National
Sovereignty And Military Occupation Not Compatible
By Ramzy Baroud
04 May, 2006
Countercurrents.org
In
a seemingly poignant analysis of the situation in Iraq, BBC news online
analyst, Jim Muir assessed Iraqi politics following the choice of Jawad
Al Maliki as prime minister designate.
Muir’s detailed analysis
failed to even hint at the possibility that the unwarranted US-British
military occupation of Iraq is at all a factor in the growing sectarian
divide, the insurgency and the grim future awaiting that country.
But the BBC and its analysts
have been more considerate if compared to their US media counterparts.
CNN behaves as if the virtual political deadlock in Iraq and the brewing
civil war — or at least the growing prospects for one —
are entirely the making of the Iraqis. US military is merely an honest
observer, who has pushed incessantly so that Iraqis ‘get their
act together’ and rise above sectarian quarrels.
In fact, this was the overriding
conclusion throughout much of the Western media that followed Al Maliki’s
emergence as the confirmed candidate for the premiership post: the problem
is solely Iraqi.
Ironically, in a comprehensive
television report, Aljazeera seemed to have reached a similar outcome.
Listing the security, political and economic challenges facing Al Maliki,
the pan-Arab station failed to register foreign occupation, which dominates
every aspect of Iraqi life as a challenge in its own right. It matters
little whether such deductions are the outcome of poor journalism or
an intentional attempt to demarcate the emerging reality in Iraq without
having to acknowledge time and again that military occupation is the
mother of all evils. But even if the occupation is completely relegated
as nuisance, the fact of the matter is that the military occupation
of Iraq is the core of the ongoing tragedy.
Indeed, Iraq, like most Middle
Eastern countries was rife with problems even before American tanks
rolled into Baghdad in March 2003. But much, if not all, of the country’s
misfortunes — at least ones that BBC, CNN and Aljazeera would
find newsworthy — are either created by the occupation or are
exasperated by its presence.
To pretend that the Iraqi
resistance is not in fact a violent retaliation against a much more
violent military invasion, is to defy reality. Of course, the US administration
insists on doing exactly that: still speaking of a foreign espoused
‘insurgency’, engineered by the shadowy figure of a Jordanian
terrorist, who seems to appear in so many different locations all at
once. To address Iraq’s economic ills without addressing 10 years
of devastating sanctions, followed by a destructive war, invasion and
a domineering military occupation, that was precisely set forth to deprive
Iraq of its right over its own natural resources, is also to defy reality.
One must be badly informed to keep on believing in Washington’s
hopeless slogans of liberating Iraq for the Iraqis, as a model of Arab
democracy and so forth, while ignoring the most obvious fact that it
was Iraq’s immense economic wealth and its strategic import —
among other reasons — that inspired America’s Mesopotamia
campaign in the first place. How can an Iraqi government, led by Al
Maliki or any other politician, confront Iraq’s economic crisis,
without having complete control — physical as well as political-
over the oil fields, the country’s most valuable assets and the
backbone of its economy?
Moreover, to make believe
that the Iraq ‘breakthrough’ could also translate into meaningful
political sovereignty in a country under occupation is also to insist
on negating basic facts. The US influence over successive Iraqi leaderships
since the first days of the occupation has always translated into total
control over the decision making of whichever political body placed
at the helm, starting with the Iraq government council, to the interim
government to whichever government that is currently being concocted.
Without real control over
the country’s physical space and wealth and without a serious
and fully independent political role, what can any prospective Iraqi
government really achieve? How can Al Maliki and his sectarian government
end the ‘insurgency’ without ending the occupation, provide
jobs without decisive control over the country’s oil and make
independent decisions if its political will is hostage to the US government?
So why are some Iraqis taking
part in this charade any way? As devious and unconvincing as it is,
many Iraqis see the current political setup as a source of hope, a starting
point toward a better future for the battered country. For others, it’s
an expression of a sectarian triumph — or domination — of
one group over the other. While many Shias find such a setup beneficial,
others find it unmerited, and rightly so, this will likely undermine
the secular identity of Iraq in favor of religious/cultic zealots and
their fanatical, authoritarian views.
For the rest, all the political
wrangling that is taking place among Iraq’s political elites under
US auspices in Baghdad’s Green Zone is beside the point. They
are bracing for many more US military sweeps, suicide bombings, sectarian
violence and the rest. It’s indeed a pity that the media is once
again coming to rescue the Bush administration, acting as if Iraq’s
national resurrection can be viewed separately from the overbearing
and bloody occupation of the country. It’s also regrettable that
even Arab media is following the suit.
The fact of the matter is
that much of the country’s ailments were a direct result of the
illegal war and violence that followed. Only an end to the occupation
can put Iraq on the right track toward national reconciliation and return
to normality. As long as the US government perceives its stay in Iraq
as a long one, all the complementary attributes of military occupation
— violence, security chaos, sectarianism and corruption —
will persist, and there is little that Al Maliki, or any other politician,
can do about it.
-Arab American journalist Ramzy Baroud teaches mass communication at
Australia’s Curtin University of Technology, Malaysia Campus.
He is the author of Writings on the Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle
of a People’s Struggle (Pluto Press, London.)