The Hindu : Global mission or machinations?

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Sunday, Mar 28, 2004

Opinion

Opinion - News Analysis

Global mission or machinations?

American action in one case and inaction in the other have only atomised two Arab societies. Kesava Menon on the situation in Iraq and Palestine.

A show of support for the Iraqi Shia leader, Ayatollah Ali Sistani, in Najaf.

AMERICAN NEO-CONSERVATIVES continue to act as if they have the perfect solution for the multi-faceted problems of West Asia. Iraq will be converted into a model democracy that will inspire the Arabs to follow the true path to peace, freedom and prosperity. In reality they only succeeded in reducing Iraq to a near dysfunctional nation even as they allowed Israel to destroy whatever state structures had been painstakingly built up in the Palestinian territories.

It would be difficult for anyone to argue that the Palestinians had set up and followed a democratic order after they signed the Oslo Accords. The Palestinian Authority's mode of functioning was marked by a strong streak of authoritarianism with the security services making for a disproportionately large part of the Government. Its President, Yasser Arafat, never felt bound by the legislative wing and he allowed leeway to the secular opposition only when he needed to convince the international community of his liberal credentials. He also kept a tight grip on the Authority's financial resources. For all that, Mr. Arafat was able to keep in closer touch with the needs of his people than most other leaders of the Arab world.

In its official structure and mode of functioning, the Palestinian Authority resembled the one-party dominated republics such as Tunisia and Egypt. However, the institutions of civil society were in better shape in the Palestinian territories than elsewhere in the Arab world. A number of political formations had been thrown up in the course of the struggle against the Israeli occupation and at least some of these, such as the Islamic Resistance Movement or Hamas, had a mass following.

Organisations representing students and professionals were able to influence public affairs and the younger leaders of the mainstream Fatah, Marwan Barghouti being the prime example, felt free to campaign against official apathy and corruption.

These trends could have been nurtured and there was a phase in the middle of the 1990s when it was possible to glimpse a future in which Palestinian citizens would be able to take control of their destinies. That promise could have been fulfilled only if the Palestinians had been able to secure their liberty. While the peace camp in Israel had recognised that both sides would benefit if the Palestinians were allowed to set up a state on the territories occupied after the 1967 war, it was unable to summon the will to withdraw from those areas. As demonstrated by an informal agreement drafted a few months ago by Israeli and Palestinian private citizens, there are people on both sides who understand that compromises will have to be made for a just and feasible settlement.

That prospect is as distant as it has ever been. It appears very unlikely that the cycle of death and destruction will end any time soon. It will most certainly not end so long as Ariel Sharon, or someone like him, continues to be Prime Minister of Israel. Mr. Sharon did not just set off the violence that has afflicted Palestinians and Israelis for the past four years with his arrogant march through the Al Aqsa complex in September 2000. He has repeatedly initiated fresh rounds of violence by ordering his security forces to undertake provocative action just as the situation appeared to cool down. While Hamas and other extremist Palestinian groups have been rightly condemned for using terror tactics against Israeli civilians the record shows that they were rarely the first to break the intermittent truces observed over this period.

The United States is the only power that can rein in Mr. Sharon. But, the U.S. President, George W. Bush, and his administration have shown a singular lack of interest in doing anything to get negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians back on track. Mr. Bush did announce with great fanfare a road map for peace almost a year ago. It did not appear very probable that the parties concerned would be able to stick to the convoluted process that Mr. Bush outlined, but the Palestinians did try to take the first steps they were asked to.

Mr. Arafat withdrew from any direct role in the negotiations and the Palestinian security forces moved to control the militant groups. However, Palestinians can only do so much given the conditions in which they operate and can only deliver more if Israel also makes concessions. Mr. Bush and his officials have not bothered to pressure Mr. Sharon.

Today the Palestinian Authority is in tatters. Armed groups of local enforcers, even criminals, are reported to have taken control of pockets in a few Palestinian towns. Hamas rather than the Authority's security forces wield greater clout in the Gaza Strip. The voices of secular and liberal-minded Palestinians have been silenced and there is no more talk of a democratic system being established in the territories.

If the American neo-conservatives have virtually overseen the destruction of a fledgling Palestinian democracy, they have not succeeded in nourishing such an order in Iraq either. First of all, it is not even certain that the U.S. administration and its henchmen want to establish a democratic order in Iraq. The Shias will take power once the principle of majority-rule is adopted. Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani belongs to the quietist school of Shia theocracy, which believes that the clergy should not be directly involved in politics and governance.

That belief and pressure from the American proconsul, Paul Bremer, have led the Shias to agree that the Shariah will not be main source of law under the constitutional scheme scheduled to come into force at the beginning of July. However, the Shia majority can amend the Constitution later on and there is no guarantee that some Iraqi Ayatollahs will not be tempted to follow the example set by their counterparts in Iran.

The U.S. has conveniently overlooked that possibility for the moment. Mr. Bremer and his men are desperate to show that they have handed over power to the Iraqis before the campaign for the American presidential elections enters the final phase. They are prepared at the moment to cut short-term deals that can lead to undesired consequences later on.

However, there are limitations to this short-term deal making. While the occupying powers want to hand over power to an Iraqi government that they can describe as representative, they are unable or unwilling to hold elections. Any government that enters office under such circumstances will not be considered truly legitimate.

Iraqi Sunnis form the main component of the forces waging a guerrilla campaign against the occupation of their country. Even those Sunnis who might not have been active militarily have become restive at the prospect that they will have to live under the authority of the Shias.

Now the Kurds too have begun to worry about the future after the Shias indicated that they will amend provisions in the draft constitution, which confer autonomy on the Kurdish areas. Each of these communities is armed to the teeth and the fledgling Iraqi national army is so weak that it is likely to melt away if internecine warfare breaks out.

This then has been the end result of the project for the new American century. Far from remaking the countries of West Asia so that they become models of liberalism, American action in one case and its inaction in the other have only atomised two Arab societies.

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

News Update

Stories in this Section

Global mission or machinations?

A year under the yoke

Hamas after Yassin

All the cacophony over dynasties

The peace process and the fear factor