Jaewon Choi

The impending war on Iraq has left the world divided, America divided, and Deerfield divided. So, what is the most beneficial, effective, realistic, and moral solution to the Middle Eastern crisis and, more specifically, the problem of Saddam Hussein? Is there one?

Many Americans, and even many of the world leaders, seem to see two possible solutions to the problem. The first one is going to war in Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein and install a democratic regime. The second option is using the United Nations weapons inspectors to deter Saddam Hussein from obtaining or developing weapons of mass destruction.

Although these two solutions are somewhat viable, they both have many flaws.

The first option-of removing Hussein and installing a democratic regime-makes many false assumptions. The first false assumption is that tyrannical regimes and terrorists would give in once the United States displays its mighty force. Terrorists and dictators are like bacteria. If we try to kill them with antibiotics, they become more and more drug-resistent. Eventually, we are forced to develop stronger and stronger antibiotics that damage our body, only to find super-bacteria that resist even the strongest of antibiotics. Therefore, it is much more important to create a climate where bacteria, or terrorists, cannot grow, rather than to try to get rid of the terrorists by force.

The first option also assumes that the American forces, possibly with the help of the United Nations and some allies, will be able to set up a stable, democratic regime in Iraq. The only two instances where the United States has been able to successfully transform a country into a democracy were in Japan and Germany, where there were strong state traditions and skilled government personnel. Iraq has neither of these two advantages. Iraq first appeared as a nation in 1932, when it achieved independence in Great Britain. National identity, which enables a country to unify its citizens and move them forward, is not widely present in Iraq.

Without strong state traditions and competent government personnel, Iraq is likely to follow the path of many African and Asian nations, which were crippled by a corrupt government and military coups that followed the corruptions.

The second option-of using the United Nations weapons inspectors to deter Saddam Hussein from obtaining or developing weapons of mass destruction-also has some problems. It neglects the drawbacks of the current world order that allowed the Middle Eastern crisis and the suffering of the Iraqi people to occur. The assistance of the United Nations or of non-governmental organizations will not be enough to prevent the recurrence of suffering brought forth by dictators and Islamic fundamentalist terrorists. In order to find a solution to the crisis that is effective, realistic, and moral, we must understand how the terrorists and dictators were able to come about.

Poverty is what enabled these terrorists and dictators to prosper. Nobel Peace Prize laureate and former South Korean President Kim Dae-Jung said, "The gap between rich and poor is the foundation of religious, ethnic, cultural, and ideological conflicts." He added, "Religious or ethnic disputes were often a pretext for wars, masking the underlying issues of poverty." Poverty forces people to turn to radicalism. Poverty forces people to cooperate with tyrannical regimes, because survival values become the most important values for those who are impoverished.

A war on Iraq would only strengthen the cycle of poverty and hatred in the region. A puppet government in Iraq, which is destined to fail, will only move more people towards radicalism. The war would make any kind of future American actions, even benevolent ones, seem suspicious to the Middle Eastern public. The war on Iraq would not successfully counter the threat against "American security" nor guarantee a better future for the people of the region.

Therefore, the United States must choose the third alternative. United States must work to improve the living conditions of the Arabs, in order to remove terrorists and dictators, the threats to "American security." Removing the support base of these terrorists and dictators would create an international climate inhospitable for them. This is similar to the idea of maintaining good hygiene to prevent bacterial infections.

However, raising the standard of living of the people of the Middle East should not be done by foreign aid alone. The West should help the Arab world by directing them to a model of economic development that would help the Middle East in the long term. Higher standards of living in the Middle East would result in more secular and democratic governments, as people with high living standards naturally tend to turn away from religious fundamentalism and tyrannical totalitarianism.

Achieving a higher standard of living in the troubled region of Middle East would benefit the United States and the Western world by creating a new Arab world congenial to its citizens and corporations.