TFF logoFEATURES

TFF Home | About us

Forums

Iraq Forum

Features by others

Links to all issues

New stuff

Associates' articles

Burundi Forum

Publications on-line

Paul McCartney

Nyt på nordisk

Jonathan Power

EU conflict-handling

The 100 best books

Annual Reports

TFF Associates

Nonviolence

Reconciliation project

Øbergs Kalejdoskop

Support TFF on-line

Activities right now

Gandhi & India

Teaching & training

Oberg's photos

Support TFF off-line

PressInfos - Analyses

Macedonia Forum

Lærestof på dansk

TFF News Navigator

Contact


The UN Should Try to
End Iraq's Occupation

 

By

Farhang Jahanpour

Professor and Department for Continuing Education at the University of Oxford

 

June 14 , 2004

The unanimous approval of UN Security Council Resolution 1546 about the transfer of sovereignty to the interim Iraqi government was a welcome move. It helped heal some of the wounds caused as the result of the illegal invasion of Iraq by US and UK forces, and has again put the United Nations at the centre of global politics. However, as far as the situation in Iraq is concerned, the resolution should only be regarded as the first step in a long process before a legitimate Iraqi government assumes power. The resolution went through a number of drafts but after a great deal of haggling and the incorporation of amendments proposed by France, Germany, China, Russia and a number of other countries, it was greatly improved.

While the passing of this resolution provides a glimmer of hope for the hard-pressed Iraqis, the push for a UN mandate had more to do with US presidential elections and to repair Bush and Blair's damaged reputations than a genuine desire to establish democracy and sovereignty in Iraq. In order to understand some of the problems that lie ahead it is important to briefly remind ourselves of what has gone before, what is happening on the ground and what is proposed for the future. It is also important to remind the US and UK governments that the passing of the resolution does in no way absolve them of the guilt of deceiving public opinion and invading Iraq for dubious reasons. It has not washed the slate clean and it does not mean business as usual.

 

The Background

Despite the objection of most people in the world; despite unprecedented anti-war marches and demonstrations in many countries, including in the United States and Britain; despite the pleading of some of the most respected political, religious and intellectual figures throughout the world; and despite failing to obtain UN backing, George Bush and Tony Blair launched an illegal invasion of Iraq. At that time, US Administration described the UN as irrelevant and scornfully dismissed the views of the vast majority of the peoples and countries of the world.

The war was preceded by many months of deliberate lies and unsubstantiated propaganda, often engineered by the members of the Neo-Conservative cabal (neocons) who have embedded themselves in the Pentagon. There were three main reasons given for the war: (1) The existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq; (2) close links between Saddam Hussain's regime and Al-Qa'ida; (3) the humanitarian desire to liberate the Iraqi people and to establish democracy there; (4) and finally the neocons claimed that occupation forces would be welcomed by the Iraqi people and that it would put an end to terrorism.

1. The main reason given by US and UK politicians for waging war on Iraq was that Saddam Husayn had possessed and continued to possess and continued to possess weapons of mass destruction and posed an imminent danger to the West and Iraq's neighbours. Yet all the false dossiers and all the clever propaganda failed to convince the people that war was the only option available to resolve the Iraqi problem. Tony Blair's dodgy dossier that had been allegedly based on the latest intelligence information was found to contain a plagiarised account of an old student research paper. Colin Powell's allegations in his UN speech about the Iraqi purchase of nuclear material from Niger were declared by the IAEA director general Muhammad al-Baradei to have been fraudulent. All the sites that were allegedly producing weapons of mass destruction were inspected by 1,400-strong US survey group and were found to be empty of any such weapons. Iraqi officials and scientists allegedly involved in the manufacturing of those weapons were arrested, incarcerated and interrogated, but they could not produce any clues to banned weapons.

A respected UK inspector and scientist, Dr David Kelley, committed suicide. As he had promised the Iraqi scientists that if they co-operated there would be no war, he could not live with himself when he discovered that even he had been misled by his government. He was put under intolerable pressure for revealing some of the information that has now become common knowledge &endash; that the evidence regarding Iraqi WMD had been exaggerated, that the government had influenced the security forces to "sex-up" the dossier, and that there was widespread opposition inside the intelligence circles to the 45-minute claim. Instead of investigating the real issue, the government asked Lord Hutton to concentrate on the causes of Dr Kelley's death, and he produced a bogus report that was totally at odds with the evidence that had been presented at the hearings. The chairman and director general of the BBC resigned due to minor offences of a journalist who was substantially correct in his reports, yet those in charge of fabricating intelligence and misleading the public are still in place.

Two leading members of Tony Blair's cabinet - the former Foreign Secretary Robin Cook and former International Development Secretary Claire Short - resigned in disgust. Some leading members of the Bush Administration have also jumped the sinking ship and have revealed some damaging secrets. The former treasury secretary Paul O'Neill has revealed that the Bush Administration was intent on attacking Iraq from the time it seized power. The former counter-terrorism co-ordinator Richard Clarke has denounced Bush and his top aides for using the September 11 terrorist attacks as a pretext for waging war against Iraq, thus diverting attention from the real war on terrorism.

Eventually, in the light of all the leaked information, both Bush and Blair have been forced to admit that the information that they provided as the justification for the war was based on lies and misinformation, although Tony Blair still refuses to admit it publicly. In an interview with the BBC, the chief US arms inspector and the head of 1,400-strong Iraq Survey Group David Kay, referring to Tony Blair's insistence that WMD may still be found in Iraq, said that such views were 'delusional'.

We now have the unedifying spectacle of the CIA and the neocons in the Pentagon blaming each other for all the lies. Lately, we have had the comical claim that Ahmad Chalabi &endash; the neocons' favourite person to run Iraq &endash; had been a double agent for the Iranians all along! So now we know that the war that was imposed on the Middle East by the neocons was really the work of the clever Iranians who consistently opposed the war and who favoured a weakened Saddam Husayn as their neighbour rather than the invading American forces. Ahmad Chalabi's real crime seems to have been his effort to form a political grouping of all the disparate Shi'is. He is believed to be the mastermind behind the creation of a body called Al-Beit Al-Shi'i that would unite Iraq's Shi'is and would co-ordinate their political views over key issues. Meanwhile, Iyad Allawi, a secular Shi'i who worked for years as the agent of both the CIA and MI6 and who provided the information about the 45-minutes claim, has been appointed as the new prime minister of Iraq.

2. The second reason given for the invasion was that there had been close links between the Iraqi regime and Al-Qaida. Western intelligence sources leaked documents contradicting that claim. They confirmed that they had informed their respective governments that they had not found any evidence of collaboration between Al-Qaida and the Iraqi regime. However, as the result of effective propaganda, deliberately linking the invasion of Iraq with the 'war against terrorism', public opinion was misled. Opinion polls have shown that prior to the invasion a majority of Americans believed that there had been close links between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.

3. After the war, Bush and Blair have claimed that they attacked Iraq for 'humanitarian purposes' and in order to liberate the Iraqis from Saddam Hussein's tyranny. This assertion is also false, because Saddam Hussein was committing most of his atrocities during the period when he was backed to the hilt by Britain and the United States. During the eight-year war with Iran &endash; which had allegedly started with US encouragement - he was given billions of dollars worth of weapons, including chemical weapons, that resulted in the death of hundreds of thousands of Iranian forces. By contrast, during the last few years, as the result of no-fly zones and crushing sanctions that killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children he had become much less of a threat to his people and to the world.

The idea that you can export democracy to a country by raining missiles on the people and destroying the foundations of a civilised life is too ridiculous to be taken seriously, especially when the US has itself been chiefly responsible for the installation of some rogues regimes, including the Taleban in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Amnesty International's cover letter to its 2004 annual report provided a clear rebuke to those who maintained that the violent war on Iraq was waged in order to bring democracy and to protect human rights: "The global security agenda promulgated by the U.S. administration is bankrupt of vision and bereft of principle. Sacrificing human rights in the name of security at home, turning a blind eye to abuses abroad and using preemptive military force where and when it chooses have neither increased security nor ensured liberty."

4. Lastly, the neocons claimed that as soon as they attacked Iraq, there would be a popular uprising throughout the country, and the Iraqis would welcome the invaders with roses and smiles. In a sworn testimony to the US Congress on February 27, 2003, just before the US lunched its war on Iraq, Paul Wolfowitz announced: "These are Arabs [in Iraq], 23 million of the most educated people in the Arab world, who are going to welcome us as liberators. And when that message gets out to the whole Arab world it is going to be [a] powerful counter to Osama bin Laden. The notion that we're going to earn more enemies by going in and getting rid of what every Arab knows is one of the worst tyrants, and they have many governing them, is just nonsense . . . We're dealing with a country that can really finance its own reconstruction, and relatively soon." The intensifying uprising in Iraq from the Kurdish areas in the north to the so-called Sunni triangle in the middle and the Shi'i heartland in the south has put the lie to those claims. Far from being welcomed by the Iraqis and putting an end to terrorism, the invasion has been greeted with widespread opposition and has turned Iraq into a recruiting ground for Al-Qa'ida and other terrorists.

The unspoken reason for the war was that the removal of Saddam Hussein's regime would neutralise one of the leading Arab opponents of Israel and would cow the rest of the Arab world to give in to Israeli demands. Although many Arab regimes have seen what the present US Administration is capable of doing, they have refused to surrender to Israeli demands and the situation in Israel/Palestine, far from being resolved, has gone from bad to worse. In the long-term the invasion of Iraq and the humiliation of Arab regimes may work against the best interests of the Israeli people as it would remove any means of compromise and would intensify the feeling of hatred and hostility on both sides. It has also further alienated world public opinion from Israel and has undermined the genuine feeling of sympathy that existed in most parts of the world for an oppressed people, as they are now seen as the oppressors. The Arab-Israeli conflict cannot be resolved by force and the only option is for both sides to engage in realistic and genuine dialogue and negotiations.

 

The invasion and its aftermath

The invasion started with the barbaric 'Shock and Awe' operations that devastated the capital city of one of the oldest civilisations in the world, killing thousands of civilians. The massive attacks on Iraqi civilians included the use of napalm, weapons containing depleted uranium and cluster bombs, forbidden for use in civilian areas and constituting a war crime. It was followed by the destruction of much of the infrastructure, the looting of one of the most important archaeological museums in the world, destroying some unique items, and creating a climate of total lawlessness and violence throughout Iraq. The killing of the Iraqis and the destruction of the country, including some ancient shrines that apart from their religious significance form part of the heritage of mankind, have continued unabated. With the looting of the Iraqi oil income, all the multi-billion contracts have been given to US companies, while the Iraqi firms have been allowed small bids of $50,000 or less.

Any resistance to the occupation has been described as the work of the 'terrorists', 'Saddam die-hards', 'dead-enders' or 'foreign fighters' and has been brutally put down. Thousands of Iraqis &endash; between 70 to 90 percent of whom were innocent according to the Red Cross report that was handed to the Pentagon as early as February 2004 &endash; were incarcerated in Saddam's jails. Recently, we have seen the evidence of the criminal way that they have been treated. This has totally undermined the US and Western cause in the eyes of Muslims and non-Muslims alike. It will take a very long time before this damage to Western prestige can be repaired. Many human rights activists in the Middle East will have a hard time to be listened to when they advocate Western-style democracy and human rights. People are bound to ask: 'What human rights?' Contrary to the claim that the mistreatment, rape, torture and murder of Iraqi prisoners were rare incidents committed by a few low-grade soldiers, it is clear that the directive for the 'softening up' of the prisoners had come from high up in the chain of command, and that those atrocities were not limited to Abu-Ghraib prison.

Meanwhile, the British government has pulled off another major coup &endash; similar to the Kelley affair &endash; regarding the claims about the mistreatment of the prisoners under British control. The government concentrated its onslaught on the photographs that were published in Daily Mirror that were found to be forged, and thus diverted public attention from the real issue &endash; the abuse of prisoners including death under detention &endash; that had been documented by the Red Cross and Amnesty International. Although the scale of atrocities by British forces has been much less extensive than those under US control, nevertheless, it has now emerged that the military police is investigating 75 cases of abuse, twice the figure originally given. It is extraordinary that it seems that nobody in the British government, from the prime minister down to the defence secretary and junior ministers, had seen the report that had been handed by the Red Cross to the British government months earlier. No one has been dismissed for this lack of knowledge or inaction or for the abuse of prisoners.

The uprising in Fallujah was put down by massive bombardment of the city, inflicting collective punishment and killing and injuring of thousands of civilians during two major attacks on the city. US aircraft fired missiles and dropped two 500-pound bombs on the courtyard of the city's Abdel Aziz al-Samarrai mosque, allegedly as people assembled for afternoon prayers. Iraqi witnesses claimed that as many as 40 people were killed in that attack alone. In direct violation of the Geneva Convention, US marines climbed the minaret of the al-Muadidi mosque and used it as a firing platform against the Iraqi fighters.

Shaykh Ahmad Abu-al-Ghafur al-Samirra'i, imam of Umm al-Qura Mosque and member of the Iraqi delegation who visited Al-Fallujah to negotiate a cease-fire, told reporters that "When we arrived in Al-Fallujah, there was no ceasefire. Instead we saw the jet fighters conducting raids. We saw hospitals full of casualties and ambulances arriving at hospitals from everywhere." As to the numbers of the people killed and injured, Shaykh Al-Samirra'i quoted a doctor who was treating the injured as saying that "the number of martyrs was 518 at 0900 today." He noted that "those martyrs were in field hospitals since the only main hospital was seized by the occupiers who did not allow anyone to take the wounded to the hospital." He went on to say that "the toll of martyrs" includes 46 children under five, 83 children under 15, and 157 women. "I was even told that most of those women were killed by snipers," Shaykh Al-Samirra'i added. He said that 1224 people were wounded. This was just one raid, and was repeated a couple of weeks later by another massive onslaught.

Meanwhile, the neocons and their agents in the press pushed for a more brutal response to the insurgents. The New York Times' William Safire in an OpEd on 7th April declared: "Having announced we will pacify rebellious Baathists in Fallujah, we must pacify Fallujah. Having designated the Shiite Sadr an outlaw, we must answer his bloody-minded challenge with whatever military force is required and with fewer casualties in the long run." Washington Post's commentator George Will declared in his column that the US "empire" had to establish a "monopoly on violence" in Iraq. "It is too late for debate about being in Baghdad," he wrote. "And the relatively pretty phase of empire&emdash;the swift dispatch of an enemy army&emdash;is over. Regime change, occupation, nation-building&emdash;in a word empire&emdash;are a bloody business. Now Americans must steel themselves for administering the violence necessary to disarm or defeat Iraq's urban militias..." Nevertheless, having failed to pacify the city, American forces withdrew and the city's control was put in the hands of a former Ba'thist general. So much for the de-Ba'thification!

The war against the forces of Muqtada al-Sadr who clearly enjoys the support of a large number of Iraqis, given the vast level of support for him in many cities in the south of Iraq, is still going on. Serious clashes between Sadr's militia and security forces on 10th June in Najaf ended a lukewarm truce that had been in force for a few days. That unnecessary confrontation started with the banning of his newspaper al-Hawzah, which had criticised US proconsul Paul Bremer III, and the arrest of one of his aides. Indeed, while an early poll had shown that Sadr enjoyed the support of only one percent of Iraqis, recent polls have shown that no fewer than 70 percent of Iraqis support him now. Then there was the attack on the wedding guests near the Syrian border, and the disgraceful and flippant denial of the story by the main US military spokesman &endash; 'even bad guys have parties' - until the Arab media produced the evidence of the wedding ceremony.

 

Sovereignty without power?

It is important to review these developments in order to remind ourselves that we cannot take the claims of the British and US governments at face value. They lack any credibility in the eyes of the world and their present assertion about 'transferring sovereignty to the Iraqis' must be taken with a pinch of salt. Of course, what is important now is to help the Iraqi people and to find a way to put an end to the occupation that has proved so costly both to the Iraqis and to the West. However, one will not be helping the Iraqis if one justifies the occupation under a different name. Despite the passing of the recent resolution, people are entitled to be sceptical of the claim for the so-called 'transfer of sovereignty to the Iraqis' for a number of important reasons:

First of all, Iraqi sovereignty does not belong to the occupation forces for them to transfer it to the Iraqis. Apart from the Iraqis' inalienable right to their sovereignty, UN resolutions 1483, of May 22, and 1511, of October 16 2003 have confirmed full Iraqi sovereignty. At best, one can describe what is now planned as a transfer of administrative authority, and even that is going to be exercised under the watchful eye of the occupying forces. The new Iraqi government will have as much independence as a dog on a leash. Far from withdrawing the UK and US forces from Iraq, it is proposed that they will be increased and that they will remain in Iraq for 'as long as the job is done'. On 3rd June 2004 US Secretary of State Colin Powell again stressed that Iraq's new government would not have a veto over actions by US and UK forces after the 30 June transfer of power. This clearly contradicts what Tony Blair said earlier during his weekly press conference. The resolution also significantly omits any mention of an Iraqi veto over any possible operations by the occupying forces, such as the debacle in Fallujah.

Would you be reading this now,
if it wasn't useful to you?
Get more quality articles in the future

Although Bremer is going to leave Iraq, John Dimitris Negroponte, US ambassador at the UN and a Jewish neocon of Honduras and Nicaragua fame, is going to replace him. He will be at the head of the largest US embassy in the world, appropriately housed in Saddam Hussein's Republican Palace. His appointment as someone who is to bring democracy to Iraq is either incredibly insensitive or deliberately provocative. The United States is building some 14 permanent bases in Iraq, hardly a sign of transferring sovereignty to the Iraqi people. In the revised Security Council resolution the US-led multinational force is given authority to take all necessary measures for security but envisages a date for the end of its mandate when a fully elected Iraqi government is in place in January 2006. Even after that date, US forces can stay 'at the invitation' of the Iraqi government. However, they have made it clear that if they were asked to leave they would cut off any aid to the new government. Even if that invitation is not forthcoming, a US veto at the Security Council will be sufficient to block any resolution for US withdrawal from Iraq. At the same time, the new Iraqi government is to guarantee that US and UK forces will be immune from any prosecution for war crimes and will not be subject to Iraqi laws. This last provision is clearly necessary in view of the past behaviour of the occupying forces.

Secondly, how can one transfer sovereignty without transferring the power and authority that go with it to a legitimate government? What has happened is that a few Iraqi exiles who have been organised by the CIA and who have been largely handpicked by the US proconsul will be declared as the new Iraqi government. Although the UN special envoy Lakdar Brahimi was supposed to pick the members of the new cabinet &endash; itself a dubious undertaking &endash; it has now become clear that Iyad Allawi, the Iraqi prime minister, was chosen in Lakdar Brahimi's absence in a meeting of the Provisional Authority chaired by Bremer. The report that he was not Brahimi's first choice but was hoisted on him by Bremer shows that the UN was used merely as a fig leaf and that the US proconsul was the one who was calling the shots. According to Adnan Pachachi, even Ghazi Al-Yawar, the new president, was Bremer's first choice, despite reports to the contrary. Brahimi has called Bremer the dictator of Iraq who was in charge of the money and the signature. He pointed out that it would be wrong to assume that he had "a free hand" in carrying out his mission in Iraq. Those remarks were echoed by UN secretary-general, Kofi Annan. "I think we all have to recognise that the process wasn't perfect and it was a difficult environment," Annan said. "And I think given the circumstances, I believe Mr Brahimi did as best as he could."

There has been no election and no popular mandate for the appointed Iraqi government. The views of leading Iraqis, including Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, have been ignored. The Security Council resolution has received a very cool reception in Iraq as a whole. There have already been massive demonstrations by the followers of Ayatollah Sistani demanding a veto over occupation forces. The Kurds have openly voiced their displeasure at the omission of the clause about Kurdish autonomy in the resolution. The new government will also still operate from behind the 'green line' manned and cut off from the rest of Baghdad by US forces.

 

The Shi'i-Sunni divide

The suspicious explosions and the assassination of some leading Shi'i religious and political figures, including Ayatollah Muhammad Baqir Al-Hakim, the leader of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), and more recently the assassination of the Shi'i chairman of the Iraqi Governing Council have led some Iraqis to claim that some shadowy forces are determined to sideline leading Shi'i figures. Governing Council member Abdul Aziz Al-Hakim, the brother of the assassinated leader of SCIRI, has openly accused the Americans of wanting to isolate main Shi'i leaders. The least that can be said about those assassinations is that the occupying forces have failed in their duty to protect the lives of those under their control.

The US should realise that the best way to stop the radicalisation of the Shi'is and reduce the influence of clerics such as Muqtada al-Sadr is to align herself with moderate Shi'is, such as Ayatollah Ali Sistani. This may mean the acknowledgement of some role for religion in Iraqi politics, but the alternative would be a much more militant regime. The Shi'is form more than sixty percent of the Iraqi population. Ever since 1533 when the Ottoman Empire conquered Iraq it marginalised the majority population, due to the rivalry between the Ottomans that held the title of the Caliph of the Sunnis and the Safavids who were at the head of Iranian Shi'is. The suppression of the rights of the Shi'is continued under the period of the monarchy and was further intensified under Saddam Husayn's regime.

American antipathy to Ayatollah Khomeini and the Iranian hostage crisis should not stop them from granting the rights of the majority Shi'is in Iraq. It should be borne in mind that while at the time of the Islamic revolution in Iran Shi'ism was the main source of Islamic radicalism, Shi'i militancy has gradually declined since the death of Ayatollah Khomeyni in June 1989. However, during the past 20 years a virulent form of Sunni Wahhabi radicalism has been behind the emergence of strongly anti-Western Islamic groups, such as the Taliban in Afghanistan, the Al-Qaeda and their supporters in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Iraq, including those affiliated to the Jordanian born terrorist Abu-Mus'ab Al-Zarqawi. At the moment, the Americans need the help of the majority Shi'i moderates in Iraq &endash; and Iran &endash; to defeat the forces of Wahhabi and Al-Qaeda terrorism in Iraq and in the rest of the world.

Instead, the Americans have opted for secular figures such as Iyad Allawi who for long has been in the pay of the CIA and the MI6. The establishment of a religiously oriented government may not be a good thing and may not suit Western designs for Iraq. Nevertheless, we were told that the aim of the invasion of Iraq was to establish democracy, and surely democracy means respecting the will of the majority, even if the majority favours a religious government not to the liking of the Americans. It would be very dangerous if the new transitional government were to collapse during the tumultuous months ahead due to the lack of legitimacy and popular support. That would create a situation even more complex than the present chaos. This is why it is essential that the new government must have broad support and must be seen to be independent of the occupation forces.

 

Iraq not a launching pad for further adventurism

It is clear that US and British forces, faced with a deteriorating situation and mounting casualties, wish to withdraw from the line of attack, while continuing their occupation of the country and maintaining their control of the Iraqi oil resources. They would like to persuade other countries to put their soldiers on the front lines to suffer the brunt of the casualties, while US forces withdraw to their bases out of the harms way, but continue to exercise the real power from behind the scenes. That scenario is not in the interest of the global community, of the Middle East, or even of America's long-term interest. Now that Saddam has been toppled, and a new interim government has been formed, US forces must leave Iraq in an orderly fashion and must relinquish their control of Iraqi oil. This should start now and should be completed before elections are held in Iraq. The issue of who controls the forces during the interim period and who will be in charge of the Iraqi oil is still vague and was not clearly spelled out by the UN resolution.

As far as the domestic situation in Iraq is concerned, the US and the neocons within the Administration must be content with having toppled Saddam and must relinquish the hope of using their occupation of Iraq as a launching pad for adventurism in the rest of the Middle East. They should also realise that their efforts to monopolise Iraqi oil would create a major backlash in the Arab world, not to say among some Western countries, particularly Russia and France that had signed billions of dollars worth of contracts with the previous regime. If Iraq can find a stable government and can export oil to the full capacity that it is capable of, it would stabilise the oil market and would drive down the price, while a US control of the Iraqi oil will always meet with Iraqi opposition and will encourage acts of sabotage that would further aggravate the oil crisis.

America should also refrain from using her control of Iraq as a means of giving Ariel Sharon a free hand to push for the dream of Greater Israel. There is a widespread belief in the Middle East and beyond &endash; supported by the developments on the ground since the invasion of Iraq - that apart from the desire to have full control over Iraqi oil, another main aim of the neocons was to bolster the position of Israel in the Middle East. If Israel is not willing to adjust herself to the realities in the Middle East, then the rest of the Middle East should be forced to adjust itself to Israeli demands. This fact has even been grasped by some leading US figures. Retired Marine Gen. Anthony C. Zinni, a former US envoy to the Middle East, said: "I couldn't believe what I was hearing, that the road to [peace in] Jerusalem led through Baghdad, when just the opposite is true, the road to Baghdad led through Jerusalem."

The same logic seems to be behind Bush's latest idea about the Greater Middle East. Rather than stopping Israeli excesses that are at the heart of the Middle East crisis, Bush wants to mould a new Middle East to US and Israeli liking. The issue of greater democracy in the Middle East is a fine and admirable concept, but it cannot be imposed on the Middle East, while many people in the region question the motives behind those efforts. This is why the leaders of some major Arab countries, including Egypt and Saudi Arabia, refused the US invitation to the G-8 summit to discuss the issue. Given Bush Administration's blind support for all criminal acts committed by Sharon's government, it lacks any credibility in the eyes of the people in the Middle East to be speaking of democracy and human rights. Everyone knows that a dubious project driven by the neocons does not serve the real interests of the people in the Middle East. Such cheap efforts would only help to undermine people's belief in democracy and human rights.

However, despite being caught in the Iraqi quagmire, the neocons are not giving up. They have already forced a resolution on the US Congress to impose sanctions on Syria, and they are still continuing with lies and threats against Iran. There is a lot wrong with both countries, and both of them need to have a greater degree of democracy, but neocon pressures based on dubious motives are not the way of achieving the required improvements. It is not clear whether the resignation of the CIA director George Tenet was at the behest of the neocons or not, but it is clear that the real authors of the invasion, the Likudnics in the heart of the Pentagon, are still firmly in place. They should be sacked as a minimum requirement for the Bush Administration to regain some international credibility.

The world and the UN are at a very critical juncture at the moment. Bush and Blair were fond of repeating that if the United Nations did not act it would go the way of the League of Nations. They were quite right in that assertion, but they were absolutely wrong in the conclusion that they drew from that statement. The League of Nations failed because it did not act when Mussolini invaded Abyssinia. The UN also failed to stop the invasion of Iraq, but at least it steadfastly refused to sanction that illegal action. To their credit, even the non-permanent members of the Security Council refused to be bullied by the US, despite all the threats, and opposed the second resolution that would have authorised the invasion of Iraq. Now that the UN has once again stepped in and has approved the resolution for the transfer of sovereignty to the Iraqis, it must make sure that this resolution is carried out fully and honestly.

The UN will be totally undermined and discredited if it fails to ensure that the occupying forces leave Iraq and the Iraqis regain control of their oil resources. Apart from the liberation of the Iraqi people from the clutches of this illegal occupation, many other global issues, including the very credibility of the United Nations is at stake. If the UN fails to ensure an end to the Anglo-American occupation of a Muslim country it would persuade many Muslims that they are on the receiving end of the 'clash of civilisations'. That perception would further alienate the Arabs and the Muslims from the West and might result in a long-lasting conflict. This is why even for the long-term interest of the United States and the defeat of terrorism, it is essential that the UN is seen as a truly independent, international organisation that can bring big powers to account.

The UN should make sure that there is a clear timetable for the withdrawal of Coalition forces. As they leave, they should be replaced by a multinational force, preferably including forces from the Arab and Islamic countries. The reason why the UN headquarters was attacked in Baghdad last September was that the Iraqis regarded the UN tainted by long years of sanctions. They also believed that the UN presence in Iraq was to provide a cover for the continued US occupation. However, if the UN is able to show its independence and can indicate that a UN force would provide the means for the withdrawal of US and UK forces, the Iraqis will co-operate with it.

 

Arab-Israeli conflict, the main cause of instability in the Middle East

Meanwhile, it is essential to find an equitable solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict that in the eyes of many people in the Middle East is behind most of the turmoil in the region. The issue of Israeli nuclear weapons must be also seriously addressed if the campaign against alleged Iraqi and Iranian weapons of mass destruction is not to ring hollow. Practically all Middle Eastern countries have accepted the existence of Israel. The question is no longer about whether but about what kind of Israel should exist. During the Madrid Conference, the Oslo Peace Process and the Camp David and Taba negotiations the Arabs acted in good faith and clearly spelled out their acceptance of the state of Israel living within safe and secure borders. During the years when the Palestinians could see a light at the end of the tunnel there was very little violence. However, all those promising developments were sabotaged first by the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin, then by the Netanyahu government, the doubling of the illegal settlements in the occupied territories, and finally by Sharon's push to tear those agreements into shreds and occupy more territory and imprison the Palestinians behind an Apartheid wall.

It has become abundantly clear that due to many domestic constraints US governments are not capable of playing the role of an honest broker in the Arab-Israeli conflict. The other three members of the Quartet &endash; the UN, the EU and the Russians &endash; should not allow the present dangerous stalemate to continue any further. They must seize the initiative and must force Israel to end its illegal occupation and withdraw behind the internationally recognised borders. They must rescue the vast majority of moderate Jews from the clutches of a few fanatical zealots. Most Jews know too well that if they wish to live in the Middle East they must find a way of coexisting with vastly superior numbers of their Arab neighbours. The present violent policies of the Israeli governments, backed by their ultra-zealous supporters in the US Administration, will only lead to more violence and bloodshed without bringing safety to the Israelis. On the contrary, they jeopardise the long-term peaceful presence of the Jews in the heart of the Middle East.

Instead of solving the real issue at the heart of the Middle East conflict, some irresponsible US leaders are trying to widen the scope of hostilities and are openly threatening Syria and Iran, and if they have their way they would do to those countries what they have done to Iraq. This would plunge the entire Middle East into war and bloodshed, something that the hawks in the Pentagon seem to be dreaming of &endash; perpetual war for an illusive peace! The fact that not only known hawks such as Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, Richard Perle, David Frum, Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice, but even the allegedly moderate Secretary of State Colin Powell are joining the bandwagon shows that people must take such threats seriously. It is particularly revealing that recently both George Bush and Colin Powell have made anti-Syrian and anti-Iranian threats at the gathering of the main pro-Israeli lobby AIPAC. These remarks support the widely-held suspicion that the aim of the war was not to get rid of the fictitious weapons of mass destruction in Baghdad or to introduce democracy, but to redraw the map of the entire Middle East on Israeli and American lines.

The remarks about an invasion of Syria and Iran made in the wake of the Iraqi war were so irresponsible that even the British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw had to repudiate them and distance himself from his allies. Speaking on BBC Radio-4, he said that Britain would have "nothing whatever" to do with military action against Syria or Iran. Referring to Iran, he said: "Iran is an emerging democracy and there would be no case whatsoever for taking any kind of action…. We have had good co-operation from the Iranian government," he added. "The Iranians have more reason to know of the terror imposed by Saddam Hussein, not just on his own people but on other peoples in the region, than almost any other country including Kuwait."

Before the rest of the Middle East is consumed in the fire of endless unilateral war waged by the neocons in the US Administration, the world must act to stop this madness and must address the problems of the Middle East in a comprehensive and responsible manner. That course of action would not only benefit Iraq and the Middle East but would also serve America's long-term interests and would be the best way to defeat the menace of global terrorism.

 

* Farhang Jahanpour received his PhD from the University of Cambridge in Oriental Studies. He is a part-time tutor at the Department for Continuing Education at the University of Oxford and a member of Kellogg College, Oxford. He was formerly professor and Dean of the Faculty of Languages at the University of Isfahan, and also worked for 18 years as the Editor for Middle East and North Africa for the BBC.

You may write to professor Jahanpour at fjahanpour@btopenworld.com

 

 

© TFF and the author 2004

 

mail
Tell a friend about this article

Send to:

From:

Message and your name

 

 

S P E C I A L S & F O R U M S

Iraq Forum

Gandhi & India

Burundi Forum

Photo galleries

Nonviolence Forum

TFF News Navigator

Become a TFF Friend

TFF Online Bookstore

Reconciliation project

EU conflict-management

Make an online donation

Foundation update and more

TFF Peace Training Network

Make a donation via bank or postal giro

Basic menu below

 


Home

New

PressInfo

TFF

Forums

Features

Publications

Kalejdoskop

Links



 

The Transnational Foundation for Peace and Future Research
Vegagatan 25, S - 224 57 Lund, Sweden
Phone + 46 - 46 - 145909     Fax + 46 - 46 - 144512
http://www.transnational.org   comments@transnational.org

      © TFF 1997-2004