‘If US troops remain on Iraqi soil even after the new government is formed, they may use Iraq and Afghanistan for their hostile action against Iran,’ says Dr Talat A. Wizarat
THE Jan 30 elections in Iraq lacked legitimacy. They were a farce staged by the US in order to fool the Iraqi people and the international public opinion, says Dr Talat A. Wizarat, former chairperson, department of international relations, University of Karachi.
In an exclusive interview with Dawn Magazine, Dr Talat discussed the situation in Iraq in detail. The following are excerpts from her interview.
Q. What’s your opinion on the recently held elections in Iraq?
A. The elections in Iraq were a farce staged by the US, hoping to dupe the Iraqi people and the international public opinion. In spite of US claims that the turnout was 60 per cent, the elections have not changed the situation in Iraq. The people of Iraq do not attach credibility to these polls for the simple reasons that they were held and organized by occupation forces. This kind of an exercise cannot be termed successful.
Q. Will the elections lead to stability in Iraq and in the Middle East?
A. There are two different views on the recently held elections in Iraq. The US administration is trying to promote the view that the elections will lead to stability in the region. This view presupposes that a government enjoying legitimacy will emerge and the period of transition will be a smooth one. The other view is that the elections had no legitimacy and could lead to further destabilizing the country. An unintended contribution of the elections to the prevalent situation in Iraq could be the promotion of greater cooperation among different Iraqi groups for the purpose of setting a time-table for the withdrawal of occupation forces.
Q. Some people say that the polls have polarized Iraq as the Shias cast their votes in the elections, but the Sunnis generally stayed back. Will this kind of a scenario further divide Iraq on sectarian lines?
A. The people who see Iraqi politics in sectarian terms may believe that the Shias in Iraq opted for the ballot while the Sunnis stayed away. This rather simplistic view does not take into account political diversity among the Shias themselves. It does not allow us to consider the divergent political views among the Sunnis either. I think there is a possibility that after the new government is formed in Iraq, all Iraqis, whether Shia or Sunni, will have a common stake in asking occupations forces to pull out of their country. However, the USD is interested in bringing about the Balkanization of Iraq, but their tactics are crude and the Iraqis should be able to see the game that the US is playing.
Q. What was Sistani’s role in making the Shias cast their votes despite armed clashes and attacks on holy shrines and brutal killings?
A. Ayatollah Sistani probably believes that his supporters stand a better chance of coming to power through the elections. He is involved in a multifaceted struggle for power, mainly between the secularists and religious divide. Even within the religious group he has to face competition from a group led by Syed Muqtada al-Sadr. Also, there is an organization representing Muslim scholars.
Q. How would this influence Kurdish and Sunni groups?
A. There were some groups that did not participate in the electoral process. But they are now inclined to participate in drafting of the constitution if a time-limit is set for withdrawal of occupation forces. Some Kurdish parties, on the other hand, have adopted a more hardline approach, even threatening secession. This has happened after the elections. The situation is very fluid now.
Q. Would this kind of polarization help the US and its allies to extend their stay in Iraq and pursue the policy of unilateralism?
A. The US and Britain intend to remain in Iraq as long as it is possible for them; but other countries, who supported the US aggression against Iraq by contributing troops, are now planning to withdraw their forces. The only thing which could compel the US to withdraw is the pressure exerted in the form of Iraqi resistance. If the Iraqis were to fall prey to the US policy of divide and rule, it would certainly encourage them to stay on.
Q. How would the elections in Iraq influence the situation in the Middle East in general and Iran in particular? At a time when the US is spearheading a campaign against Iran viz-a-viz nuclear weapons, can a Shia-majority government in Iraq upset Iran?
A. The Iraqi elections do not enjoy much legitimacy. However, if they result in the creation of an Islamic government dominated by Ayatollah Sistani, Iran might draw some strength from it, as Sistani is believed to be close to Iran. But Kurdish parties say that if religious groups dominate the polity, Kurdish groups will be unhappy, especially if they are denied complete autonomy. Turkey is quite concerned over this new posture of Kurdish groups.
Q. Will armed attacks continue with the same intensity in Iraq despite the so-called successful holding of elections?
A. Armed attacks are going to continue. The US and other occupation forces and their Iraqi collaborators are still being attacked in different parts of the country. The elections do not seem to have made any difference.
Q. Coming back to the situation related to Iran. How do you see that developing in the near future?
A. If US troops remain on Iraqi soil even after the new government is formed, they will use Iraq and Afghanistan for their hostile action against Iran. This will naturally disturb Iran. The installation of a government in Iraq, dominated by Shia parties that may not prevent any kind of action against Iran, will not provide consolation to Iran. On the other hand, if the government can somehow prevent its soil from being used against Iran, it will contribute to a lasting peace in the region.
Q. Now that all the natural resources of the Iraqis have been virtually taken over by the so-called custodian of world peace, what are the chances of economic recovery in Iraq?
A. Since the elections lack legitimacy, they are widely believed to have been staged not to empower the Iraqis, but to legitimize US occupation of Iraqi resources. I don’t believe that the chances of reconstruction will be enhanced as a result of these elections. The US is not in Iraq to promote democracy, but it is there to strengthen their stranglehold over its resources and to intimidate other states into letting the US exploit their resources. It would also strengthen the US-Israeli nexus.
‘If US troops remain on Iraqi soil even after the new government is formed, they may use Iraq and Afghanistan for their hostile action against Iran,’ says Dr Talat A. Wizarat
