Resolving the chaos in Iraq: Some students have their say By Youssef Benali, Caroline Fawzy and Austin Richardson [Youssef Benali is a graduate student in international studies and diplomacy at Al-Akhawayn University in Ifrane, Morocco. Caroline Fawzy is a mass communications student at the American University in Cairo. Austin Richardson is a student at the Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University. They co-wrote this article as part of the Soliya Arab-Western intercultural dialogue program. The Daily Star publishes this commentary in collaboration with Search for Common Ground.] The United States-led invasion of Iraq has had devastating consequences for both countries. According to researchers at Johns Hopkins University, the war may now have cost over 600,000 Iraqis their lives. Nearly 3,000 American troops have died and the US continues to spend massive sums on the war. The need for new approaches in Iraq has become more urgent than ever. Changes are needed within the country itself and abroad, and Iraq needs the help of the international community more than ever. We three students - one Moroccan, one Egyptian and one American - present our "common sense" proposal for the future of Iraq. The major problems facing Iraq today are as much economic as they are military. The power and sewage systems in Baghdad have been an embarrassment for years - after all, they worked under Saddam Hussein, but crumbled in American hands, largely due to a ferocious insurgency the US was not prepared for. Newsweek magazine's "conservative" estimate of unemployment in Iraq is 30-40 percent. In parts of the unstable Sunni triangle, that figure may be as high as 70 percent. What Iraq needs is a stable economy and many thousands of new jobs. Security is a prerequisite for economic growth. American troops can suppress violence in the areas where they are present, but as soon as they move on, violence spikes anew. Iraq is fiercely divided among ethnic and religious groups, and those who support a continued American presence argue that ethnic cleansing and even greater violence are real risks. We agree that a total withdrawal of American troops is not an option today; the security of Iraq would be compromised and the country's internal strife would devolve into chaos. |
TD&H seem to have fallen for that sinister brainwashing about innate "sectarianism" amongst Uncle Sam's neo-Iraqi subjects. Don't they understand that "fiercely divided among ethnic and religious groups" is only a superficial appearance, grossly exaggerated by the mainstream media, whether from interested motives or out of sheer irresponsibility and fickleness?
They seem a little embarrassed about frankly saying they want the militant GOP to remain, hence that fake distinction between "those who support" a continuation of the occupation, and themselves who only "agree" with the supporters proper. On the other hand, they do manage to more or less get it said.
The obvious difference from the senescent planmongers' stuff is that they propose to put economics first. That emphasis could mean Dr. Marx, or it could mean AEIdeology, we'll have to see how they explain it. In any case, it is bound to mean that politics does not come first, and therefore to be, in our view, spinach as a basis for policymaking, although it might lead to some interesting observations on the state of the quagmire.
| Iraq's internal political problems must be solved by Iraqis and by their elected leadership. However, one of the greatest mistakes the US has made in the aftermath of the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime was to shift an excessive amount of responsibility onto the weak Iraqi political structure, and too quickly. American and British forces are currently the only guarantors of stability in Iraq. US forces, in all truth, will probably need to stay in Iraq for many years to come, as an insurance policy, as they did in Japan, Germany and South Korea. Of course, the responsibility of keeping the streets safe must, at a certain point, shift onto the shoulders of Iraqis, whose security forces must be ramped up. |
Rather an extreme set of nonwithdrawers! If their argument is really based on the analogies suggested, they seem badly informed about modern history. If the Crawfordites' troopers are to hang around even after the natives can ensure basic law and order, what conjectured misfortune is it that they are to be "insurance" against, exactly, that would correspond to North Korea or the Soviet Union? If they mean the Safavids, they should say so. And similarly if they mean "global terrorism" or Islamophalangitarianism or whatever the bogey may be. It would be interesting if they thought the paleface invaders will have to stay in order to prop up the local economy, in line with how they started, but no doubt that is my idea rather than theirs.
| Partitioning Iraq will never be a solution - as in Bosnia, ethnic and religious groups are still relatively mixed, and partition would involve the internal displacement of hundreds of thousands. But Iraq has a much better chance of surviving as a united country if other nations invest in its success. The United States should go to Iraq's neighbors in the region and secure pledges for military or economic assistance. At the very least, they must promise not to work against the process of rebuilding Iraq into a stable, unified country. A few years ago, of course, the US disregarded the United Nations and unilaterally waged war on the Iraqi regime, implying that it didn't really need the rest of the world to approve or disapprove of its actions. But it has become clear that an international role in Iraq is necessary. US President George W. Bush may be able to convince the UN to play a much larger role in Iraq. The UN's position as a neutral player in conflict zones and history of successful peacekeeping operations could temper the insurgency, and provide an international military presence that would not be seen as an enemy occupier. The UN also has expertise in humanitarian relief and post-conflict reconstruction which would be useful in Iraq. |
Nobody respectable is for partition, of course, to favour it would be like entertaining dounts about Absolute Free Trade or Darwinism, a position that excludes one from all decent company. They may be young, but they are not shamelesss profligates.
With the United Nations, we finally get the sort of thing traditionally expected from juveniles, naïve "idealism" and so on. TD&H start from the particular puzzle that they happen to want to solve and conclude that China and Peru "must" do so-and-so in order to help them reach their proposed destination. Unfortunately at Beijing and Lima that is not where the statespersons in power start at all. Peccatum originale is still with us, and so they still begin with "What is in it for us?," to speak crudely. TD&H don't even hint at why pacifying neo-Iraq along their lines would be good for everybody international. Maybe they are realists rather than idealists, maybe we all need to buy some "insurance" against whatever-it-is, but until they fill in that blank, there is nothing to be said one way or the other.
After they have mentally replaced the GOP troopers in neo-Iraq with UN peacekeepers, it sounds as if the latter are still doing exactly the same sort of occupational therapy, but somehow the neo-subjects will not mind it as much. It is difficult to imagine any way that expectation could be other than naïve. Furthermore, their schemes are likely to offend the small handful of people who really care about the United Nations. At present the organization has done no worse than license the extremist Republican aggression retrospectively; TD&H propose that they take it over altogether.
| Also, convincing Arab states to send troops to help maintain security in Iraq, and to contribute financial aid to the government there, may be much easier if troops were sent in under a UN umbrella instead of as part of a US coalition. The whole world, after all, should be invested in Iraq's future given its oil reserves and strategic importance in the region. The UN might even consider governing the country itself as an informal protectorate, as it has done (more or less) in Kosovo and Bosnia, learning from the varying levels of its success in these countries. |
If anybody is seriously persuaded by that appeal, I daresay she could be talked into agreeing that the UN ought to govern everywhere "as an informal protectorate." A World Government that actually governs the world is a very familiar form of naïve idealism. Perhaps one need say no more than that.
However, filling neo-Iraq with troops from the Arab states could easily be a cynical power play on behalf of the Sunni International and nothing to do with idealism. TD&H have indicated clearly enough that they do not much care for poor M. al-Málikí's neo-régime and consider that the natives have been handed too much democracy too soon. Well, OK, I don't mind, a policy may warrant support even if it is based in cynicism and communitarian selfishness rather than Cloudcuckooland liberality. Maybe it really would be best to hand "Iraq" back to its natural masters, judiciously ignoring all mere numbers and percentages. To do so under cover of the United Nations, though? Surely that is a ludicrous idea, not only because the UN should not connive in such a plan, but because it could not pull it off if it tried. I'm not sure anybody could, but if that is what TD&H really want, they should have enough sense to petition Crawford to do the job for them and not waste time at Turtle Bay. They might also address themselves to M. ‘Abdulláh Bin Sa‘úd, who could perhaps finance their project privately and require not much more from the militant Republicans, who are having certain difficulties with Congress and the electorate at the moment, than a green light. For Pete's sake, haven't they ever heard of the proverb "Too many cooks spoil the broth"?
| The next step for Iraq would be economic development, and again, the UN's experience in these areas is vital. Only after Iraq's economy is well on its way to recovery should the question of Iraq's government be considered, because the government rushed into place in Iraq is unstable and is not addressing the concerns of all parties in Iraq, particularly its Sunni and Kurdish minorities. Reconsidering the Constitution and form of government is sorely needed. Stability first, infrastructural development second, and an Iraqi government last. Unless the world gives the Iraqi people something solid to stand upon, their future will be a nightmare. If everyone offers a hand, Iraq could be pulled from the jaws of catastrophe. |
"Reconsidering" Khalílzád Pasha's "constitution" as TD&H envision the process can only mean tossing it in the waste basket, for, oddly enough, there is not a single word in it about neo-Iraq being a UN protectorate. Even the loosest construction could scarcely read that unexpected implication between the lines somewhere.
Either TD&H simply don't care about law and legitimacy, or they believe that the United Nations ex officio can never behave in violation of them, and that explains why they would like to drag it in to their plan. The point is arguable academically, I suppose, although I'd be found arguing against their position myself. Perhaps communis error fecit ius applies, and once "we all" agree to be international vigilantes, international vigilantism is perfectly acceptable. Whatever the situation de jure, there is not going to be any such agreement de facto, and especially not after the Security Council has proceeded for years on the theory that neo-Iraq is to be "sovereign" and "independent" and "democratic" and "constitutional." These are, to be sure, only the Four Pillars of Pretending, but all the same a great deal of political and diplomatic capital has been invested in them, and the notion that they must be written off in toto and then we, the international community, shall start over from scratch and occupy neo-Iraq really right is pure moonshine.
Considered as specification of a goal rather than a plan for the journey, the "vision" of TD&H is perhaps not unattainable. Make a coup, trash the GOP-imposed framework, install a Sunni Strongman who adores economic development and detests disobedience, postpone democracy a generation or three -- it all sounds plausible enough and it fits admirably into the really existing Levant. Unfortunately, it also sounds a bit unedifying when one spells it out unmistakably. The desire to find some figleaf to wrap around such a product's nakedness is natural, but surely TD&H can find a better quality figleaf than the positively grotesque one they have chosen?
No comments:
Post a Comment