June 5, 2003

The way the Americans have conducted the Iraq crisis — at the UN and on the ground — there now remains little doubt as to who is in charge of the world today. Clearly, Iraq was made a test case in the scheme of enforcing willy nilly pax americana. This marked the end of political morality and all classical values that the West put into active politics since the Second World War.

The classical definition of politics, ‘who gets what, when and how’, holds true today as much as it did in pre-Christ Greece. The sad part is that someone as bereft of vision as George W. Bush — flanked by his hawkish aides and long lost cousins across the Atlantic — should be in charge of doling out the goods to the world.

The United Nations as a forum cannot be blamed for acquiescing in the American design. The world body represents the collective will of the nations, and America made sure that only a few nations dared openly oppose its action. Those that did were isolated and ignored. Having weighed the implications, Washington proceeded to accomplish the deed with the help of the British, and Baghdad itself fell without any real resistance. Contrary to the world’s expectations and, fortunately for the Iraqis, the war did not take a very heavy life toll.

It was then time to go back to the UN and force it to accept the new reality, which it did by lifting the economic sanctions and making the US and Britain legal custodians — read masters — of Iraq’s destiny without a time limit attached to their occupation of Iraq. In the bargain the UN only got an observer’s role, and that too only to put an end to the opposition from France, Russia, China and Germany. Not much was made of Syria’s abstention.

That, so far, is the collective, muted, response the world has given to George Bush’s new brave world order. Both the Pentagon and the White House expected the going to be just a wee bit tougher. The stage is now set to redraw alliances, if indeed not the borders in the Middle East. The world, effectively, is at America’s mercy at a time when it is least qualified to lead.

So what are the lessons to be drawn from the debacle of Saddam Hussein? First and foremost, the Americans have made it clear that they can rally latent, if not overt, support for their invasion of an independent country and physically remove a regime perceived to be hostile to their interests.

Secondly, the state of Israel will have to be made stronger and more assertive even if that entails doing so at the expense of others in the region.

The onus of making adjustments to the emerging new order in the Middle East now lies squarely on countries like Lebanon, Syria and Iran in the immediate aftermath of Iraq’s conquest, and Sudan and Yemen, over the long term. Pakistan, for now, has been saved the wrath of the new masters of the world because there is little fear of non-compliance from our side.

As for Iraq, the question to ponder is: how will the occupying American and British forces bring about a coherent political system in a country that has only known a repressive dictatorship as a binding force?

It is here that a more benign international dispensation under the UN supervision would have helped immensely. The British and American-led administration, pending the formation of an elected Iraqi government, would continue to symbolize victor’s justice to the Iraqis, who have seen their children suffer, and die of disease and hunger as a direct result of crippling economic sanctions these two powers brought to bear on them for 12 long years.

Saddam’s ouster from power might have come as a long awaited relief to Iraqi Kurds and Shias but that does not make the American-led occupation of their country desirable.

Shias, for one, would rather see the back of the foreign forces sooner than later. They, unlike some 60 per cent of Iraqi Kurds — 40 per cent of Iraqi Kurds are also Shia — have never demanded a Shia Iraq or even an autonomous region within Iraq. A very strong element of national Arab pride binds Iraqi Shias with their Sunni compatriots.

This overriding national sentiment among the non-Kurd Iraqis would be hard to dampen as the Americans go about wheeling, dealing and cobbling together a West-friendly Iraqi government.

Such a government would be doomed right from its inception because it would not be representative of the Iraqis’ wishes. This suits the Americans’ purpose just as well as it would give a rationale for a prolonged American presence in the Middle East.

Remember, there are Iran and Syria next door to be kept in check, and the shaky monarchies only waiting to be held hostage to American whims.

The truth is that in spite of Saddam Hussein’s ouster from power, Iraq’s liberation remains a dream. Worse still, with prospects of George W. Bush winning a second term in the White House, there is a dangerous chance of this dream turning into a nightmare. If that happens it will have put America’s original agenda of redrawing the borders in the Middle East back in action.

Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)