FRAGILE “SOVEREIGNTY” IN POST-HANDOVER IRAQ  1^ST JULY 2004

By Kazi Anwarul Masud (former Secretary and ambassador)

The stealth with which the occupying powers in Iraq transferred “sovereignty” to the Interim Iraqi Government has taken the world by surprise. Perhaps the advancing of the date of handover by two days from the scheduled 30^th June was occasioned by the presence of the world leaders at the Istanbul NATO Summit which expressed “full support for the independence, sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity of the Republic of Iraq” and decided to offer NATO assistance to Iraq for the training of its security forces.  Istanbul Summit in its statement on Iraq mentioned UNSC resolution 1546 four times possibly to drive home the point that the continued presence of the Multinational Forces (MNF) has been at the request of the Iraqi Interim Government to guard against insurgents including foreign elements who threaten the security and the stability so critical at this stage of political transition in Iraq for “peace, democracy and security”. Despite widespread belief that the charade of transferring “sovereignty” to the Iraqis has not changed much the situation on the ground, one must acknowledge that the occupation of Iraq had to end even if the result was a truncated sovereign country. German Foreign Minister Joscha Fischer had underlined the importance of the timeline because “the date of 30 June points towards holding elections at the end of January and this is of decisive importance for the majority of Shiites who are represented by their leader Shistani”. Fischer thought that changing these dates would have negative consequences. One must also take into account the growing disenchantment of the Americans with Bush handling of the Iraq war, which could have a major impact on November Presidential election.

It would have been unrealistic to expect the American troops to depart Iraq post haste after President Bush had staked his political future and saddled the American people with an increasingly large bill to finance the Iraq war. After all the Iraq venture has caused a fracture in the transatlantic alliance with opponents to the invasion having been branded as “old Europe” who refused to recognize the tectonic shift in the global power structure; frustrated Franco-German-Russian-Chinese efforts to return the world to some semblance of multipolarity away from American conviction that its unipolar moment has come to stay after the end of the Cold War; and the feeling of insecurity prevailing in the developing world (particularly in the Muslim world) at seeing the United Nations being reduced to rubble. One should, however, remember that the super powers during the Cold War era had on many occasions intruded on the sovereignty of smaller powers when the super powers thought their “strategic interests” were threatened. But then the world after the Second World War had become used to the bipolarity or the balance of terror provided by the US and the Soviet Union. The fall of the Berlin Wall and the subsequent breakup of the Soviet empire irreversibly changed the global construct. As the Istanbul NATO Summit reminded the world for the umpteenth time of “the threats that NATO faces have changed substantially, taking into account that they emanate from a far wider area than in the past (and) include terrorism and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction”. Implicit in these twin dangers are the terrorism unleashed by Al-Qaida and its allies and the possibility of WMD falling into the hands of non-state actors. Despite its penchant for the display of muscularity and disdainful treatment of international law the Bush administration must be credited with its public realization that since democracies do not wage wars against each other, democratic values must be instilled in those societies where people have little say in the governance of their own countries. Additionally Richard Hass, till recently a senior official of the State Department, had publicly informed the world that henceforth the US would not support dictatorships around the world because it had suited American immediate interests such as assured supply of oil or the extension of lease of its military bases.

Sine Afghanistan is way off from embracing democracy, a concept historically alien to the Afghan people where tribalism always reigned supreme over modernism, President Bush has to succeed in Iraq. He recently reiterated to the global audience from the platform of the Army War College his commitment to bring “liberty and life” to the Iraqi people and help establish stability and security in Iraq which democracy required. As Yitzhak Nikash of Breindis University points out that the division between the Shias and Sunnis in Iraq are primarily political rather than ethnic or cultural and reflect the competition of the two to rule and to define the meaning of nationalism in the country. Nikash adds that during the Iraq-Iran War (1980-88) the Iraqi Shiites who formed the majority of the rank and file of the Iraqi infantry fought against their coreligionists showing that their loyalty to the Iraqi state overrode their sectarian allegiance and their discontent with the Sunni dominated Bath regime. Indeed the Iraqi Shiite Islam suffers from a tension between quietism and activism i.e. whether the clerics should confine their activities to religious affairs or also seek a role in politics. Though large number of Iraqi Shiites is believed to have no desire to emulate their Iranian brothers, any sudden move from the hitherto secular totalitarian regime under Saddam Hussein to a different political system may have the possibility of being replaced by an overbearing theocracy. Despite such a possible scenario the US must be aware that any threat to US interests in the Persian Gulf region would not emanate from Iranian theocracy which has lost its fervor but from Sunni Islamic radicalism. Perhaps because of this realization the US is bearing down on Saudi Arabia long wedded to Wahabism and has adopted Greater Middle East Initiative as a counter to spread of radicalism. Concurrently with this initiative Senator Richard Luger, Chairman of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee in a recent speech at the Brookings Institution has proposed a new partnership for the Greater Middle East through the establishment of a Trust by G-8 modeled along the principles of the Global Fund to fight AIDS, G-8 Action Plan for Africa, and the US Millennium Challenge Account. He wants the Trust to go beyond the primary development paradigm of growth, infrastructure and health into restructuring of the region from within. He recognized the centrality of a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to be effected along with countries of the region by expanding Quartet to Sextet (by including Egypt and Saudi Arabia). Senator Luger’s initiative stems from his belief that the threat of WMD, terrorism, failed states and instability that arises in major part from extremist organizations in the Greater Middle East area. Surprisingly however, Senator Luger, like many other Western leaders failed to address the question of Israeli “nuclear ambiguity”. If the West is genuinely concerned over proliferation of WMD then the world should no longer remain silent over Israeli possession of nuclear weapons and should move towards de-nuclearization of the Middle East. David-Goliath fight needs to be demytholized. Israel remains the predominant military power in the Middle East and will remain the sentinel of the West regardless of western aid and assistance.

In this post-handover Iraq about which Senator John McCain has expressed “cautious optimism” the Americans would be well advised to see that Saddam Hussein’s trial does replicate the trials of the Wild Wild West in which justice in the form of quick trial and hangman’s rope was the order of the day. While Saddam’s charge sheet would surely include crimes against humanity (and reportedly his collaboration with Al-Qaida which was never satisfactorily established) over his brutal oppression of his own people and waging biological warfare against the Kurds and the Iranians, his trial by the Iraqis under Iraqi laws and by Iraqi judges and not by an international tribunal may temporarily satisfy the desire for revenge by those oppressed by Saddam Hussein but may raise questions in the minds of many as to why Pinochet has been effectively pardoned and Milosevic will surely be spared his life. No one in his right mind will carry any brief for Saddam Hussein but then Europe which has abolished death penalty and the US which prides itself for its judicial integrity should not be hell bent to a repeat of Nuremberg and Tokyo trials of Second World War criminals many of whom were led to the gallows. For the sake of peace in the Middle East and  to take the wind out of the sail of Al-Qaida and its cohorts Saddam Hussein should be allowed to have an internationally accepted trial so that even the demented is denied the opportunity to deify this fallen tyrant.