-torn nations while moving them on the path toward democracy. Two examples stand out: Germany and Japan. In both instances, the United States played a leading role in reconstructing these war-torn societies. In both instances, nations with aggressive pasts became vibrant democracies and were successfully integrated into the international community of peaceful nations.

Critics contend that Iraq has no democratic tradition and America therefore has no right to impose one. Neither Germany nor Japan had democratic traditions before the end of World War II. In both instances, many doubted that these aggressor nations could renounce their violent pasts. That they did so was a tribute to American leadership in forging the institutions necessary to promote prosperity through the free exchange of ideas.

As Frederick the Great once wisely noted, "What is the good of experience if one does not reflect?" As the international community reflects on the future prospects of Iraq, the examples of Germany and Japan should form a road map that will enable statesmen to work together to transform an aggressor nation into one whose wealth can promote peace and prosperity throughout a turbulent part of the world.

In the process, those who would use Iraq to further their own interests, as France used Germany after the First World War, should step aside in the greater interest of international peace and security. While some may resent the American presence on the world stage, the German and Japanese examples demonstrate how a great nation can use its power to make the world a safer place for democracy.

In 1258, the Mongols entered Baghdad not as liberators, but as conquerors. Within 10 years, however, they were building mosques as a consequence of an historic conversion to the Islamic faith.

In 2003, Americans entered Baghdad not as conquerors, but as liberators. If America leads a coalition of the willing that includes the United Nations, within 10 years it is conceivable that Iraqis could undergo an historic conversion to the ideas and principles of democratic self-government while maintaining their deepest beliefs in their Islamic faith.

Such an outcome could demonstrate to the world that outlaw regimes can become law-abiding members of an international community dedicated to the pursuit of peace and prosperity.

Tony Pattiz

Peachtree City