The US is slip sliding into an abyss
Shireen M Mazari
"The writer is Director General of the
Institute of Strategic Studies, Islamabad
[email protected]
The bomb blast that killed one of Iraq's Shia leaders, Ayatollah Mohammed Baqir al-Hakim in Najaf was a tragedy not only for the Iraqi people but also for Muslims everywhere because it showed the violent polarisation within the Ummah. But for those who think they can capitalise on this tragedy, there is a need to think again. For the Shias of Iraq lay the blame not only on the Baathists, but also squarely on the US ?- which as the occupying power in Iraq failed to provide the security for the people. Worse still, Ayatollah Hakim was in the forefront of sustaining a working relationship between the US and the Shias of Iraq. And the US failed to provide the necessary security.
In fact, it has become clearly evident that there are clear limitations to the unilateralist pre-emptive doctrine. What may work in terms of military warfare will not work in the post-war scenario. As a matter of fact, the Americans have lost more soldiers post the declared end to the combat in Iraq, than they had lost during the course of the war itself. They have not been able to pass on their self-envisaged image of the glorious liberators of Iraq! Instead, they are being seen as the occupiers who have created a power vacuum in Iraq which has unleashed a situation of chaos and near-anarchy.
Nor is this situation only related to Iraq. The US is in a similarly unstable situation in Afghanistan, almost two years after 9/11 and the toppling of the Taliban regime. Outside of Kabul there is almost no law and order and the warlords reign supreme. The poppy cultivation, almost destroyed by the Taliban, has seen a thriving revival. President Karzai continues to be protected by American security guards and the writ of the government is barely visible outside of the capital. As for ISAF, now under NATO command, the US is reluctant to expand its mandate beyond the capital because it seeks to have total, unilateral control over the military operations in Afghanistan.
In both the Iraq and Afghan situations, there are two main problems that the US has created for itself as it pushes its unilateralist doctrine.
The first is that the US is not prepared for international power sharing in both these situations, despite claims that the intent is simply to hand the countries back to their respective nationals after ridding the people from the clutches of dictators. But the US itself is not exactly a democratic alternative ?- nor is it in a hurry to move towards such an option in either case. Yet, the US would like the international community to come to its aid in terms of peacekeepers and so on, but totally on its own terms and with no political power sharing. When the UN tried to do this, we saw the result in the bombing of the UN headquarters in Baghdad. Apart from the tragic deaths that resulted, the UN only ended up being seen as part of the US game plan rather than as an independent actor working for the Iraqi people.
The Najaf tragedy has shown once again the quagmire the US is in, but the neoconservatives dominating the US Administration are imbued with no sense of humility or even foresight. Otherwise, they would agree to some level of power sharing to bring in international participation under the UN mantle. Instead, all one has had from the US is that perhaps they would allow an UN-mandated international force but under US command! This is an absurdity since the whole idea of bringing in a UN mandated force is to allow them to do the job the US is not being able to do because of a lack of credibility and trust. To simply replace US soldiers with foreign soldiers but to retain US command would hardly serve the purpose, unless the intent is to simply use the foreign soldiers as cannon fodder. It is also ironic that the US, which does not allow its soldiers to be placed under foreign command under the UN peacekeeping mantle, should now seek to itself command such a force.
The US is of course seeking forces from primarily Muslim states ?- as well as countries like India. It is almost as if it wants to pit Muslim against Muslim. But it will not work. Unless the US is prepared to truly concede some political authority to the UN, it would be disastrous for the UN to agree to a UN peacekeeping force for Iraq. And the command must also be non-American and British, if the force is to have credibility with the Iraqi people ?- especially after Najaf.
The second problem that the US has created for itself is that it has chosen to bypass the majority segment of the population ?- although selecting figureheads from this segment who may or may not be acceptable to the majority. In Afghanistan, it has tried to sideline the Pushtuns ?- the single largest Afghan ethnic group. Instead, they have allied with the Northern Alliance ?- which has limited support both political and ethnic. To simply select unrepresentative Pushtuns to try and fill the political void has not worked. The result has been that many Pushtuns are linking up with the Taliban and so the US continues to be embroiled in a guerrilla war in that country. Instead of looking within to understand the problem, it continues to lash out at others, including its ally Pakistan without whose help it would not have captured any al-Qaeda members.
In Iraq, almost a similar pattern is being repeated in the form of the Iraqi Governing Council. The US has announced its intent to postpone the coming of democracy to the Iraqis and the handing over of power to the Iraqi people. But Najaf has ended the working relationship between the US and the Shias and the reality of the Shia majority will need to be accepted by the US ?- especially with this group now up in arms and seeking revenge. The post-Najaf attempt by the Iraqi Governing Council and the US to appoint 25 unknowns as ministers is hardly the solution, given that the shias selected have to have support amongst their people first and that can only be ascertained by allowing the Iraqis the right to elect their representatives themselves. After decades of suffering the cruelty of one dictator, the Iraqis are certainly not in the mood to have this suffering continue at the hands of a foreign occupation force.
With more than enough on its unilateralist pre-emptive plate, the neoconservative lobby in the US still seems insatiated. Thus Iran continues to be targeted ?- and, indirectly Pakistan. Despite the fact that the CIA itself, in its report to Congress in 2002, identified Russia, China, North Korea and Europe as the mainstay of Iran's nuclear development, Pakistan continues to be accused, willy-nilly, of abetting Iran's nuclear designs. Ironically, this has come at a time when Iran and India are drawing closer together ?- and, as is well known, it is India that has a large, unprotected uranium enrichment programme and uranium mining facilities. Also, Russia and India have a long history of nuclear collusion, so logically if the US is seeking to find a culpable party in Iran's alleged nuclear weapons development, it should look to its strategic ally India.
In fact, a group of Indians has just been arrested in the US for trying to sell 50 shoulder-held Russian surface-to-air Igla missiles (see India Today, September 1, 2003). The FBI has stated that the leader of the gang, Hemant Lakhani was trying to broker the deal to use the weapons against a commercial airliner. The Indo-Russian arms connection has a dark side to it and a couple of years earlier there were reports of Russian uranium being sold by Indian peddlers. So it is strange why the US has been so silent on the Indian role in the WMD debate.
All in all, as September 11 nears once again, it is a tragic irony that the spirit of multilateralism that the 9/11 terrorist attacks created has over two years dissipated, thanks to the US assertion of unilateralist pre-emption. And the world is the poorer and destabilised as a result.
The views expressed by the writer are her own
