Iraq now a
“failed state”
Since
9/11, a familiar refrain coming out of Washington has been that “terrorists”
flourish in “failed states”, where they have the freedom to organise and train
unhindered by the security apparatus of a state. Doing something about “failed states” was said to be central to
winning the “war on terrorism”. It is
ironic therefore that the US/UK have now created a “failed state” in Iraq. There may never be a functional state in
Iraq again.
More
troops killed
More US troops have now been killed in Iraq, since
President Bush declared on 1 May 2003 that “major combat operations” were over,
than were killed in the war itself. The
number (160) is still tiny, and it includes troops killed accidentally as well
as those killed as a result of offensive military action. And it is microscopic compared with the
thousands of Iraqis killed by US/UK military action during the war and since,
not to mention the tens of Iraqis who are being killed every day in the general
mayhem, which the US/UK destruction of the Iraqi state has brought about.
The problem for the US administration is that there is no
sign of light at the end of the tunnel.
The military aspect of the occupation is costing the US Treasury a
billion dollars a week, and the oil bonanza which was optimistically expected
to pay for Iraqi reconstruction, and much else besides, has not got off the
ground. More US dollars may have to be
found by the US Treasury for civil purposes, until oil revenue materialises –
which may never happen while the occupation lasts.
All this is worrying for a president seeking re-election
next year, particularly when for the first time in his presidency an opinion
poll has shown a majority for AN Other for his successor.
To alleviate their costs in men
and money, the US/UK are desperate to get other countries to share the burden
of occupation. On Newsnight on 21
August 2003, Jack Straw boasted of their success to date – 30 countries have
pledged troops, he said, and 17 already have troops on the ground in Iraq.
Fortunately for him, he was not
asked to name the countries, and the numbers of troops each has promised: in
many instances, the numbers are pitifully small (for example, 43 from Lithuania
and 120 from Mongolia), and their presence is merely political window
dressing. And the US Treasury is having
to pay for the window dressing as well.
In all, the promised numbers total
about 15,000, with around 9,000 from 15 countries under Polish command in their
occupation zone in central Iraq, and a further 5,500 or so from 9 countries
under British command in their occupation zone around Basra (see details here). And there have been hints that some of these
countries are having second thoughts after the bombing of the UN headquarters
in Baghdad.
Most of these countries were part
of the “Coalition of the Willing” that in theory supported the US/UK invasion
of Iraq. Most countries that opposed
the invasion, for example, France and Russia, are unwilling to supply troops to
supplement the US/UK occupation forces.
There are only willing to supply troops as part of a UN force, if then.
Six months ago, the US
administration was insisting that those countries who refused to support the
“liberation” of Iraq would not be allowed a share of the spoils afterwards, and
the administration was threatening to “punish” France for its leading role in
opposing the invasion. Now, the
administration is wooing France, and other opponents of the invasion, to supply
forces, and has gone so far as to say that it is prepared to consider putting
the occupation forces under UN command, albeit with a US commander.
It is to be hoped that France and
the other permanent members of the Security Council resist this attempt to give
further UN endorsement to the invasion and occupation of Iraq, and refuse to
supply occupation forces under any guise.
The US/UK invaded Iraq and produced the bloody mess: they, and the
states that have submitted to their bullying and bribery to join the
occupation, should be left to bear the burden of clearing it up. Then they may think twice about dismantling
other states in future. For other
countries to shoulder the burden of attempting to put Iraq together again under
the banner of the UN would be an encouragement for the US/UK to engage in
further adventures, in the expectation that the UN would again pick up the
pieces afterwards.
The Security Council has already gone far too far in
endorsing the occupation in resolution 1483, which gave
UN blessing to the occupying powers governing Iraq and selling its oil and
spending the proceeds for the foreseeable future. The UN has already been tainted with responsibility for
occupation, and it is not obvious that forces nominally under UN control, but
largely American, would be any less subject to attack than the present
occupation forces under overt US control.
In July, the occupying powers
appointed an Iraqi Governing Council, which is supposed to pave the way for
representative government in Iraq. Paul
Bremer, the head of the US/UK administration in Baghdad, had been dragging its
feet on this, but the growing resistance to the occupation persuaded him to get
on with it, in the hope that this would convince Iraqis that US/UK occupation
was temporary.
The Council has 25 members: 13 are
Shia (of whom 5 or 6 are Islamist), five are Kurdish (of whom 1 or 2 are
Islamist), five are Sunni Arabs (of whom at least one is an Islamist), one is
Christian and one is Turkomam. (See here for list of the
Council members and their backgrounds compiled by Glen Rangwala).
(The Supreme Council
for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) has one representative on the
Governing Council, Abdel Aziz al-Hakim. He is the brother of Ayatollah
Mohammed Baqer al-Hakim, the leader of SCIRI, who was killed along with around
100 others in Najaf in the Polish occupation zone on 29 August 2003. It may be that he was killed because of his
co-operation with the US, which it should be said was rather reluctant.)
Theoretically,
the Governing Council has the power to appoint ministers, rather than merely
act as an advisory body to the occupiers.
For what it’s worth, this power is thanks to Sergio de Mello, the UN
Special Representative in Iraq, who died in the bomb explosion at the UN
headquarters in Baghdad. He persuaded
Bremer, who wanted it to be advisory only.The Council was supposed to have a
president, but it couldn’t agree on one.
Instead, the presidency has 9 members and the presidency will rotate
amongst them in alphabetic order, with each member serving as president for one
month at a time. The presidency
consists of two Kurds, one from each of the two Kurdish factions, two Islamist
Shias, including the SCIRI representative, two secular Shias, one of whom is
the Pentagon’s favourite Iraqi, Ahmad Chalabi, and two Sunnis, one religious
and one secular, plus one other. It’s
an indication of just how difficult it will be to put together a government in
Iraq – if it can be done at all.
Prophetic
words
Before
the US/UK invasion, there were many warnings about the difficulties of
establishing an alternative regime to that of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, but few
were more prophetic, and succinct, than the following:
“If
you're going to go in and try to topple Saddam Hussein, you have to go to
Baghdad. Once you've got Baghdad, it's not clear what you will do with it.
“It's
not clear what kind of government you would put in place of the one that's
currently there now. Is it going to be a Shia regime, a Sunni regime or a
Kurdish regime? Or one that tilts toward the Ba'athists, or one that tilts
toward the Islamic fundamentalists.
“How
much credibility is that government going to have if it's set up by the United
States military when it's there? How long does the United States military have
to stay to protect the people that sign on for the government, and what happens
to it once we leave?”
Those were the words of Dick Cheney, then US Defense Secretary, in an interview in the New York Times on 13 April 1991, explaining why the US administration baulked at going to Baghdad after the first Gulf War. How did he become a cheerleader for regime change in Iraq? It’s a fair bet that he’s regretting it now.
Labour & Trade Union Review
September 2003