Writings on Iraqi walls

FOR the third time in less than two weeks, an Iraqi oil pipeline has been blown up, indicating how precarious the security situation is in that country. The blasts should be seen against the background of sporadic attacks on American soldiers. The exact number of American casualties is not available. But the US Defence Department has admitted 49 Americans dead since May 1. Given the hardships and frustration the Iraqi people are facing, one can expect more attacks on American targets and an increase in acts of sabotage. However, improving the security situation and alleviating the Iraqi people’s suffering do not seem to be among American priorities. In Shuneh, Jordan, an Iraqi businessman interrupted Paul Bremer, Iraq’s American administrator, when he announced privatization plans for Iraq at the World Economic Forum meeting. The businessman said Bremer had no right to speak on behalf of Iraq and that he was talking about privatization while what the Iraqi people needed was an improvement in the security situation.

The widening gulf between the people and the occupation authorities stems basically from differing approaches to the post-Saddam situation. The Iraqis know that the Baathist regime is dead and gone and that what the Americans should do now is to prepare plans for restoring normal conditions and handing over power to the Iraqi people. However, going by what Bremer has been saying and doing, the US seems in no hurry to get out of Iraq. Nothing demonstrated this better than the White House “correction” of what some American senators said about the time-frame for an American withdrawal from Iraq. Speaking to reporters, three members of the Senate’s Foreign Relations Committee said American troops should not be in Iraq for more than five years. Those who expressed these views were senators from both the Republican and Democratic Parties. However, what the White House said seems to indicate that the US thinks its occupation is open-ended. Responding to the senators’ views, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said the American troops would stay in Iraq “as long as necessary”. It was an “open question”, he said, as to how long it would take to establish security and stability in Iraq. In saying this, the spokesman seemed to forget that it was America’s responsibility to ensure internal security and stability in Iraq. Instead, the true indication of the Bush administration’s aim came in the Bremer speech in Shuneh when he said that the US wanted to transform the Iraqi economy into a free market one, open to the world’s multinationals. He then listed detailed steps in the direction of transforming Iraq into a free economy. This is not what the Iraqis want.

Whether Iraq should be a free-market or a mixed economy is for an Iraqi government to decide. America’s insistence on imposing its own political and economic visions on the occupied country is creating serious concerns and misgivings all around; even America’s allies in Europe suspect that what Washington wants is to monopolize Iraq’s oil. Last week, Baghdad’s Shias held a demonstration and demanded “freedom and justice.” They accused the Americans of being “occupiers and aggressors.” It is to these demands and sentiments that the Bush administration should pay heed. A delay in setting up an interim administration run by genuine Iraqi leaders will only add to the people’s anger and resentment, lead to more attacks on US targets, and cause more American casualties. Unless Washington draws up an exit strategy, it will find itself hopelessly bogged down in the Iraqi quagmire.

Up against the junta

THERE is more to the recent arrest of the Burmese opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi than meets the eye. This time round when the military junta put her under arrest after pro-government protesters attacked Ms Suu Kyi’s convoy on May 30, there were clear indications of a power struggle brewing within the ruling oligarchy. The hardliners are against holding any dialogue with the Nobel Prize-winning leader, while the moderates insist that such a dialogue could be the only way to end Yangon’s increasing international isolation, which is taking a huge toll on the country’s economy. The hardliners, led by General Than Shwe, believe that the junta need not compromise with the popular leader to arrive at a power-sharing formula between the ruling junta and a possible civilian government at some point in the future. The moderates led by General Khin Nyunt, however, argue that the military cannot hold on to power indefinitely and needs to find a power-sharing mechanism.

Ms Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy won a landslide victory in Myanmar’s last general election held in 1990. But the military, which had assumed power in a coup in 1988, refused to release the popular leader or to transfer power to a civilian government. Ms Suu Kyi won the coveted Nobel Peace Prize for her commitment to change by peaceful means while she was under house arrest in 1991. Her release finally came in 1995 under intense international pressure and economic sanctions. She has since then been put under house arrest from time to time. Meanwhile, the generals mended their fences with neighbouring India and Thailand, expanding trade ties to help negate the effects of economic sanctions imposed by Europe and the US. Recent threats of imposing tougher sanctions by the EU, US and Japan have failed to move the hardliners who insist Myanmar can do without economic relations with these powers. In all this, the fate of one of the world’s highly admired leaders — as that of a democratic Myanmar — hangs in the balance.

Kashmir: custodial deaths

THE administration in Indian-occupied Kashmir has officially admitted that security forces murdered 144 people while in custody. Giving these figures, a minister also told the state assembly that nearly 4,000 people had gone “missing” during the last 14 years. What the actual figures on both counts are nobody knows. Unofficial figures, especially those given by human rights and Kashmiri freedom groups, are much higher. The HR groups put the number of the missing at 8,000, while the opposition Congress Party said “hundreds” had been killed in custody. But even if one were to accept the official figures as reasonably correct, one would be appalled at the extent of human rights violations in the occupied territory. The Kashmiri people’s uprising began in 1989, and since then by modest accounts 70,000 people have been killed. In addition, villages have been torched and women dishonoured. Countless others have left their ancestral homes and crossed over into Azad Kashmir. According to the minister, those responsible for custodial deaths were both the security forces and the police. This means both New Delhi and the state administration in Srinagar are responsible for the spilling of the innocent Kashmiri blood.

Now that a wind of change is blowing through the subcontinent, one hopes India will address the question of human rights violations in the territory under its control. An Indo-Pakistan dialogue is not on the cards yet, but positive moves have been made by Islamabad and New Delhi to lower tensions and move towards normalization of relations. One positive step in this direction could be for India to inquire into the cases of custodial deaths and announce the action taken against the guilty. This would help create a climate of confidence and act as a spar for the normalization process.