| |
THE ROVING
EYE
Culture shock and
awe
By Pepe Escobar
It didn't
have to be this way. But because of heavy-handedness and
cultural insensitivity, the American occupation force
has now lost the support of the three key Shi'ite
leaders in Iraq - allies through circumstance until now.
The Grand Ayatollah Ali Husseini al-Sistani
announced last Saturday the issuing of a fatwa against
an "illegitimate" constitution "if it is not adopted by
an Iraqi government elected by the people". Young cleric
Muqtada al-Sadr - whose religious family is highly
influential in Iraq - has denounced American
"terrorism". And Mohammed Baqr al-Hakim, the president
of the Supreme Assembly for the Islamic Revolution in
Iraq (SAIRI) , has said on the record that an Iraqi
administration named by American proconsul L Paul Bremer
would be "illegal".
Bremer's task for Iraq is to
form a political council of 25 to 30 Iraqis. This
council, approved by Bremer, will then appoint ministers
and be consulted on all key decisions, which will then
be made by Bremer himself. Bremer said on Tuesday that
this "provisional authority" was expected to be set up
by mid-July. It's now clear that the project has been
flatly rejected by the moderate yet heavyweight
al-Sistani, "The project in question is fundamentally
unacceptable." While he still condemns the non-stop
attacks against the Americans and the British, he is at
pains to point out that "the [occupation] authorities
don't enjoy any prerogative to appoint the members of
the assembly charged to elaborate the constitution".
United Nations special envoy Sergio Vieira de Mello has
witnessed first-hand the impatience and anger of the
all-powerful al-Hawza - the "Shi'ite Vatican" in the
holy city of Najaf. On Saturday, Vieira de Mello had a
long conversation (behind closed doors) with al-Sistani,
and then with al-Hakim and al-Sadr.
No leaders
in Najaf - or anywhere in Iraq for that matter - have
forgotten the promise made in February by the American
special envoy to deal with the Iraqi opposition. Zalmay
Khalilzad promised then that the government of the
country would be handed over to Iraqis once the war
ended. Al-Hakim is now saying that an Iraqi government
should be formed soon "to work to end the occupation by
peaceful means".
Vieira de Mello is now fully
aware of the balancing act that he will have to perform
to bridge the gulf between not only the Sunni community,
but between the dominant Shi'ites (62 percent of the
population) and the "occuliberators" (as the Americans
have been dubbed by observers). Even though Shi'ite
religious leaders are still talking about cooperation
with the Americans and a strategy of non-violence, there
is now a completely different ball game.
The
best indication is the fact that al-Sistani told Vieira
de Mello to deliver "a message to Paul Bremer" -
implying that direct contact was not welcomed any more.
The UN special envoy did not - and certainly could not -
elaborate, but the message was almost certainly news
about the fatwa declaring that an Iraqi constitution
written by the Americans or even by Iraqis appointed by
the Americans would be "illegitimate". Al-Sistani is
clear: a new constitution can only be written and
approved by popularly-elected Iraqis.
As for
SAIRI leader al-Hakim - who recently came back from
exile in Iran - he is following with great interest the
American campaign of "de-Ba'athization" of Iraqi
society. But his warning mirrors the ayatollah's: "If Mr
Bremer himself names an administration and a group of
officials, it will be illegal. It will be against the UN
resolution. It will be against George [W] Bush's
promises that Iraq must be a free and democratic
country, a sovereign country liberated from foreign
influence." Al-Hakim stresses that as long as American
military and diplomats control the political process,
"the country will not be stable".
For his part,
al-Sadr, while denouncing "the American occupation
legitimized by the UN", wants "a representative
government of the Iraqi people" as soon as possible. He
echoes what is arguably the consensus among Iraqis:
"Saddam [Hussein's] regime was unacceptable, but the
foreign occupation is also unacceptable." On the
heavy-handed behavior of American troops, the young
al-Sadr pointedly says "one does not combat terrorism
with terrorism".
Saddam's regime vanished on
April 9, almost three months ago. Baghdadis have had
enough. Power cuts are the norm: homes are deprived of
drinking water and air-conditioning with temperatures
hovering above 40 degrees Celsius. The Americans blame
the cuts on sabotage. Military Humvees with loudspeakers
tour the city with the message that electricity will be
back "as soon as possible". Baghdadis interpret it
otherwise: a wide consensus in the streets is that the
Americans are trying to sap the morale of the
population, and then tighten their grip.
Iraq is
a cauldron of mixed emotions. Although their living
conditions are poor, it's fair to say that the majority
of Baghdadis don't want the Americans to leave - at
least for now: this would be the road to civil war. But
they are practically unanimous in their critique of both
American inertia - in terms of improving living
conditions in the capital - and obsession with their own
security: American soldiers only move in convoys and
with their hands on the triggers of their M-16s. The
outside world can follow daily on television footage of
US soldiers frisking Iraqi women through their
traditional abbaya. It is arguable that the
killings of innocent Iraqi women and children would have
been avoided if American soldiers had been taught to
speak at least 10 basic words in Arabic - as well as to
pay attention to basic religious and cultural norms in
the Arab world.
Just like after the war on
Afghanistan, the Americans once again have squandered
their accumulated capital of good will in Iraq .
Al-Hakim always mentions the force of "public opinion".
The Shi'ite spiritual leaders' new attitude towards the
Americans is nothing but a reflection of popular anger.
Unlike Sunnis, Ba'athists or not, related or not to
Saddam's promise of a guerrilla war against the foreign
invaders, the Shi'ites may not want the Americans out by
now. But they are making it very clear that the Iraqi
population will not bend to Bremer's diktats.
"Vietnamization" may be too overstretched a
concept - at least not before the real force and extent
of Saddam's announced intifada for the end of the month
is revealed. But "quagmire" is now a more than realistic
scenario. The US cannot leave Iraq because - in a very
Chinese way - it would lose tremendous face. But if does
not show a little more humanity and sensitivity towards
the plight of Iraqis, it is bound to be attacked
non-stop, Vietnam-style. Former counter-insurgency
specialist Bremer may be just another casualty in a
litany of monstrous mistakes. Iraqis - a very
sophisticated and well-educated people carrying in their
collective unconscious the lessons of 7,000 years of
civilization - cannot but see the writing on the wall.
The awesome American military machine was able
to smash the remnants of a pitiful Iraqi army who dared
to show up for battle, but it cannot assure a minimum of
security for the civilian population. There has been no
post-war humanitarian plan, because the whole Iraqi
operation has been directed by the Pentagon - which is
not exactly a humanitarian organization. The first thing
to be protected once Saddam's regime fell were Iraqi oil
installations, but the protection of Iraqi power plants
seem to pose an unsurpassable military challenge.
The questionable legality of the war and the
absence of weapons of mass destruction notwithstanding,
the US is in Iraq, and there's no doubt that American
credibility will be measured against the success of the
Iraqi adventure. The de facto guerrilla situation is
conditioned by two undisputed factors: a foreign
invasion, and the unwillingness of the foreign invaders
to restore order, basic public services and most of all,
sovereignty to the Iraqi people. No matter the spin from
Washington, for Iraqis, the American "liberation" thus
far has been synonymous with foreign invasion,
deprivation and chaos.
Bremer says that he will
need more American troops. Bush, referring to the
guerrillas, said "bring them on". He also said, "We have
the force necessary to deal with the situation." Force
won't do: political intelligence and cultural
sensitivity will.
(Copyright 2003 Asia Times
Online Co, Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact
content@atimes.com for
information on our sales and syndication policies.)
|
| |
|
|
 |
|
