|
|
. Iraqis will not be
pawns in Bush and Blair's war game The present Iraqi regime's repressive practices have long been known,
and its worst excesses took place 12 years ago, under the gaze of General
Colin Powell's troops; 15 years ago, when Saddam was an Anglo-American
ally; and almost 30 years ago, when Henry Kissinger cynically used Kurdish
nationalism to further US power in the region at the expense of both
Kurdish and Iraqi democratic aspirations.
Killing and torture in Iraq is not random, but has long been directly
linked to politics - and international politics at that. Some of the
gravest political repression was in 1978-80, at the time of the Iranian
revolution and Soviet intervention in Afghanistan. But the Iraqi people's
greatest suffering has been during periods of war and under the sanctions
of the 1990s. There are political issues that require political solutions
and a war under any pretext is not what Iraqis need or want.
In government comment about Iraq, the Iraqi people are treated as a
collection of hapless victims without hope or dignity. At best, Iraqis are
said to have parochial allegiances that render them incapable of political
action without tutelage. This is utterly at variance with the history and
reality of Iraq. Iraqis are proud of their diversity, the intricacies of
their society and its deeply rooted urban culture.
Their turbulent recent history is not something that simply happened to
Iraqis, but one in which they have been actors. Iraqis have a rich modern
political tradition borne out of their struggle for independence from
Britain and for political and social emancipation. A major explanation for
the violence of recent Iraqi political history lies in the determination
of people to challenge tyranny and bring about political change. Iraqis
have not gone like lambs to the slaughter, but have fought political
battles in which they suffered grievously. To assert that an American
invasion is the only way to bring about political change in Iraq might
suit Blair's propaganda fightback, but it is ignorant and disingenuous.
It is now the vogue to talk down Iraqi politics under Saddam Hussain as
nothing but the whim of a dictator. The fact is that leaders cannot kill
politics in the minds of people, nor can they crush their aspirations. The
massacres of leftists when the Ba'athists first came to power in 1963 did
not prevent the emergence of a new mass movement in the mid-1960s. The
second Ba'ath regime attempted to buy time from the Kurdish movement in
1970 only to trigger a united mobilisation of Kurdish nationalism. Saddam
co-opted the Communist party in the early 1970s only to see that party's
organisation grow under a very narrow margin of legality before he moved
against it. In the 1970s, the regime tried to control private economic
activity by extending the state to every corner of the economy, only to
face an explosion of small business activity.
The regime's strict secularism produced a clerical opposition with a
mass following. When the regime pressurised Iraqis to join the Ba'ath
party, independent opinion emerged within that party and Saddam found it
necessary to crush it and destroy the party in the process. In the 1980s,
the army was beginning to emerge as a threat, and the 1991 uprising showed
the extent of discontent. In the 1990s, Saddam fostered the religious
leadership of Ayatollah Muhammad Sadiq al-Sadr, only to see the latter
emerge as a focal point for opposition. Even within Saddam's family and
close circle, there has been opposition.
Of course Saddam Hussain crushed all these challenges, but in every
case the regional and international environment has supported the dictator
against the people of Iraq. It is cynical and deceitful of Tony Blair to
pretend that he understands Iraqi politics and has a meaningful programme
for the country. Iraq's history is one of popular struggle and also of
imperial greed, superpower rivalries and regional conflict. To reduce the
whole of Iraqi politics and social life to the whims of Saddam Hussain is
banal and insulting.
Over the past 12 years of vicious economic blockade, the US and Britain
have ignored the political situation inside Iraq and concentrated on
weapons as a justification for their policy of containment. UN resolution
688 of April 1991, calling for an end to repression and an open dialogue
to ensure Iraqi human and political rights, was set aside or used only for
propaganda and to justify the no-fly zones.
Instead of generating a real political dynamic backed by international
strength and moral authority, Iraqis were prevented from reconstructing
their devastated country. Generations of Iraqis will continue to pay the
price of the policy of sanctions and containment, designed for an oil glut
period in the international market.
Now that the US has a new policy, it intends to implement it rapidly
and with all its military might. Despite what Blair claims, this has
nothing to do with the interests and rights of the Iraqi people. The
regime in Iraq is not invincible, but the objective of the US is to have
regime change without the people of Iraq. The use of Iraqi auxiliaries is
designed to minimise US and British casualties, and the result may be
higher Iraqi casualties and prolonged conflict with predictably disastrous
humanitarian consequences.
The Bush administration has enlisted a number of Iraqi exiles to
provide an excuse for invasion and a political cover for the control of
Iraq. People like Ahmad Chalabi and Kanan Makiya have little credibility
among Iraqis and they have a career interest in a US invasion. At the same
time, the main forces of Kurdish nationalism, by disengaging from Iraqi
politics and engaging in internecine conflict, have become highly
dependent upon US protection and are not in a position to object to a US
military onslaught. The US may enlist domestic and regional partners with
varying degrees of pressure.
This in no way bestows legitimacy on its objectives and methods, and
its policies are rejected by most Iraqis and others in the region. Indeed,
the main historical opposition to the Ba'ath regime - including various
strands of the left, the Arab nationalist parties, the Communist party,
the Islamic Da'wa party, the Islamic party (the Muslim Brotherhood) and
others - has rejected war and US patronage over Iraqi politics. The
prevalent Iraqi opinion is that a US attack on Iraq would be a disaster,
not a liberation, and Blair's belated concern for Iraqis is unwelcome.
· Kamil Mahdi is an Iraqi political exile and lecturer in
Middle East economics at the University of Exeter http://politics.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,9115,899122,00.html
Join our Daily News Headlines Email Digest
|
