BY ROHAN PEARCE
On February 26, US President George Bush told the American Enterprise Institute a "liberated Iraq can show the power of freedom to transform that vital region, by bringing hope and progress into the lives of millions".
Bush went on to state: "America's interests in security, and America's belief in liberty, both lead in the same direction: to a free and peaceful Iraq... The United States has no intention of determining the precise form of Iraq's new government. That choice belongs to the Iraqi people... All Iraqis must have a voice in the new government and all citizens must have their rights protected."
However, Bush's statements didn't represent a commitment by Washington to democratise Iraq after the US carries out its planned invasion. Rather they were designed to head-off criticism of his administration's plans for a post-war Iraq: a US-run military dictatorship which will leave the essential elements of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party regime in place.
On February 12, Bush's deputy national security adviser, Stephen Hadley, told the US Council on Foreign Relations that the planned war on Iraq will be "a war of liberation, not occupation". However, according to US General Eric Shinseki, testifying before the Senate's armed services committee on February 25, this "non-occupation" will require "something in the order of several hundred thousand troops" to remain in Iraq for many years.
On February 11, defence under secretary Donald Feith told the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations that while the Bush administration would "encourage" participation in running Iraq from "coalition partners, non-governmental organisations, the UN and other international organisations", the "coalition officials responsible for post-conflict administration of Iraq — whether military or civilian, from the various agencies of the governments — will report to the [US] president through General Tom Franks, the commander of the US Central Command, and the secretary of defence".
Feith told the committee that the US defence department had established an Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance to establish "links with the United Nations specialised agencies and with non-governmental organisations that will play a role in post-war Iraq". However, he made it clear that the "immediate responsibility for administering post-war Iraq will fall upon the commander of the US Central Command". Hearkening back to a less subtle age of colonialism, Feith described the new Pentagon office as an "expeditionary office".
According to Feith, rule over post-war Iraq would be gradually transferred from the US military regime to Iraqis in a "transitional phase", however "the United States will not try to foist burdens onto those who are not in a position to carry them".
The plan calls for the appointment — by the US — of an Iraqi consultative council which would "advise" the "US/coalition authorities" but have no decision-making authority itself. Feith said: "Major Iraqi institutions — such as the central government ministries — could remain in place and perform the key functions of government after the vetting of the top personnel to remove any who might be tainted with the crimes and excesses of the current regime."
On February 12, US Secretary of State Colin Powell told the House of Representatives' committee on international relations, "The plans we are looking at include using the institutions that are there. There is a nation there. What it has is rotten leadership."
Kanan Makiya, a member of the pro-US Iraqi National Congress, told the Associated Press on February 13 that the plan "serves the interest of keeping the current Baathist power structure intact" and said that it "was written by bureaucrats and technicians who know nothing at all of Iraqi reality".
Even elements of the US political elite are critical of the plan. A February 14 article in the Asia Times Online reported that Randy Scheunemann, the executive director of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, an organisation which includes the chairperson of the US Defence Policy Board and former secretary of state George Shultz, said: "It is very difficult for me to conceive of democratic institutions being established in Iraq with the Baathist power structure intact... It's like taking out Hitler and Himmler and leaving almost everyone else in place."
In an opinion piece for the February 26 Wall Street Journal, Ahmad Chalabi, head of the Iraqi National Congress and for many years a favourite stooge of the US "neo-conservatives", asked: "What will happen when Iraqis step forward to accuse Baathist officials of torture and crimes? Will American soldiers protect these officials?"
The February 27 New York Times reported that Zalmay Khalilizad, the White House's envoy to pro-US Iraqi opposition groups, told a meeting of the Iraqi National Congress: "'Iraqi people should govern their own affairs as soon as possible." According to NYT report, Khalilizad "told delegates privately that the transition to a democratic Iraqi rule could start within two months of the end of a war".
Khalilizad was rapidly back-peddling from earlier revelations about the duration of planned US rule of post-war Iraq. A February 21 Washington Post article reported that US under secretary for defence Marc Grossman had told the Senate foreign relations committee that it could be two years before Iraqis controlled their country. However, retired general Barry McCaffrey, who has been briefed on the planned occupation by the Pentagon, told the Post: "My own view is that it will take five years, with substantial military power, to establish and exploit the peace [in Iraq]."
Trying to deflect criticism of the plan, in reply to a question in a February 14 interview with CBC Radio-Canada about the figure of two years, Grossman said "there was a conversation back and forth between a senator and myself, and we were talking about some specific aid projects, and I did say that in the planning one of them could last that amount of time, but I then went on to say that for the project itself, that we did not have a specific time frame, and that our idea was to stay there as long as it took, but not one day longer."
The Post article also revealed that an Iraqi commission would be formed to draft a new constitution for the country, but "officials emphasized that they would not expect to 'democratize' Iraq along the lines of the US governing system. Instead, they speak of a 'representative Iraqi government'."
In an opinion piece for the February 19 Wall Street Journal, Chalabi wrote: "The occupation authorities would appoint a committee to draft a constitution for Iraq. After an unspecified period, indirect elections would be held for a 'constituent assembly' that would vote to ratify the new constitution without a popular referendum."
The US plan will maintain the dominance of Iraq's Sunni Muslims (10-15% of Iraq's population), at the expense of the rights of Shiite Muslims, who comprise 60-65% of the population, and the Iraqi Kurds. Feith stated in his report that the US wants to "safeguard the territorial unity of Iraq".
In exchange for allowing US troops to invade Iraq from its territory, Turkey has been offered billions of dollars of US aid — and permission for Turkish troops to invade the northern region of Iraq currently under the control of the Kurdish Democratic Party and the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan.
Publicly, Ankara has said this invasion will be aimed at preventing an influx of refugees into Turkey by setting up 20km buffer zone on the Iraq-Turkey border and to bring "humanitarian relief" to the area's population. Ostensibly for these purposes, Turkey is reportedly mobilising up to 38,000 troops.
A January 14 Asia Times Online article reported that Ankara already had 2000 troops in the region.
The real aim of Turkey's invasion of northern Iraq will be to prevent any attempt by Kurdish forces to establish an independent state and, according to Robert Cutler of the Institute of European and Russian Studies at the Carleton University in Canada, to hunt down the remnants of the leftist Kurdistan Workers Party.
Any independent Kurdish state set up in northern Iraq would pose a threat to Ankara's brutal suppression of its own Kurdish population who account for 20% of Turkey's inhabitants and have struggled for decades for their national independence.
Anxious to reassure Ankara that Washington will not permit any such development, US deputy secretary of defence Paul Wolfowitz stated at a February 23 meeting with Iraqi-Americans: "Obviously Turkey has very big interests in what takes place and they're nervous, but we are telling Turkey a democratic Iraq which will be unified and preserves its territorial integrity will be good for a democratic Turkey."
Rejecting claims by Turkey that it needs to protect the Turkmen minority in northern Iraq, on February 21 Turkomen National Association representative Jawdat Najar stated: "Those asking for Turkish military intervention [the pro-Ankara Turkomen National Front] probably have their own agenda, but the Turkomen people are not suffering from any persecution or any pressure here, so that kind of intervention would not be needed.
"I do not think Turkey would make such a mistake. Turkey has a legitimate right to have fears over its national security, but not to intervene in Iraq. We, the Iraqi people, are all against it."
On February 24, 23 political organisations based in the northern region of Iraq issued a communique which stated: "There is no justification for invading south Kurdistan... for the sake of saving the democratic experience and in order not to tilt the balance of power in the region, we strongly stand against the Turkish invasion.
"The Kurdistani nation stands firm against every kind of invasions and will not kneel. It is ready to give whatever sacrifices it takes in order to stop the Turkish invasion and any invasion of Kurdistan."
On February 25, the Kurdish parliament unanimously voted to oppose the Turkish military entering Iraq.
KurdishMedia.com reported on February 27 that Turkish government officials announced that part of the US-Turkey deal included preventing the establishment of any independent Kurdish state or "autonomous Kurdish entity within an Iraqi federation" after the US military has occupied Iraq.
Already, US corporate vultures have begun to gather, excited by the prospect of contracts from a White House appointed regime in Baghdad. The February 18 International Herald Tribune reported that, according to analysts in the telecommunications industry, "US-based companies such as Lucent Technologies Inc. and Motorola Inc. could gain an edge over competitors from France and China that have won relatively modest contracts in recent years to help Iraq improve its communications network".
Joseph Braude, an analyst for Pyramid Research, told the IHT: "A new government in Baghdad more favorably disposed to the United States could tilt the geopolitical favor of telecoms' future contracts in the direction of American companies."
Time magazine reported on February 23 that US construction companies have been briefed on US$900 million worth of contracts to rebuild a post-war Iraq. According to Time, contracts would go "exclusively to US companies and to subcontractors from nations officially designated as friendly".
While the White House propaganda machine is busy trying to reassure world public opinion that it stands for the "liberation" of Iraq, left-wing Iraqi dissidents have exposed and denounced Washington's real goals. In an opinion piece for the February 20 British Guardian, Iraqi political exile Kamil Mahdi observed: "The present Iraqi regime's repressive practices have long been known, and its worse excesses took place 12 years ago, under the gaze of General Colin Powell's troops; 15 years ago, when Saddam was an Anglo-American ally; and almost 30 years ago, when Henry Kissinger cynically used Kurdish nationalism to further US power in the region at the expense of both Kurdish and Iraqi democratic aspirations...
"Their turbulent recent history is not something that simply happened to Iraqis, but one in which they have been actors. Iraqis have a rich modern political tradition borne out of their struggle for independence from Britain and for political and social emancipation. A major explanation for the violence of recent Iraqi political history lies in the determination of people to challenge tyranny and bring about political change. Iraqis have not gone like lambs to the slaughter, but have fought political battles in which they suffered grievously."
Mahdi added: "To assert that an American invasion is the only way to bring about political change in Iraq might suit [British PM Tony] Blair's propaganda fightback, but it is ignorant and disingenuous."
From Green Left Weekly, March 5, 2003.
Visit the Green Left Weekly home page.