|
From Mongols to Marines: The New Ugly Empire
This Fourth World War, I think, will last considerably
longer than either World Wars I or II did for us… As we move
towards a new Middle East, over the years, and, I think, over the
decades to come… we will make a lot of people nervous. Our
response should be, “Good! We want you nervous. We want you to
realize now, for the fourth time in 100 years, this country and its
allies are on the march.”1
– James Woolsey/former CIA Director
For globalization to work,
America can’t be afraid to act like the almighty superpower it
is… The hidden hand of the market will never work without the
hidden fist – McDonalds cannot flourish without McDonnell Douglas,
the designer of the F-15. And the hidden fist that keeps the world
safe for Silicon Valley's technologies is called the US Army, Air
Force, Navy and Marine Corps.2
– Thomas Friedman, New York Times Columnist
|
|
A
US soldier in central Baghdad |
The
9th of April, 2003, will always be remembered as a sad
day in the history of the Arab and Muslim world. Baghdad, the
capital of a major Arab state, falls under direct Anglo-American
occupation, exactly 745 years after the Mongol invasion of the
ancient city. The fall of Baghdad is a precedent-setting event
fraught with perilous repercussion; it represents a culmination of a
new era for Iraq and the entire Middle East. It is an event on par
with the 1948 and 1967 wars, after which maps were redrawn and
regional politics restructured on terms more favorable with the
agenda of colonial Western powers.
While
networks around the world focused on the pictures of a few hundred
jubilant Iraqis and a small crowd trying to pull down a Saddam
statue in a highly exaggerated, overly-publicized event, Red Cross
representatives said that the situation in other areas of the city
were extremely hostile.3
More importantly, Baghdad’s hospitals seemed to be overwhelmed by
the inflow of dead and war-wounded patients being treated in the
absence of water, electricity, or proper medication due to dwindling
supplies after more than 12 years of devastating US-instigated
sanctions. Ironically, the land of Hammurabi which witnessed the
first proclamation of human law in history, descended into
widespread anarchy and disorder, with numerous looting incidents of
banks, public buildings, embassies, shops, hospitals, universities
and museums with priceless artifacts. US soldiers, supposedly
responsible for establishing law and order as an occupying force,
worked only to secure the Iraqi Ministry of Oil building in Baghdad,
but watched idly by as looters transported stolen goods in pick up
trucks yelled “Thank you, Mr. Bush.”
If
the experience in Basra is anything to judge by, the spontaneous
crime wave in Baghdad could be followed by an organized phase as
armed gangs moved in. In addition, thousands of the Saddam fedayeen
militias and Republican Guard troops remain unaccounted for and many
could simply resurface as paramilitary groups bent upon inflicting
harm on the invading US and British forces later in the conflict.
After the assassination of Abdul Majid al-Khoei, the prominent
US-backed Shi’ite cleric in Iraq’s holiest mosque by a rival
Shia group, and the bombing carried out by a man wearing an
explosive-packed vest against a US checkpoint in Saddam city, Iraq
could be slowly moving into a low-intensity phase of civil conflict.4
The
land of the first human law in history descended into
anarchy. |
|
George
Bush and Tony Blair both gave speeches on the new “Towards Freedom
TV” to the Iraqi people, most of whom probably did not have a
chance to see it due to the lack of electricity in most of Baghdad.
In an effort to convert Iraq’s Muslims to Christianity, several
Evangelical groups are beginning what they call “aid evangelism”
– delivering thousands of 70-pound food packages labeled with
biblical verses in Arabic. Frank Graham, the leader of two
Evangelical organizations at the Iraqi border, is known to have said
in a George W. Bush Inaugural, that Islam (the faith of 97% of
Iraqis) is a “very evil and wicked religion.”5
Obviously,
Anglo-American planners spent more time on war-making than on the
development of a coherent strategy aimed at state-building and
ensuring a smooth transition of power in a country that has a
volatile recipe for disintegration along ethnic, tribal and
sectarian lines. The fear is that the US and Britain would either
subject Iraq to an open-ended occupation under the leadership of the
pro-Israeli General, Jay Garner, or support the development of local
fiefdoms based upon tribal or religious figures who are capable of
maintaining order, but may eventually turn out to be not less
tyrannical than the previous regime.6
“Aid
evangelism” delivers food packages labeled with biblical
verses in Arabic. |
|
Most
reports suggest that the sudden collapse of the regime was due to a
US attack on Saddam Hussein and many of his top aides meeting at a
compound in Al-Mansour district in Baghdad. The US received
intelligence from CIA operatives and Iraqi collaborators on the
ground. Twelve minutes later, B-1B bombers armed with four 2,000-lb
JDAM bunker-busters released their payload on the site, unleashing
an 8500°F fireball and a shock wave that melted away anything in
sight. Many new figures are showing up to try to fill in the power
vacuum created after the regime’s disappearance. Despite many
Iraqi criticisms, Britain announced that it would appoint an unnamed
tribal sheikh to run the Basra province. Many pointed out that
tribal sheikhs in Basra would appoint members of their own tribe to
key posts and others talked about the oppressive role they played
under Saddam’s rule.
On
the other hand, famous Iraqi opposition leader, Ahmed Chalabi,
convened a meeting of Iraqi opposition figures in his hometown of
Nassiriya to rally support for his self-proclaimed “coronation”
as leader of this area.7
In northern Iraq, age-old struggles for power are being played out
between Kurds, Arabs, and Turkmen with a constant Turkish threat of
intervention should the Kurdish fighters remain in Mosul and Kirkuk.
Storms
of Change – The World After the War
|
|
What
does the future hold for Iraq? |
If
the picture of Iraq today is one of chaos, uncertainty and
unpredictability, what does the war on Iraq represent to the global
agenda? What questions does it pose concerning the nature of
international relations? What dimensions of international
transformation are we witnessing first-hand?
One
of the major aspects of change in international relations following
the war on Iraq and the diplomatic haggling in the UN that preceded
it is the reaffirmation of the realist doctrine with its emphasis on
the supremacy of individual national security, power politics and
the gruesome reality of zero-sum thinking. A corollary to this
aspect of global change is the US disregard for international law
and its explicit attempts to subvert the UN either by ignoring its
relevance in war/peace situations or by turning it into “a rubber
stamp for geopolitical operations of dubious status under
international law or the UN charter.”8
The
US has set itself as a prosecutor, judge, jury and
executioner. |
|
In
many instances, the US has set itself as a prosecutor, judge, jury
and executioner in its own cause and has sought to establish itself
as the global law-maker and sheriff, setting the rules and acting
alone or at the head of a posse of compliant allies to impose
discipline and stamp out foreign threats.9
The most recent manifestation of this trend was the decision of the
US to withdraw a UN Security Council resolution authorizing war
after failing to win sufficient support to pass it, and its
perception of a narrow UN role that only involves the reconstruction
of post-war Iraq without any role in its political process. The
Anglo-American meeting at Belfast on post-war Iraq was an
affirmation of the right of those two nations to restructure Iraq
according to their preferences.10
In response, the Kremlin announced that the antiwar triad of France,
Russia and Germany would hold their own summit in St. Petersburg,
Russia. Sadly, the Iraqi case illustrated that the Islamic world has
become the arena in which superpower politics and struggles for
influence are being played out, not only in pre-war UN diplomacy but
for post-war reconstruction deals over the “spoils of the war.”
The
Dirty Job of Empire Building
|
|
An
arrested Iraqi suspected of driving a vehicle filled with
weapons in Baghdad |
The
very notion of unprovoked, uninvited, country-wide invasion of Iraq,
contradicts the model which shaped US foreign policy since 1945.
Whether it was NATO, the global financial architecture designed at
Bretton Woods or the UN itself, multilateralism was the foundation
upon which the US sought to build its world order. Given the Bush
doctrine with its emphasis on the unilateral use of force, its
distaste for multilateralism and its insistence on the elusive
concept of “regime change,” coercion has become the mechanism of
choice for settling international disputes, and military invasion
has been legitimized as the ultimate arbiter in settling
international conflict. Ironically, the US, an ardent supporter of
domestic jurisdiction over its own affairs, engaged in a war that
was a total violation of another state’s sovereignty.11
The
war on Iraq was the clearest manifestation of the decadence of
America’s “soft power” – a country’s ability to shape
events by persuasion and attraction. A country has more “soft
power” if its culture, values and institutions incite admiration
and respect in other parts of the world and if its diplomacy and
standing in international bodies enable it to build alliances. Yet
in the early months of 2003, American diplomacy could not persuade
more than 3 of the 14 other members of the UN Security Council to
back a resolution that would legitimize military action in Iraq.
Neither longstanding US allies such as Chile, Germany, Mexico and
Pakistan, nor newer ones such as Russia, would speak out for the
resolution. Then another ally, Turkey, refused to allow US troops to
enter Iraq from its territory. Only British and Australian soldiers
are fighting alongside the Americans in Iraq. Hatred of American
policies in the Arab world has never been higher, while in every
West European country, including Britain, opinion polls show that
George Bush is seen as a greater threat to world peace than Saddam
Hussein.12
Another
victim of the war is the freedom of information. |
|
Notions
such as the “global village” and complex interdependence in
which conflict becomes minimal and societies become enmeshed in a
global web of mutual interests13
have faded away. The role of the United States has shifted from
being simply a hegemon that plays a leading role among a group of
consenting states, to a unilateral imperial power that makes and
enforces the rules of international behavior by the force of arms.14
Another
victim of the war on Iraq has been freedom of information. The
events of “Black Tuesday” in which 3 journalists were wounded
and 3 others killed including two cameramen from Reuters and the
Spanish Telecinco, and famous Al-Jazeera reporter, Tarek Ayoub,
whose office was destroyed by an American bomb, are clear evidence
that US targets have no limits. UN High Commissioner for Human
Rights, Sergio Vieira de Mello, deplored those attacks on
journalists, recalling Article 79 of the Protocol Additional to the
Geneva Conventions which states that “journalists engaged in
dangerous professional missions in areas of armed conflict shall be
considered as civilians.”15
Al-Jazeera has had its share of US violations when many of its
reporters were harassed on several occasions, and its office was
bombed in Kabul in November 2001. In addition, Sami El-Hajj,
Al-Jazeera photographer, was sent to Guantanamo’s Camp X-Ray in
December 2001.16
Another
incident relating to freedom of information involved veteran war
correspondent and Pulitzer Prize winner, Peter Arnett, who was
sacked by his US employers for simply giving an interview to Iraqi
television. In many ways, the war on Iraq vividly illustrated the
death of the “professional war correspondent” who is
independently and objectively trying to gather information and the
rise of the more convenient “embedded correspondent” tailored to
voice the Pentagon’s views. Arnett had been accused by the White
House as a “conduit for Iraqi disinformation” for simply
reporting that a shattered Iraqi building was not a
chemical/biological weapons facility, but rather a factory producing
milk powder for Iraqi children.17
Conclusions
Iraqis
will also witness the “larger” looting of their oil
resources by the Anglo-American invaders. |
|
There
is no doubt that the war on Iraq and its repercussions represent an
upheaval in international relations and a transformation of the
concept of “world order.” The US doctrine of pre-emptive warfare
and unilateral military action is intended to send a message to
other superpowers or would-be powers, to fall in line with US
demands or face devastation. The purpose of the war was what
strategists call “demonstration effect” – showing the world
that Washington was ready to impose its will at all costs. On the
other hand, as the North Korean example has so vividly illustrated,
the ultimate guarantor of security in a world of power politics and
self-help has become nuclear weapons.
The Anglo-American
occupation of Iraq is the culmination of America’s quest for an
empire ruled by the iron fist of JDAMs, MOABs, and depleted uranium
munitions. Clearly, the war against Iraq was aimed at Arab and
Muslim humiliation rather than liberation. Sadly, Iraqis have to
witness the “smaller” looting of their public buildings by
opportunists and the “larger” looting of their oil resources by
the Anglo-American invaders. Given the ongoing atrocities in
Palestine by the US-blessed Israeli forces, the presence of US
troops in Kuwait to a quarter of that state’s territory, and the
now, permanent bases in Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Turkmenistan,
Uzbekistan, Kazakhistan and in other Gulf sheikhdoms, the Islamic
world – and not only Iraq – is under occupation. The US is also
engaged in multiple military activities against Islamists in the
southern Philippines and in the former Soviet Republic of Georgia.
In addition, the United States has pledged to tackle Syria and the
Iranian-backed Hizbullah group in what it calls “phase three” of
the “war on terror” in order to entice Israel into accepting the
so-called “road map.” Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz,
regarded as the real architect of the Iraqi war and its aftermath,
said: “There will have to be change in Syria, plainly.”18 And then, we ask, is it by coincidence that all
the targets designated by the US military are Muslim?
Kareem
M. Kamel is an Egyptian freelance writer based in Cairo,
Egypt. He has an MA in International Relations and is
specialized in security studies, decision-making, nuclear
politics, Middle East politics and the politics of Islam. He is
currently assistant to the Political Science Department at the
American University in Cairo.
1
Ed Vulliamy and Kamal Ahmed, “The Fight Yet to Come,” The
Guardian April 6th, 2003
2
Stephen Gowans, “A
McDonalds in Every Foreign Port Worth This?” Media
Monitors Network February 22nd, 2001
3
“While
Networks Show Jubilant Iraqis, Red Cross Say Situation is
Unacceptable,” Jihad Unspun April 9th,
2003
4
Brian Whitaker, “Fears
for the Future,” The Guardian April 11th, 2003
5
Amanda Bower and Aparisim Ghosh, “A
Faith-Based Initiative,” Time.com April 13th,
2003
6
Brian Whitaker, “Symbolic in More Ways Than One,” The
Guardian
April 11th, 2003
7
For details, refer to Mark Thompson and Timothy J. Burger, “The
Hit,” Time.com April
13th, 2003 and Ned Potter, “Underground
Warfare,” April 8th, 2003 ABC News
8
Richard Falk and David Krieger, “Subverting
the UN,” Waging Peace November 4th,
2002
9
Michael Byers, “Terror and the Future of International Law,”
in Ken Booth and Tim Dunne, eds. Worlds in Collision: Terror
and the Future of Global Order (Palgrave: New York, 2002):
125
10
Robin Wright and David Holley, “Already
Postwar Iraq is a Divisive Subject,” LA Times
April 9th, 2003
11
Jonathan Freedland, “Emperor George,” The Guardian
April 2nd, 2003
12
Charles Grant, “The
Decline of American Power,” Center for European
Reform Bulletin April/May 2003
13
Robert
Keohane and Joseph S. Nye, “Complex Interdependence and the
Role of Force,” in Robert J. Art and Robert Jervis, eds. International
Politics: Enduring Concepts and Contemporary Issues (Harper
Collins: New York, 1992): 170-185.
14
Robert Keohane, “Hegemony in the World Political Economy,”
in Robert J. Art and Robert Jervis, eds. International
Politics: Enduring Concepts and Contemporary Issues (Harper
Collins: New York, 1992): 254-266.
15
“Senior
UN Officials Concerned Over Journalists Death in Iraq,”
Relief Web April 9th, 2003
16
Seedi Ahmed Bin Ahmed Salem, “Al-Jazeera:
A History of Harassment,” Al-Jazeera.net April
9th, 2003 (in Arabic)
17
Chris Jones, “Peter
Arnett: Under Fire,” BBC News April 4th,
2003
18
Ed Vulliamy,
“Syria Could Be Next,” The Guardian April 13th, 2003
|
