Iraqis Have
Lived This Lie Before
By Haifa Zangana
30 June, 2004 by
the
The Guardian
In Iraq, we have an expression: same donkey,
different saddle. Iraq's long-heralded interim government has now formally
assumed sovereignty. Official labels and tags have duly changed. The
US administrator will now be an ambassador, while Sheikh Ghazi al Yawar
and Iyad Allawi, US-appointed members of the former governing council,
are to be known as president and prime minister.
To formalize the
change, the UN has already issued a resolution under which "multinational
forces" will replace "US-led forces". On the issue of
control over US troops, the message is clear: the US forces are there
to stay only because "Iraqi people" has asked them to. But
which Iraqi people? Do they mean the new administration headed by the
CIA's Iyad Allawi? And why does all this sound strangely familiar?
In Iraq we don't
just read history at school - we carry it within ourselves. It's no
wonder, then, that we view what is happening in Iraq now of "liberation-mandate-nominal
sovereignty" as a replay of what took place in the 1920s and afterwards.
On April 28 1920,
Britain was awarded a mandate over Iraq by the League of Nations to
legitimize its occupation of the country. The problems proved enormous.
The British administration in Baghdad was short of funds, and had to
face the resentment of the majority of Iraqis against foreign rule,
which boiled over that year into a national uprising. In the aftermath,
the British high commissioner had to come up with a solution to reduce
the British loss of lives.
A decision was taken
to replace the occupation with a provisional Iraqi government, assisted
by British advisers under the authority of the high commissioner of
Iraq. Finding a suitable ruler was not easy,.
On the August 21
1921 Gertrude Bell, Oriental secretary to the high commissioner, wrote
to her father about the transfer of sovereignty to Iraqis. She mentions
some of her Iraqi "pals" and enemies, descendants of whom
are playing similar roles in Iraq today: "Muzahim Pachachi (the
one who made the speech in English at our tea party at Basra). And another
barrister whom you don't know, Rauf Beg Chadirji, a pal of mine. And
still more splendid was one of the sheikhs of the northern shammar,
Ajil al Yawar; I had seen him in 1917 when he came in to us". Then
she refers to "Saiyid Muhammad Sadr ... a tall black bearded alim
(cleric) with a sinister expression. We tried to arrest him early in
August but failed. He escaped from Baghdad and moved about the country
like a flame of war, rousing the tribes."
To the British government,
control of Iraq's oil was a necessity. Iraqi national liberation movements
called for "Istiqlal al Tamm" - complete independence - which
was regarded by the British as "the catchword of the extremists".
Any protest against the British-imposed monarchy was similarly regarded
as the work of "extremists".
In 1930 a new treaty
was signed which aimed to satisfy Iraqi aspirations for the coming 25
years, but the British retained their power, through military bases,
advisers and control of oil. The monarchy proved an oppressive regime
under which many opposition leaders were executed and thousands more
were imprisoned. Elections were managed, corruption was widespread,
bombing and military force was used against popular uprisings, chemical
weapons were used against the Kurds. Popular uprisings followed in 1930,
1941 1948, 1952 and 1956. Between 1921 and 1958 Iraq had an astonishing
38 cabinets, some of them only lasting 12 days. The mainstay of a corrupt
and docile regime was the presence of British forces on the ground.
Is this what present-day Iraq has to look forward to?
Three major events
have shaped our national identity. The 1920 revolution, the 1958 coup
regarded by most Iraqis as a revolution that finally achieved real Iraqi
independence - and the Palestinian cause. At the heart of the three
lay the struggle to end occupation. Occupation has always been perceived
as a process by which to rob us of our identity and dignity. The British,
in the past, failed to understand the depth of the feeling among Iraqis
both against occupation and towards the Palestinian issue. Now, in their
partnership with the US, they are repeating the same mistakes.
As in the past,
Iraqis are denied their natural right to resist the occupier and its
imposed form of government. The "extremists" of our history
are now called "terrorists".
Within a year the
occupiers have achieved what Saddam's regime failed to do over decades.
They have killed our hope in democracy. What of tomorrow? It would be
useful to reread history and take notice of Al Istiqlal Al Tam and above
all Miss Bell's warning about Iraq: "There are so many quicksands."
· Haifa Zangana
([email protected]) is an Iraqi-born novelist and former political
prisoner
© Guardian
Newspapers Limited 2004