Mother Jones Daily: War Watch
April 14, 2003
|
|
 | ||||
| "The tragedy was foreseeable and preventable... The tragedy was not prevented, due to our nation's inaction." -- Martin E. Sullivan, who has resigned as chairman of the President's Advisory Committee on Cultural Property over the looting of Iraq's National Museum. | ||||
 | ||||
| | | | |
Occupation Watch: 
The "Nightmare Scenario" Even if democracy can take hold in Iraq, might it be in a form the White House can't stomach?
Strained Smiles in Europe
European leaders have again demonstrated their ability to paper over differences. But have the wounds really healed? 
The "Nightmare Scenario"
Some of the most powerful images of Iraq's newfound freedom have been the pictures of the Shiite pilgrimage to Kerbala, a holy ritual long forbidden to under Saddam's rule. Now that Hussein and his primarily Sunni Baath party are gone, many Shiites now say they welcome the promise of a democracy. But it may be a form of democracy the Bush administration has very little interest in seeing.
In the worst-case scenario (at least for the White House), Iraq's Shiite majority could end up voting in another Ayatollah, as Christopher Preble of the Cato Institute explains:
- "The Bush administration hopes that Iraqis will replace Saddam Hussein's secular socialism with a new breed of secular liberalism. This ideal government would be committed to free enterprise, respect the rights of women, be tolerant toward ethnic and religious minorities, be favorably disposed towards Israel, and open and hospitable for American diplomats and businessmen.
But what if Shi'a Muslims, who comprise over 60 percent of the total population of Iraq, elect a leader with ties to Iran - a democracy, but one in which religious mullahs dominate political life, suppress dissent, are building nuclear weapons, and fund terrorism? What if ethnic Kurds, emboldened by their relative autonomy from the last 12 years, choose leaders committed to full-fledged statehood, independent of Iraq? What if a host of candidates split the votes of Shiites and Kurds, while minority Sunni Muslims unite behind a former Baath Party official?
In short, if a democratic election, reflecting the honest and freely expressed wishes of the Iraqi people, produces a leader deemed insufficiently committed to Washington's goals, the Bush administration will be forced to affirm or reject its alleged attachment to the principle of democracy."
And that's assuming that the Bush administration can usher in a functioning democracy in the first place. There are already signs that the US viceroys preparing o run Iraq may have serious trouble incorporating the country's Shiites into an interim government. The largest Shiite Muslim group, the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution, boycotted the first American-led meeting of opposition groups in Iraq. Thousands of Shiites flooded the streets to protest the American-led summit. And there has been other strong Shiite resistance to American-endorsed leadership. Shiite religious leaders took control by force of a downtrodden suburb called Saddam City and renamed it after a Shiite martyr, Sadr. And in Kut, a Shiite cleric who claims to be a direct descendant of the sect's founder, has staged an armed take-over of city hall. His men chant "La, La Chalabi," or "No, no, Chalabi," against the once-exiled Iraqi businessman Ahmed Chalabi.
In fact, as Lara Marlowe of The Irish Times writes, there is little reason to believe that any leader promoted by Washington will be accepted by the Shiite majority.
- "I've asked dozens of Shiites in Baghdad what they thought of the political meeting near Nassirya on Tuesday, and of Ahmed Chalabi, a Shiite favoured by the Pentagon. Mr Chalabi was convicted of embezzling at least $60 million in Jordan. So far, his contribution to the US invasion of Iraq has been to 'pre-position' a few middle-aged men in US uniforms with 'Free Iraqi Forces' flashes in the Palestine Hotel in Baghdad. But he threatens to bring more armed men up from the south soon, 'to help keep order'.
The 'Free Iraqi Forces' had better stay away, warned Sheikh Ala'a in Sadr City. 'There are a million men with guns who support Muqtada al-Sadr.' Then he predicted a glorious future for the seat of Shiite learning. 'Najaf will at last regain its role in the Islamic world. Even in Iran, they will listen to Najaf. The thinking of Mohamed al-Sadr [killed in 1999] is so powerful that it will mark the next half century. He explained very well how to set up an Islamic state.'"
This Saddam-free Iraq presents a complicated tangle of interests, and the US has little expertise in navigating here. The Sunni/Shiite conflict alone is deep-rooted, complex and ancient. The Economic Times reports that 'the underlying tensions and rivalries -- family, tribal, religious and political -- over control of Iraq's holy sites are certain to persist well into the post-Saddam era.'
- "Important Shi'ite communities in Iran, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere would be watching closely.
'I don't think this is going to be the last of it. Iraq has been a bloody country for much of its history,' said Paul Sullivan of the National Defense University. 'When it comes to Shi'ite politics, it is a snake pit,' he said.
'We're walking into something most of us don't understand, particularly the US civilian leadership, added Sullivan, who said his comments reflected his own personal views.'"
Still, Robert Fisk of The Independent, doesn't think the Americans are even trying to understand the complexities they now face:
- "If the Americans and the British want to understand the nature of the religious opposition here, they have only to consult the files of Saddam's secret service archives. I found one, Report No 7481, dated 24 February this year on the conflict between Sheikh Mohammed al-Yacoubi and Mukhtada Sadr, the 22-year-old grandson of Mohammed Sadr, who was executed on Saddam's orders more than two decades ago.
The dispute showed the passion and the determination with which the Shia religious leaders fight even each other. But of course, no one has bothered to read this material or even look for it.
...
It's easy for a reporter to predict doom, especially after a brutal war that lacked all international legitimacy. But catastrophe usually waits for optimists in the Middle East, especially for false optimists who invade oil-rich nations with ideological excuses and high-flown moral claims and accusations, such as weapons of mass destruction, which are still unproved. So I'll make an awful prediction. That America's war of 'liberation' is over. Iraq's war of liberation from the Americans is about to begin. In other words, the real and frightening story starts now." Discuss this article.
Strained Smiles in Europe
British Prime Minister Tony Blair apparently arrived in Athens for the European Union gala intent on making a show of mending fences. For months, the continent's divisions have been on exhibit -- thanks in large part to Washington's ham-fisted treatment of the war opponents in "Old Europe." Neoconservatives and political opportunists in the US have made a sport of France-bashing, giving go-it-alone enthusiasts opportunity to revel at the apparent demise of multilateralism. And, as the Bush administration steamed merrily away from historical allies in France and Germany, it dragged Blair along for the ride.
| | ||||
 Thursday, April 17 Wednesday, April 16 Tuesday, April 15 Monday, April 14 Friday, April 11 | |||||
| | ||||
| | | | | |
But Wednesday's gathering in Greece was an all-European affair, free from the chilly wind of Rumsfeldian rhetoric, and came after Blair's pre-summit reconciliation session with Germany's Gerhard Schröder. Moreover, with Washington hawks glaring belligerently at Syria and Iran, Blair has insisted London has no interest in an expanding war, and with administration unilateralists insisting that the reconstruction of Iraq will be a red-white-and-blue production, Blair has quietly argued for a prominent role for the UN.
So, has Blair done enough to repair the damage caused by following in Washington's footsteps? Probably not, but the gathered leaders weren't about to make that obvious. As The Economist reports, the heads of state gathered in Athens were interested only emphasizing common objectives, even France's Jacques Chirac.
- "Easily done, given the EU's long experience in drafting bland, vague communiqués. But papering over the cracks can only go so far. More substantial work will be needed to repair the damage of recent weeks. Relations between Mr Chirac and Mr Blair were already strained before the arguments over Iraq; they sank to a new low point as it became clear that France would not back down in its opposition to military action. Mr Chirac was determined to keep the Franco-German axis together -- and Mr Schröder was implacably opposed to war under any circumstances."
Given such skepticism, Blair's meeting on Wednesday with Chirac -- the first since the war began -- was watched especially closely. Afterwards, British officials insisted that the session was "perfectly amiable." And, as Ian Black and Helena Smith of The Guardian, Chirac responded with "clear signals of pragmatic flexibility."
- "'Issue by issue, we have to find the right balance between the role of the United Nations, which must be the essential role, and the American and British forces present on the ground,' said his spokeswoman, Catherine Colonna.
'There are many projects we can work on together and progressively find a way to put the United Nations at the heart of the action.'"
Predictably, the assembled EU leaders agreed on a statement that called for exactly that. But Richard Beeston of The Times of London suggests that, while Blair, Chirac, Schröder, and other leaders "papered over their divisions and smiled for the cameras, daunting new obstacles loomed."
- "Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, hailed the 'new atmosphere' of co-operation in Athens, in contrast to the rows that have plagued recent EU events. But there was precious little in the way of concrete decisions about how Europe and the UN will contribute to the future of security, politics and economics of Iraq. The new cracks are already emerging inside Europe on defence and security.
...
Later this month the anti-war camp is likely to have its say on the matter. Belgium, one of the most outspoken opponents of the war, is hosting a summit for the leaders of France, Germany and Luxembourg. The session is supposed to discuss the EU's future defence needs, but there are already fears that it could turn into another attempt to marginalise America's role in Europe and reinforce the differences on the Continent. 'This is not a good time to be holding this meeting,' a British official said."
Like their colleagues in the British press, Andrew Grice and Paul Waugh of The Independent found the show of unity less-than-convincing. The EU leaders said all the right things, but they couldn't hide from the fact that Europeans remain bitter over both the war and Washington's single-minded pursuit of it. Thousands of angry protesters took the Athens streets in an unmistakable show of that bitterness, even intruding on Blair's highly-publicized and stage-managed meeting with Chirac.
- "[W]ithin seconds, the rude reality of the war on Iraq interrupted as a police helicopter buzzed overhead and blaring sirens signalled that riot police had engaged thousands of peace activists protesting in the capital.
The shattered ambience did not prevent Mr Blair and M. Chirac having their longest meeting since their Le Touquet tête-à-tête in February, but it set the tone.
...
After the ceremony was over, it was time for the traditional 'family photo' of EU leaders. But Mr Blair wasn't sticking around. Ostensibly, he had to get back for the War Cabinet today. Yet Mr Blair clearly couldn't bear the prospect of small talk, let alone meeting M. Chirac again. On a day of symbolism, nothing was more symbolic than his early exit."
