Anniversary of disaster

Iraq is on a knife edge. The US must back down on the UN role or risk escalation of the conflict

The Guardian
March 22, 2004
By Salim Lone

The anniversary week of the Iraq war had been carefully choreographed by the Bush administration to highlight its successes. Instead, it highlighted the inherent weaknesses of an occupation that is becoming increasingly difficult to sustain. The devastating blow dealt by Spain has undercut the US line that there is a core commitment to the occupation by its allies. The subsequent reservations by the Netherlands, Poland and South Korea demonstrated that the coalition is not so willing. The visit by the secretary of state, Colin Powell, to Baghdad was designed to be a triumphal affirmation of US control, but it unravelled in negative coverage when Arab and some international correspondents walked out of his press conference over the killings by US troops of two al-Arabiya TV journalists. And while there were millions around the world again marching against US occupation, no crowds in Iraq took to the streets to show support for the US.

Supporters of the war have tried to portray the expected pull-out of Spanish troops as a victory for terrorists. But the reality is the opposite: it is the war in Iraq that has, for an entire year, provided a boost for terrorism. Spain's exit has nothing to do with lack of commitment to fight terror: that exit was at the heart of the Socialists' electoral platform, and a remarkable 90% of the population had opposed the war. The new prime minister's policy - making fighting terrorism his first priority without being embroiled in Iraq, and pushing for UN leadership for the Iraqi transition - is exactly what is needed to pave the way towards a safer world.

A similar commitment from other countries that are part of the occupation, and most of all from the US, to hand over Iraq to an international mission would provide a boon to the international struggle against terrorism. That struggle's legitimacy has been severely compromised by the war, and has provoked strong anti-US passions among the world's Muslims, without whose support the anti-terror campaign cannot succeed. Even Muslims hostile to the US recoiled in horror at the 9/11 attacks, but that sympathy dried up rapidly as Washington reacted unilaterally and militarily without making any effort to address the grievances that underlie terrorism. The attack on Iraq in the name of fighting terrorism cemented, for many, the view that the international anti-terrorist campaign was a cover for a US drive to crush Islam and weaken Muslim countries. It gave a huge recruitment boost to terrorist organisations and brought an unprecedented level of insecurity. Senator John Kerry, the Democratic candidate for president, accused the Bush administration two weeks ago of "creating terrorists where there were none".

The occupation has failed to achieve any major US goals beyond those won by force of arms. Almost every breakthrough touted turns out to be illusory, be it the capture of Saddam Hussein, the killing of his sons, entrusting security to new Iraqi forces or the hailing by President Bush and Paul Bremer, the US proconsul, of the March 1 agreement on the interim constitution as an enduring political success in building Iraqi democracy. Clearly, someone had forgotten to tell the Coalition Provisional Authority that 12 of the 13 Shia members on the US-appointed governing council disowned key parts of the interim constitution they had just signed, and pledged to revise them. So what Bush termed a "historic milestone in the Iraqi people's long journey from tyranny and violence to liberty and peace", Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Taqi al-Modaresi condemned as "a time bomb that will spark a civil war".

Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the de facto Iraqi leader, was the first to reveal the anti-democratic ploy in the interim constitution: a central clause ensured that key elements drafted by the governing council (whose support within Iraq is still minimal) would be hard to undo by elected Iraqis since any amendment could be blocked by just three of the country's 18 governorates. No wonder the US fought so fiercely against Sistani's demand for a democratically elected government when "sovereignty" returns to Iraq on June 30. The exquisite irony of an Iraqi grand ayatollah showing a sustained commitment to elections and democratic constitution-making while the American who rules Iraq in the name of bringing freedom manoeuvres to keep US-appointed officials in power for almost another year captures the deep contradictions that have confounded this occupation.

The latest crisis broke on March 2 with the killing of over 200 Shias during their Ashura celebrations, provoking fears of a civil war. Iraqis showed remarkable political maturity in the face of this provocation. But the killings highlighted the central failure of the US, its inability to deal with the issue that matters most to Iraqis: rampant insecurity. Lakhdar Brahimi, the diplomatic troubleshooter the US would like to be the next UN representative in Iraq, emphasised this failure after visiting Baghdad last month. "Insecurity continues to threaten all Iraqis," he said, and pointed to other destabilising realities: massive unemployment, rising disillusionment and anger, and a political process limited to very few actors of "varying credibility". He also warned that "sectarianism is becoming entrenched and inter-communal politics more polarised".

Given the continuing disintegration of the security situation, it is astonishing that a BBC poll showed that 70% of Iraqis were optimistic about the future. The BBC itself reported yesterday that "there is a palpable sense of fear on the streets". In any event, any face-to-face polling done under occupation must be seen as highly suspect. There must also be other doubts about the poll, notably about how representative the sample was of the Iraqi population and why respondents were not asked what they thought of the occupation.

While the Ashura bombings were committed by irredeemable terrorists, US policies have exacerbated the country's sectarian tendencies. It chose, for example, to organise Iraq's political life around explicit religious, ethnic and tribal representation in the governing council.

The war and occupation of Iraq on the basis of what the new Spanish prime minister, José Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, last week called "lies", continue to inflict severe damage to global security and US interests. Even under very optimistic scenarios, Iraq itself is bound to end up with a semi-clerical regime that will enjoy close relations with Iran, which is not what the US had planned. The case for the US to change course has become more urgent with the Socialist victory in Spain. Iraq is on a knife edge, with most Iraqis experiencing deprivation far greater than their suffering during 13 years of sanctions. With Iraq moving into an intensely political phase that will determine its future, and the US even less equipped to manage the country's politics than it has its security, ongoing conflict could still be this war's legacy.

There were hopes that the sidelining of the UN was about to be reversed when Washington turned to Kofi Annan to resolve Bremer's dispute with Sistani on elections. It is possible that events in Spain might prompt a US rethink on how it needs to win more international support. However, there is not much time left for the US to modify its goals in Iraq and seek help from those much better equipped to manage such crises.

Salim Lone was until last autumn director of communications for the UN mission in Baghdad.

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004

Original link

 
_____
Nieuwe Oorlog 2004 | Ander Nieuws week 13