| |
Not a pretty picture: The future of
Iraq
By Ehsan Ahrari
Two
developments of October 20 involving Iraq speak volumes
about the shape of things to come. The first is related
to the Bush administration's decision to cede part of
the control of Iraq to the United Nations, and the
second is the story of an al-Qaeda tape in which the
grim voice of the speaker - supposedly that of Osama bin
Laden - says that Iraq has become the battleground in
the jihad against the United States.
Things have
to be a lot worse than admitted in the official circles
in Washington for the Bush administration to yield even
partial control over aid to Iraq. And, indeed, they are.
Even after the passage of UN Resolution 1483 on October
16, hopes of a large-scale commitment of peacekeeping
troops from a number of countries to Iraq have been
dashed. France, Germany and Russia - even in their
decision not to oppose that resolution - explicitly
ruled out the prospect of committing troops or funds to
Iraq. Everyone knows that it does not matter whether
those troops are there wearing the blue UN helmet or
their own, the moment they enter that country, they will
become targets of the Iraqi resistance and Islamist
forces.
Even Turkey - whose vote was purchased
by the US government by offering US$8.5 billion worth of
credit - is having second thoughts about sending the up
to 10,000 troops it had promised. The Iraqis have
already shown their anger toward the impending
participation of their neighbor. That was just another
reminder that memories in the Middle East tend to be
very long. Memories of the Ottoman rule over Iraq have
not exactly faded away, or been forgotten. The latent
aspect of those memories is the Shi'ite factor. The
memories of the Safavid-Ottoman rivalries of the
previous era might also be resuscitated among the
Shi'ites if Turkey enters the fray in Iraq. I purposely
use the phrase "fray", because it is perceived precisely
along these lines inside Iraq.
For a large
number of Iraqis there is no such thing as peacekeeping
in their country. As they see it, foreign troops enter
only to prolong the US occupation. No country knows this
reality better than Pakistan. Pakistani ambassador to
the UN, Munir Akram, made that point quite explicitly
and cogently on the Jim Lehrer News Hour immediately
after the passage of the UN resolution. He said his
country, despite the fact that it voted for the passage
of that resolution, would not send troops to Iraq
because the Iraqis would see them as part of the
occupation force.
As the US is getting ready to
meet with the donor countries in Madrid on Thursday, it
knows that no one is going to open its coffers merely
for Washington to spend those funds according to its
priorities. The European countries had already expressed
their concern that the Coalition Provisional Authority
(CPA) is the decisionmaking authority in Iraq. As one
World Bank official noted, "For political reasons, they
[the Europeans] don't want their funds to be perceived
as being commingled with funds controlled by the CPA.
They want to have their own say over how the money is
spent." Thus, the decision was made to establish a new
agency under the auspices of the World Bank to determine
how to spend billions of dollars. The new agency will
not only oversee the spending of the hoped-for billions
of dollars coming from the donors, but it will also
audit expenditures.
This is an important
development in the sense that the entity established by
the US, the Development Fund for Iraq, freely gave
billions of dollars worth of contracts to American
companies like Halliburton (Vice President Dick Cheney's
former employer) and Bechtel (with solid connections to
the Republican Party). In fact, the Development Fund for
Iraq will still be in charge of spending the proposed
$20 billion that the Bush administration is struggling
to get through Congress. However, all funds from donor
countries will go under fiscal control of the new agency
under the World Bank. As such, the new agency is
expected to open the process of awarding contracts that
will be open to global companies. According to one
report, "Donors could also give directly to Iraq,
specifying that their own companies do the work." This
is the donors' way of showing preference to their native
companies, a practice that was well honed by the Bush
administration in the post-Saddam Hussein Iraq.
The prospects of international aid to Iraq
appear quite good, at least for now. Japan has committed
$1.5 billion for 2004, $5 billion over a period of the
next several years, and is expected to commit more funds
in the future. The European Union has committed $230
million; Britain $800 million; Spain $300 million; and
Canada has promised about $200 million for 2004. The
World Bank is reported to be contemplating $500 million
in each of the next two years. Rich Arab states are also
expected to show their own generosity once they are
assured that an international agency will be responsible
for spending their money in Iraq, not the CPA. One of
the outstanding problems is the status of $120 billion
that Iraq owes as "outstanding debt" to other countries.
No decisions have been made on that issue; however, the
US is expected to deflect all endeavors during the donor
conference to focus on Iraqi debt relief. The Bush
administration is also pressing its European allies to
underwrite Iraqi debt with outright grants, not loans.
The second development is the ominous threat of
terrorism lurking in the background. In fact, its shadow
appears to be getting taller with the passage of time.
One of the greatest ironies involving Iraq is that the
Bush administration claimed before the invasion that the
toppling of Saddam would also deal a major blow to
transnational terrorism in that region. Many observers
regarded that contention as nothing but posturing of the
Bush administration. And it turned out to be just that,
or more precisely, the situation is quite reverse now.
Iraq is currently a place where al-Qaeda is reported to
have a major presence. Aljazeera satellite television,
on October 20, released a taped message purporting to be
from bin Ladin. It claimed that Iraq is the new
battlefront in the jihad against the US. Part of the
message was in praise of suicide attacks against the
American troops in Iraq. At a time when the US is in
dire need of increased multilateral force presence, that
message will not be helpful at all.
Add to the
preceding yet another wrinkle. Ansar al-Islam has not
only survived attempts by US troops to decimate it
during the Iraqi invasion, but is reported to be
recruiting Kurdish and Arab militants from Iran.
Operating on the premise that the enemy of your enemy is
your friend, they have reportedly established a nexus
even with Saddam loyalists. These groups are reported to
be behind most of the attacks on the US troops across
Iraq. If the alienation of the Shi'ites - which also
seems to be escalating - were to continue, then the
security situation in Iraq is likely to deteriorate
further.
With the passage of time, the US
occupation of Iraq is becoming so cumbersome that no one
is certain which part of it will blow up and how big an
explosion that would be. The US Congress debated
fervently about how much, if any, of the $87 billion
should be given to Iraq as loan. Now the bill is
awaiting a compromise from both chambers. At the same
time, the criticism from the Democratic presidential
contenders of President George W Bush's continued
involvement in Iraq has remained quite harsh.
Consequently, Iraq promises to be a major issue of the
upcoming presidential election. Even after the passage
of Resolution 1483, there is no enthusiastic support
among a number of major European allies for the
continued US presence in Iraq. Even though Bush
attempted to press his agenda of war on terrorism in the
last Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation conference in
Thailand, there is no report of a large contingent of
peacekeeping troops departing from that region to Iraq.
In the meantime, the frustration level of the
current administration is mounting, in that the US media
are not focusing on the "good news" stories from Iraq.
Even looking at Iraq from the side of the US government,
the picture does not look rosy. Yes, there are a few
bright spots; however, with the passage of each day, the
US looks like the old Sisyphus: it is trying to rebuild
Iraq, but the resistance forces and transnational
terrorists - through their actions of murder, sabotage
and mayhem - are making sure that Iraq does not become a
stable place. That is the most bitter lesson for the US.
An occupying force is an occupying force, no matter how
hard it attempts to project itself as a "liberator". For
the enemies of America in Iraq, they must try equally
hard to make sure that the occupying force fails, and
fails miserably. That is the only way they would win.
Unfortunately for the Iraqis, their plight is not much
better today than when they were living under Saddam
Hussein.
Ehsan Ahrari, PhD, is an
Alexandria, Virginia, US-based independent strategic
analyst.
(Copyright 2003 Asia Times Online
Co, Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact content@atimes.com for
information on our sales and syndication
policies.)
|
| |
|
|
 |
|
