|
|
|
Iraqis
walk along a wall decorated with election posters in
Baghdad (AFP photo).
|
History
repeats itself. In the run-up to the invasion-turned-occupation
of Iraq, the sweeping majority of the international community
saw no justification for it or even logic behind it. The Bush
administration, alone, saw it would be doing Iraqis a great
favor by introducing to them democracy and freedom. Well, almost
two years later, consequences on the ground speak for
themselves!
Now,
the scene seems to be repeated, almost identically. In the
run-up to the Iraqi elections, it is clear to every one—even
to the White House—the sought-after results can hardly be
achieved, but Bush and his hawks insist on going ahead with the
controversial process as they planned it, or should we say
improvised it!
And
only days before holding the elections, slated for January 30,
the question still remains: Could the United States listen to
the voice of reason and delay the controversial polls, even for
a couple of months, to send a message to Iraqis boycotting the
poll that the aim is stabilizing the occupied country and taking
it out of the current chaos?
Well,
let’s keep that question to one side for now and try, first,
to look deeply into realities on the ground, in an attempt to
see where
Iraq
might be headed.
Legitimacy
The
legitimacy of the election itself is not a settled issue, with
most law experts saying the relevant UN Security Council
Resolution (1546 for 2004)—the legal base on which Washington
and its hand-picked interim government had set the date—could
not be considered a legal drive as the UNSC, in discussing the
resolution, overlooked the mere fact of occupation itself!
Commenting
on the legitimacy of the coming Iraqi polls, Ben Clarke a senior
lecturer at the College
of Law
, University of Notre Dame,
Australia
, says the Security Council resolution 1546, issued unanimously
in 2004, endorsed the timetable for the political transition in
Iraq
leading to a constitutionally elected government by 31 December 2005
.
He
further added that the Iraqi Interim Government is, from a
strictly legal point of view, bound by that timetable.
“The
resolution provides the authority for the holding of elections
in
Iraq
. It does not address the issue of the legal validity of
elections that do not encompass the entire population of
Iraq
due to the ongoing insurgency. Neither does it require elections
to be delayed until all Iraqis are able to participate. The
issue of whether elections which take place in some (but not
all) parts of
Iraq
can be regarded as valid, is essentially a political rather than
a legal question.”
Clarke
concludes by saying judgments as to the validity of the process
must be made by the Iraqi and the international community,
“having regard to voter registration, participation, the
viability of delaying the elections in the face of an extremely
brutal insurgency, and whether voters were able to exercise
choice without intimidation.”
But
the occupation itself was illegal, as stated by UN Secretary
General Kofi Annan himself over a year and a half after the milk
was already spilled (a bit late, so to speak). Consequently, any
resultant situations should definitely be considered null and
void, from a strictly legal point of view.
Other,
or rather most, legal experts, also judging from a strictly
legal point of view, insist that holding the elections in Iraq
has no legal basis and dismiss the UN Security Council
resolution as a political, not legal “thing” to build on, as
a way out of the current quagmire.
Legitimacy,
however, seems to be the last thing occupying the minds of the
current
US
administration: the examples are numerous, be that
Iraq
or occupied Palestine . It is clear that imposing what it sees as right, even by
force, has become the slogan championed by the Bush team.
As
a case in point, during the run-up to the
Iraq
invasion, it was crystal clear the decision was made and then
the search for justifications began. That explains the
continuous change of the main rationale to go to war, starting
with the fiasco of weapons of mass destruction, which came to a
shameful end on January 12, when the White House finally
admitted there would be no such weapons found. Actually, the
final report concluded “
Iraq
never had such weapons since 1991.”
US
probes and resultant reports also dismissed any solid link
between the secular regime of ousted dictator Saddam Hussein and
Osama bin Laden’s Al-Qaeda, flatly refuting the second major
justification for going to war—but who cares now!
The
tragic fact is Al-Qaeda-affiliated militants do currently exist
in
Iraq
, regardless of their actual weight in resisting the
US
occupation forces. For that, Saddam sure gets no credit, Bush
does!
So,
what pops up in one’s mind now is what Bush has been repeating
over and over again to build his case for invasion.
“A
free
Iraq
can be a source of hope for all the
Middle East
,” he said one month before the invasion. “Instead of
threatening its neighbors and harboring terrorists,
Iraq
can be an example of progress and prosperity in a region that
needs both.”
Is
that the case now, Mr. President?
Well,
it is only logic then, that when Bush sees Iraqis going to
polling stations as “an historic day,” one doesn’t have to
be pessimistic to have serious doubts about Bush’s visions and
judgments! He called the Palestinian elections “historic,”
too but what has changed on the ground?
Significant
Signals
What
is more worrying now, or at least not promising, is the
increased tuning down of the importance, or significance, or
expected results of these highly controversial Iraqi elections.
The signals are coming from Washington and from its ally in
Baghdad , the interim government!
According
to a report by the Los Angeles Times Monday, January 17, 2005
, administration officials have been downgrading their
expectations of the elections to merely “counting on the
election to increase the legitimacy and popularity of the Iraqi
government, which now is widely viewed as a tool of US
interests. The administration reasons that the insurgents will
have more difficulty rallying support if the government is
selected by popular vote.” The paper even quoted a State
Department official as saying, “The illegitimacy of the
current government will have been removed. That particular moral
legitimacy of the insurgents will have been brought into
question.”
Again,
the issue of legitimacy imposes itself on a scene lacking the
minimum legal foundations. Now, US officials are bringing up the
issue of “illegitimacy” of the Allawi government, a bit late
again!
Putting
all that nonsensical legitimacy talk aside, which is only for
history books, and future generations to judge, the question now
is: Where could the elections lead and what could the future
prospects of post-election
Iraq
be?
A
host of former, and even current, US officials, analysts, and
observers has been drawing an almost black picture, expecting
practically nothing good to come out of the elections. The most
optimistic are actually saying the elections could, in best-case
scenario, be the beginning of a “long and exhausting
process”!
In
light of all these mixed cards, what could election day in
Iraq
be like? On which scene could the following day's sun be
rising?!
* Khaled
Mamdouh is an editor on IslamOnline.net’s News Desk. He
is also a radio announcer, and journalist and translator for
several Arabic magazines. You can reach him at khaledm69@hotmail.com
|
