The Hindu : Opinion / Leader Page Articles : Iraq: liberty only when U.S. leaves

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Saturday, Jun 19, 2004

Opinion

Opinion - Leader Page Articles

Iraq: liberty only when U.S. leaves

By Jonathan Steele

It is real politics by Iraqis for Iraqis that will ultimately deliver peace.

WITH LESS than two weeks until the much-vaunted transfer of power from the Americans to an Iraqi Government, a few hints of independence have emerged from the men Washington approved.

Sheikh Ghazi Ajil al-Yawer, the civil engineer and tribal leader who is to be the new president, contradicted George W. Bush's suggestion that the notorious prison of Abu Ghraib be torn down. It is not that the Sheikh has any affection for the place, but he probably foresaw another fat new contract looming for some foreign building company. Anyway, the damage done to the American image in Iraq cannot be undone by removing the scene of the crime.

More importantly, the Sheikh came out against last week's American order banning the radical cleric, Moqtada al-Sadr, from taking part in Iraq's first democratic elections in January. It was an odd decision for a country that claims to be bringing democracy to Iraq. It appeared to have the support of the new Prime Minister, Ayad Allawi, who issued a statement welcoming the tough U.S. line on illegal militias. The larger Shia parties in the Government also went along with it. The cleric is their political rival, and to have him off the ballot would no doubt be in their short-term interest.

The Sheikh, by contrast, argued that it is far better to get radicals to join the political process than leave them outside the tent, a sentiment that al-Sadr seems to share. His officials say he is planning to start a political party.

On one key issue even Mr. Allawi, a long-time U.S. favourite, has dared to defy Washington. He wants Saddam Hussein and all other Iraqi detainees transferred to Iraqi custody by June 30, a plea which Mr. Bush is furiously resisting. Almost no Iraqi wants to see the dictator back in power, but it is a matter of national pride that Iraqis should be the ones to hold him and run his trial. He is not a trophy in Mr. Bush's election campaign, but a man they wish to punish themselves.

Welcome though this ministerial dissent is, most Iraqis treat it as minor murmuring. The prevailing view is that the Americans will continue to run the show after June 30 and that the new government will not want or be able to resist them on the big issue of security.

Outsiders will also control most spending, since Iraq's only source of revenue — oil — will continue to be deposited in a development fund set up by the United Nations during the sanctions era. Kuwait and Saudi Arabia still have billions of dollars in compensation claims. Other countries demand debt repayments, and none of the multi-million dollar contracts signed by the occupation authorities with U.S. companies can be reviewed.

As car bombs tear away at Iraqi society, the issue of the new Government's powers has become secondary. The stuff of every conversation nowadays is the daily carnage, and the kidnappings and assassinations that go with it. People are asking the "will and would" questions. Will violence abate in July after the handover of sovereignty? Would violence abate if the Americans pulled out altogether?

The first question is the easier one to answer. If two months ago there was a vague hope that the violence, which is motivated by nationalist resentment over occupation, would diminish once an Iraqi government took over, people now are almost universally pessimistic.

U.S. troops will remain at a level of 140,000 at least until October, according to U.S. officials, and there are no plans to reduce their visibility. Even if the formal occupation is over, Iraqis expect to see little change on July 1. Resistance to the Americans will continue as before. Those who work with the occupation will remain targets, just as they are today.

Whether violence would lessen if the Americans begin to pull out is the harder question. Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair promise they will not "cut and run" or leave Iraqis in the lurch.

As the climate of fear increases and more Iraqis fall victim to violence, people's attitudes become volatile. A conversation that starts as a long litany of complaints about American mistakes and crimes sometimes ends with the argument that the Americans should clear up their own mess before they go. Others are panicked by uncertainty, and want everything — the resurrection of the Iraqi army, the old police force back on the streets, and the Americans to stay in the background as an insurance policy just in case.

Iraq is going through very dark days, and the importing of foreign terrorism, which was unknown to Iraqis until the American invasion brought it on, is spooking everyone. Liberation will only come when the Americans leave. —

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

Opinion

News Update

Stories in this Section

REDUCE NUCLEAR RISK WITH PAKISTAN

MOVEMENT IN DOHA ROUND

Crisis of representative democracy

Iraq: liberty only when U.S. leaves