Iraqi Critics
Speak Out On
Occupation, Elections
By Dahr Jamail
23 November, 2004
The
New Standard
While
debate continues in the United States about how best to manage the occupation
and nation building of Iraq, the ideas of Iraqis on the matter of what
is to happen in their country have been all but completely muted in
the West.
Iraqis tend to favor
free elections without American influence and setting a timetable for
military withdrawal as part of the solution to the bloody quagmire their
country has become under foreign control.
Obviously, the ongoing
occupation and heightening resistance to it are a major focus for all
Iraqis. "What I said during Saddams time I say now, that
this is a political issue and not a military issue," said Dr. Wamidh
Omar Nadhmi, a senior political scientist at Baghdad University and
a long-time secular activist.
Nadhmi was an outspoken
critic of Saddam Husseins government, and he sees ominous parallels
today. Accepting the risks of standing up against Baathist rule
in the 1990s, he and other dissidents offered a solution. "We raised
these slogans: Political dialogue, national reconciliation, and transformation
to democracy," he said during a recent interview at his home in
Baghdad. "And now I find myself repeating the same solutions."
The professor is
also the official spokesman for the Iraqi National Foundation Congress,
a council of intellectuals, community leaders and clerics whose goal
is to create an alliance of political parties that work for the betterment
of Iraq. The group boasts a diverse membership that includes prominent
Shiite leaders and Muslim scholars. Also participating are Christian,
Turkmen and Kurdish Iraqis and even pre-Saddam era Baathists.
"We suggested
to the occupation forces and Iraqi government four requirements for
an Iraqi election: an international committee of oversight; an immediate
ceasefire because we cannot have elections under bombardment and rockets;
[the] withdrawal of American troops from the major cities one month
before the election
" Nadhmi paused before adding the fourth
requirement: "We even gave this international committee the right
to delete any name from the list of people running for office if they
didnt like it."
Instead of accepting
the suggestions of his council, which Nadhmi described as prerequisites
for a free and democratic election, the interim government declared
martial law.
"How can we
have a free election under martial law?" he asked. "Instead
of a ceasefire, they attack Fallujah. Are they sure that the aftermath
will not be bloodier than Fallujah? The martial law is one of the nails
in the coffin of this regime. The last pretext for democracy here is
now buried. Their declaration of martial law is a declaration of political
bankruptcy."
At the end of October,
the Iraqi National Foundation Congress called for a boycott of the January
elections.
Another professor
at Baghdad University, Dr. Genan Hammed, believes the solution is for
the US to withdraw completely from Iraq. "The Americans should
go back from where they came from," she said during a telephone
interview. "Get the Iraqi [armed] forces to come back to rule the
country, that is the only solution."
In addition, Hammed
said she does not believe elections are feasible in the current climate,
especially because political parties were manipulated by the former
US-run Coalition Provisional Authority such that certain, favored parties
have dominated others. "This is just not the right time for elections,"
Hammed said. "The Sunnis dont have parties, the Kurdish claim
to have a majority, everyone is foggy."
Other Iraqi political
activists believe the alternative solution for Iraq is similar to that
which many pundits and analysts in the West have been discussing since
the early days of the occupation.
"The solution
is for the Americans to announce their failure and hand everything to
the General Assembly of the UN and not to the Security [Council],"
said Dr. Abdul Kareem Hani, who was Iraqs minister of social affairs
under Saddam Hussein. Hani said he prefers the General Assembly have
authority because it is "under less American hegemony" than
the Security Council, over which the US has veto power. "There
is of course large American influence on all the worlds affairs,
but at least there is a little less in the Assembly," he said.
Hani believes the
only solution is a UN-appointed interim government -- one not aligned
with the United States. He cautions that any elections carried out according
to the "Bremer laws," instituted by former American occupation
chief Paul Bremer, will be a dismal failure.
"We all believe the Bremer laws have no legal basis, neither here
nor anywhere else," he said from his home in Baghdad. "According
to the Geneva Conventions and the Hague, the occupying force has no
authority to change the laws of the occupied country."
The Hague regulations
of 1907, which the US ratified, as well as the US Armys Law of
Land Warfare, state that the alteration of an occupied countrys
laws is illegal.
"They know
this yet they have issued all these laws which are against the good
of the people of the country," Hani concluded. "They are creating
more problems every day. What is happening now in Fallujah and all around
the country are proof that they do not want to solve the problems --
they are keen to produce more problems."
Of course, Iraqis
generally believe settling the tumultuous security situation is paramount;
it must be resolved before any real political progress can be made in
Iraq.
Ahmed Mahmoud, a
33-year-old unemployed resident of Baghdad, said, "I think the
security problem stems from the open borders." He felt the US military
should stay out of the cities in Iraq and allow Iraqis to handle their
own security. "If the Americans say the security is bad because
of the [terrorists from neighboring countries], then let them go stop
them at the borders," he added.
Many Iraqis believe
that a different approach on the part of the US occupiers would have
made a major difference. "The US military here is winning all the
battles," said Dr. Nadhmi, "but they are losing the war because
they have brought a puppet regime."
Nadhmi paused, then
added, "Any [Iraqi leader] who would respect himself, and thus
be respected by the people, would not accept to become a puppet for
the Americans or any other foreign power."
Salman Obeidy, a
55-year-old unemployed carpenter, believes he could have done a better
job than the USs envoys, administrators, generals and ambassadors.
"Give me the money the Americans spent to bomb Fallujah,"
he said, "I will solve the problem with that money by using it
to help Iraqis. They are fighting because they see the Americans as
occupiers rather than someone who came to help them."
If the crux of the
problem is truly that simple, and a possible solution has been so close
to the USs grasp, the political fallout from the ongoing invasion
of Fallujah cannot be overstated with regard to its effect on the elections
scheduled for January 27, 2005.
Tuesday, November 9 saw the first political casualty from the siege
of Fallujah, when the Iraqi Islamic Party, a major Sunni political force
in Iraq, withdrew from the Iraqi interim government. "We are protesting
the attack on Fallujah and the injustice that is inflicted on the innocent
people of the city," Muhsin Abd Al-Hamid, head of the Party, told
Aljazeera. "We cannot be part of this attack."
The next day, the
influential Association of Muslim Scholars (AMS) called upon people
to boycott the national elections.
Dr. Harith Al-Dhari,
the secretary general of the AMS, defended the prerogative of Iraqis
to legally resist the occupation of their country. "We have said
we support the resistance since the occupation of this country began,"
he said Tuesday. "This is our right as Iraqis. Therefore, we dont
need a fatwa [clerical order] on this issue, as this matter is clear."
Also on November
10, Ayad Al-Azi, spokesman for the Islamic Party of Iraq announced that
his party had withdrawn completely from the interim government, and
that they were strongly considering a boycott of the elections.
On November 13,
the spokesman for Muqtada Al-Sadr, Ali Smasm, announced that they will
also boycott the January polls.
Prior to this announcement,
during a phone interview, Ahmed Al-Bideri, spokesman for the office
of Muqtada Al-Sadr in Sadr City, Baghdad, had hinted that Al-Sadrs
support for the electoral process was at an end. "We were trying
to decide who to support in the elections because we dont want
to separate our power over different issues," Al-Bideri said at
the time. He had added that the Sadrist movement hoped to work toward
changing the elections so that they would be fair and transparent.
"The Americans
must review their entire Iraq policy and come to wise decisions,"
said Dr. Nadhmi. "There is nothing wrong with ideology unless it
blinds you from seeing reality."
© 2004 The NewStandard. See our reprint policy.
Also
Visit Our Dahr Jamail Archive