Future of Iraq: Vague or Bright
By Seyyed Mohammad Sadr, Former Deputy Foreign Minister
On 3rd of June 1997 twenty four neo-conservatives of the United States released a manifesto which they called Statement of Principles. In this manifesto, they harshly criticized Bill Clinton’s defense and foreign policy and announced that their aim is to rally support for American global leadership.
To reach the goal of unrivaled American global leadership, they put strengthening of military power and ties to democratic allies, challenge with countries that are against America’s interests and values and promotion of political and economic freedom on their agenda.
Dick Cheney, Eliot Cohen, Francis Fukuyama, Zalmay Khalilzad, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz were the most renowned figures who signed this declaration.
Again in a letter on 26th of January 1998, in a letter to President Clinton they claimed that the strategy of his government against Saddam Hussein has been unsuccessful and they demanded for a shift in this strategy.
They overtly asked Clinton to consider overthrow of Saddam Hussein. They also express their full support for president in implementation of this plan.
The most renowned signees of this letter were Richard Armitage, John Bolton, Francis Fukuyama, Robert Kagan, Zalmay Khalilzad, Richard Perle, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz.
After George Bush took office in 2000, the neo-conservatives were seeking an opportunity to make their longtime objectives come true. The event of 11th of September besides terrorism, WMDs, dictatorship and attacking neighbor countries especially Kuwait, gave them the pretext needed to move towards realizing their aim for Iraq. But history was moving in a different path in another part of the world and in Iraq and it was setting the grounds for measures of foreign countries.
After the collapse of Ottoman Empire which comprised Iraq, this Arab state was occupied by Britain in 1917; an occupation that continued up to 1932. It was in 1932 that the struggle of Iraqi nation and great Shiite clerics forced the British government to surrender and acknowledge independence of Iraq.
From 1932 to 1958 the Hashemite family ruled Iraq but Abdul Karim Qasim’s coup overthrow the monarchy system. Successive coups in Iraq took place afterwards; Baath party’s the last one. This party took control of Iraq for a long time after the plot.
The monarchy that ruled Iraq after anti-colonialist resistance in mandate era banned the presence of Shiites in centers of power according to Britain’s advice. This was deemed as Britain’s revenge from Shiites that were the main opposition against British imperialism. Britain made the minority dominant over majority to perpetuate its presence in Iraq and keep the sectarian and religious strife ongoing.
Britain’s policy was followed later when the Baathist regime gained stability and the majority of Iraqis, namely Shiites and Kurds were marginalized. In fact, the Baathist regime was the representative of a very small section of the society so it had no way other than authoritatively imposing itself on the majority. Therefore oppression, assassination, torture, imprisonment and execution were Saddam Hussein’s main weapons to perpetuate his rule. This trend was followed until the last days of his rule.
The evil and aggression of the Baath party not only distressed the people of Iraq, but it worried most of the Arab countries and neighbors of this regime with intervention in their internal affairs. That rooted in the mentality of Baath party that craved for leadership of the Arab world and wanted to bring Arab leader’s under its submission.
It was due to this mentality that after the fall of monarchy in Iran and Islamic Revolution, amid the tumult caused because of the Revolution, Saddam Hussein grasped the opportunity, attacked the incipient Islamic Republic and imposed an 8-year war to both nations of Iran and Iraq. Slogans expressed by Saddam at the early days of war show how far the extent of his ambition and the mentality of Baath regime were.
The war ended after Iran accepted UN’s Resolution 598. But Saddam’s aggressive nature was not satisfied yet. That’s why he started another war with the neighbor Arab country of Kuwait, naïvely, in order to annex this oil-rich country to his own territory.
Saddam did not understand that this aggression would be different from the one against Iran that was approved by the United States and its allies and for which he received a full 8-year support. This war meant violating redlines and was tantamount to a big mistake which could lead to a greater punishment. This punishment comprised not only his expelling from Kuwait, but also from government.
The liberation operation of Kuwait by American troops and their allies was carried out promptly and Saddam’s army was expelled from Kuwait. This operation had begun with the aim to topple Saddam but after public uprising that was against America’s interests and after consultation with states of the region, America relinquished overthrowing of Saddam and let him to slaughter Iraq innocent people.
11 years later when neo-conservatives rose to power the event of 11th of September provided a good opportunity for George Bush and overthrow of Saddam Hussein was put on the agenda. This plan with the objective of more extensive presence in Persian Gulf, setting on fundamental changes in the Middle East under the pretext of war against terrorism and preventing production of WMDs became operational and Iraq was occupied by United States, Britain and their allies and the Baathist regime and Saddam Hussein were wiped off Iraq’s political scene.
The neo-conservatives that considered United States’ military power as the most important weapon for preservation and expansion of interests, toppled Saddam Hussein within three weeks, replaced him with an American military man and moved on to realize their other objectives. Due to their unfamiliarity with the social and religious context of Iraq and neglecting of the reality, they supposed that post-war phases and progress of things will be as easy as Saddam’s overthrow.
The neo-conservatives thought that establishment of a secular pro-US government in Iraq will be as easy as the overthrow of Saddam and will be an appropriate model for the other Arab states of the region. For them, this was a part of actualization of Great Middle East plan, providing security for Israel and normalizing Israeli-Arab relationships.
The neo-conservatives also viewed control over Middle East as control over the main energy supplies of the region that ultimately reinforced the United States’ global leadership. Taking control of energy supplies meant the ability to control major opponents like EU, Japan and China.
Today, 4 years has passed from Iraq’s occupation by United States and its allies, while none of the objectives and dreams of neo-conservatives has been realized. More interestingly, no WMDs were discovered in Iraq and no evidence was found that could substantiate relation between Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda. That’s when American intelligence organizations and investigation committee of 9/11 rejected any relations between Saddam and Al-Qaeda in Congress.
After 4 years of occupation, not only has the United States failed in achieving its regional and global goals, but it has faced serious problems in Iraq, none of which it can solve. These problems have affected not only the United States but Iraqi nation and other countries of the region.
Although progresses have been achieved, security is still the main problem of Iraqi people. Terrorists are present everywhere and attempt for blast, murder and abduction.
Universities, mosques, hospitals, pilgrimage sites and public places are not safe from any kinds of crime and the Iraqi people are expecting a catastrophe every minute, everywhere. Interestingly there is much more security in north and south of Iraq, where occupying troops are present.
Lack of economic development and reconstruction of Iraq which has turned into an underdeveloped country because of military occupation and terrorist explosions is another problem that Iraqis suffer from. Currently they even lack basic necessities such as water, electricity, gasoline, sanitation, medicine and treatment and have to spend hot summer days without any air conditioner.
Sectarian and religious strife that roots in Britain’s colonialist history is still victimizing Iraqis and terrorist groups assassinate and dispose members of other ethnicities and religions with absolute ruthlessness.
That is the underlying reason of a bigger problem which is lack of national unity that leads to disintegration of Iraq; a future that is recognized as the ultimate solution to Iraq’s problem by American strategists if establishing security in the country fails.
Problems of Iraq which are all caused by occupation are not limited to these issues. For the sake of brevity other problems are not mentioned and I try to provide some suggestions to solve these problems:
First of all, foreign troops must withdraw from Iraq completely. Their presence is provocative and vexes even ordinary citizens. This sacred feeling is misused by terrorists which justify their crimes in the name of resistance against occupation.
With the withdrawal of occupiers, Iraqi forces can establish security since in that situation they are dismissed from the charge of cooperation with invaders and a national motivation will make them more competent.
The second suggestion is accepting by neighbors and former governors the democracy and majority’s rule. By this, the long time injustice imposed on the majority of Iraqis will be resolved and the minority will also receive their share of power in Iraq. Of course this may be intolerable for a group that has always had the power in past but we must bear in mind what happened in past was a legacy of Britain’s imperialism that will never bring security for Iraq and its neighbors and besides, will always make the basis of minority rule shaky.
National interests and territorial integrity of Iraq involves rule of the majority while observing the rights of the minorities from all ethnicities and religious so that security and peaceful co-existence is provided for the entire nation.
The next suggestion is complete and sincere cooperation of all neighbors of Iraq with the government of this country. If this happens, security will be rapidly established in Iraq and no terrorist will infiltrate Ithe country.
Capacities and contributions of neighboring countries must be used for reconstruction and economic development of Iraq and to compensate its economic backwardness. It is in this case that Iraq’s territorial integrity will be preserved and the threat of disintegration will become extinct. The prerequisite of this cooperation with Iraq’ new regime is accepting the realities of Iraq and establishment of democracy in this country. The new regime doesn’t seek for enemies and it’s no threat to its neighbors.
The last suggestion is for the United States. Within the last 4 years this country has allotted an enormous budget to continue occupation of Iraq and they have to spend more in form of gratuitous aids for reconstruction of Iraq and damages of the war. That’s how America’s sincerity in support of genuine democracy and not prescribed democracy will be assessed.
I hope that by considering these suggestions the main problems of Iraq be solved gradually and a day comes when the Iraqi nation can enjoy security, freedom and development.