THE US, THE UN AND IRAQ VI

Hearts and minds

January 2004

A ten-point plan for solving the difficulties of the occupation in Iraq

Hassan M Fattah

With each new day another explosion goes off, another soldier is killed, the civilian death count rises and a few more Iraqis turn against the American presence. The real battle is one of perceptions. The coalition's daily struggle is to prove to Iraqis that an Iraq without Saddam is far better than one with the dictator; more importantly, they must prove that working with the coalition will improve their lot and make Iraq a better place. It's a tough sell.

Yet in the battle for hearts and minds, some of the most effective solutions may in fact be rather simple. Only a few measures are needed to make more Iraqis feel part of the reconstruction, citizens of their own land. And for all the tanks and arms, all the troops and the dollars spent, the best solutions are also rather inexpensive. The following is my bluffer's guide for the reconstruction of the reconstruction.

1. Encourage reconciliation, not revenge. Having decided soon after L Paul Bremer arrived in May to disband the Iraqi army and opt for a full-blooded de-Ba'athification, the Coalition Provisional Authority (the US-led executive body in Iraq) has in the past few weeks been backpedalling somewhat. Some Ba'ath party members, especially those who were in key jobs, are being invited back. On almost every day in November, at least one former Ba'athist was killed returning to the ministry of education in Basra for a job interview. Meanwhile, former policemen and security officers are being killed in Baghdad. Yet gangs taking revenge on former Ba'athists are doing so with impunity.

After 35 years of tyranny, Iraq has deep wounds to heal. But in taking such a tough stance against those connected to the former regime, the occupation has created new wounds. South Africa's truth and reconciliation commission is surely the example to follow here. It gave citizens public answers to the deaths or disappearances of loved ones, while meting out relatively civilised punishment to those responsible. Until Iraqis are able to get such answers, they will seek retribution of a more brutal kind. Only public reconciliation can allow the nation to put its dark past behind it. That must certainly include trials of the worst criminals - and such trials are expected to begin soon. But the process must emphasise closure on the past, and rebirth for the nation.

The CPA must speak the language of unity, not sectarianism. For decades discourse in Iraq has been based on divisiveness and sectarianism. And too often the CPA has used the same language. Iraqis are lumped together as Shi'is, or Sunnis, or Kurds; their backgrounds used to define political stance or demeanour. Rumours continue to make the rounds that new identification cards will highlight the ethnic and religious background of Iraqis.

Such divisiveness has been harnessed by factions and parties for political gain. Talk of radical federalism continues to fan fears that the nation will be ripped apart, and recent pieces in the New York Times and the Times calling for the break-up of the country into three parts underline such fears. The coalition must break that cycle, opting instead to highlight the unity of the nation - addressing people as Iraqi citizens first.

2. Begin the constitution discussion. Perhaps the most important conversation Iraq must have is about its future constitution. If conducted properly, this debate will spur discussions on the big issues: federalism, minority rights, secularism and religion's role in society. It will provide Iraqis with a genuine roadmap out of occupation. Yet the conversation has yet to begin. Mired in politics and logistical challenges, initial plans to begin drafting a constitution have been put on hold until the appropriate political structures of an interim government are cemented. But such controversy need not filibuster the discussion. This summer, 25 elders and legal scholars were sent around the country to determine the rules of how a constitution should be drafted. They spoke to thousands of Iraqis and began a civilised debate. Their report has collected dust on the desks of members of the Iraqi Governing Council (the US-appointed body that has served as the Iraqi executive alongside the coalition). The group should be empowered to continue its work, and to keep the constitution at the top of the agenda. The conversation will take a long time; by the time a true constitutional convention is held, Iraq will have had time to mull the issues as an entire nation.

Does anyone really believe the world will stand by and watch while we take the oil by force...

Quote:

Does anyone really believe the world will stand by and watch while we take the oil by force...

Surely you are being a bit naive here?

Firstly you make the mistake of assuming the rest of the world is united in its opposition to the US. Far from it, many countries including my own have come to the conclusion that its better to be inside the tent pissing out than outside being pissed on.

Secondly those bits of the "row" that do oppose American hegemony have no military strength comparable to the US, even if they acted in conjunction. They are powerless to stop America from doing what it wants. And the US wants first and foremost to safeguard its supplies of crude oil. (In the name of course of liberating people and fighting terrorism).

Thirdly America is only doing (on a global scale perhaps) what powerful states have always done...that is using force as a tool of foreign policy to consolidate that position of dominance. Divide and rule...as old as civilisation itself.

Finally what's the alternative? Splendid isolation? Peaceful co existence with equal partners? It would be nice but then what are you going to do with your $10 trillion dollar armed forces?

He looks like a schoolkid on work experience.

Thursday, January 08, 2004

Splitting Iraq...
Salam blogged about a subject close to every Iraqi's heart these last few days- the issue of federalism in Iraq and the Kurdish plan to embrace Kirkuk and parts of Mosul into the autonomous region in the north.

I can sum it up in two words: bad idea. First off, Kirkuk doesn't have a Kurdish majority as Talabani implies in every statement he makes. The Arabs and Turkomen in Kirkuk make up the majority. After the war and occupation, the KDP (led by Berazani) and PUK (led by Talabani) began paying party members to set up camp in Kirkuk and its outskirts to give the impression that there was a Kurdish majority in the oil-rich area. The weeks of May saw fighting between Kurdish Bayshmarga and Turkomen civilians because in some selected areas, the Turkomen were being attacked and forced to leave their homes and farms.

While Kurds and Turkomen generally get along in Iraq, there is some bitterness between them. Making Kirkuk a part of 'Kurdistan', as some are fond of calling it, would result in bloodshed and revolt. The Arabs in Kirkuk would refuse and the Turkomen wouldn't tolerate it. To understand some of the bitterness between Turkomen and Kurds, one only has to look back at what happened in 1959 in the northern part of Iraq. During that time, the Iraqi communist party had control and was backing Abdul Kareem Qassim, who was president back then.

Many die-hard communists decided that the best way to promote communism in the region would be to attack religious figures, nationalists and socialists- especially in Mosul, a conservative, dominantly Sunni Arab city and Kirkuk. For several weeks in 1959, there were massacres in both areas. During this time, communist Kurds from Suleimaniyah and Arbil were given orders to control the rebellious region. For days, there were assassinations of innocents… people were shot, dragged in the streets, maimed and hung on lampposts as an 'example' to those unwilling to support the communist revolution. Naturally, the people in Mosul and Kirkuk never forgot that- anyone over the age of 50 from that region will have at least six woeful stories to tell.

Mosul, on the other hand, is about 90% Sunni Arab, with around 5% Christian Arab and the rest a mix of Kurds, Yezidis, and some other Christian factions. Masslawis (people from Mosul) would *not* take kindly to a Kurdish rule.

Already, we've been hearing news of riots, demonstrations and assassinations in Kirkuk ever since Talabani suggested expanding the autonomous region. Turkomen and Arabs in Kirkuk are promising revolt and civil war if the Kurdish plan goes through.

How do I stand? I'm against splitting Iraq into areas that identify themselves ethnically or religiously. It won't work. It's almost every Iraqi's fear that Iraq will be torn into several pieces and the plan for an enlarged Kurdish region is just the first step to an independent Kurdish state or- Kurdistan- as they like to call it.

I believe that Kurds have the right to live equally as well as Arabs and people of other ethnicities- there is no argument to that. I have many Kurdish friends and we get along beautifully. I even have Kurdish relatives (through a cousin's marriage) and there's nothing nicer than an ethnically diverse family. In other words, I'm a champion of Kurdish rights.

Do I believe Kurds should have an independent Kurdish state? No. If every ethnic group in Iraq were to call for an independent state, we would have to split the country into more than 5 groups- the autonomous Kurdish region, the Sunni Arab region (including Mosul), the independent state of Kirkuk, the Republic of Baghdad, and the south would have to be split into 3 different states: one for Al-Hakim's supporters, one for Al-Sadr's supporters and another for Al-Sistani's supporters.

What is it that the Kurds can get in an independent 'Kurdistan' that they can't get in a democratic, united Iraq? Some would say that they had complete rights even before the war. There were tens of thousands of Kurds living in Baghdad. In fact, some of Baghdad's most affluent families prior to the occupation were Kurdish families with several sprawling palaces in Baghdad and other palaces in Suleimaniyah and Arbil. The irony is that some of these wealthy Kurds, much to the scorn of their less fortunate brothers, made their fortunes off of smuggling weapons during the Iran-Iraq war. Now, after the war, the arms smugglers are speaking the loudest against war atrocities (you learn this in occupation: the incredibly rich and powerful suddenly grow consciences like our garden grows weeds). Their kids drove the fastest cars, went to the best schools (there was no law banning Kurds from any school or college) and spent their summers in Switzerland, Germany and England.

Kurds also had a couple of exclusive clubs based in Baghdad, like Nadi Salah Al-Din, where they held weddings, parties and social events and while Arabs were welcome to attend as guests, they weren't allowed as members. On the other hand, Kurds were allowed as members into any club in Iraq- which is their right, as a minority. A definite advantage Kurds had over Arabs was the fact that they weren't drafted into the army.

To say that all Kurds want an independent Kurdistan would be a lie. Many Kurds are afraid of expanding the autonomous region because they know it will lead to a lot of bloodshed and strife. The Kurds who've always lived in Baghdad, as opposed to those living in the north, are afraid that this step by the ambitious Kurdish leaders will lead to a 'reaction' against Kurds outside of the autonomous zone. It's happening already- many people are bitter against Kurds because they feel that the splitting of Iraq will be at the hands of the Kurdish leaders.

Another thing Kurds seem to be worrying about of late is the fact that 'there is blood', as they say, between Berazani and Talabani. For the time being, they are presenting a united front for the CPA and Washington, pretending that they couldn't get along better if they were brothers. The reality is that before the war, they were constantly wrangling for power in the north with supporters of one attacking the supporters of the other, with innocent people, all the while, falling victim to the power struggle… and that was before oil was involved. Imagine what happens if they get Kirkuk.

We all lived together before- we can live together in the future. Iraqis are proud of their different ethnicities, but in the end, we all identify ourselves as "Iraqi". Every Iraqi's nightmare is to wake up one morning and find Iraq split into several parts based on ethnicity and religion. Salam said it best when he said, "There are no lines and none should exist…"

(By the way, Salam, did you hear Muwafaq Al-Rubai'i suggest that he wasn't satisfied with splitting Iraq into 3 parts? He's suggesting five… 3ud dai ka7ilheh, 3maha- sorry but that's just not translatable)

So, because the media doesn't cover afghanistan with the same zeal that they cover Iraq, Afghanistan is now the "forgotten country"?

I don't buy it. It's just more media feeding upon itself.