Removing the Rose-Colored Glasses
Today, February 2, 2005, President Bush is to address the American people and inform them on the State of the Union. It is widely assumed, and even advertised by the White House, that Bush will devote much of his speech to the alleged success of the alleged elections in Iraq. Bush is expected to use the recent elections as justification for his decision to invade Iraq. A classic case of the ends justifying the means.
If the past few days are any indication, the American public and news media will swallow Bush's claims hook, line, and sinker. Little in the way of critical analysis has occurred or is likely to occur in the mainstream media regarding the elections in Iraq or the repercussions thereof. If such an analysis were undertaken, the picture from Iraq would be far less rosy.
What no one from Washington or the fawning American news media is acknowledging is that Iraqis did not risk their lives to legitimize the U.S. invasion and occupation of their country; they risked life and limb to end the occupation and rid Iraq of U.S. presence. Of course, that will never happen. Bush is not refusing to provide a timetable for U.S. withdrawal from Iraq not simply because it "plays into the enemy's hands," as claimed by Dan Barlett. Bush refuses to do so because the U.S. has no real intention of leaving Iraq. There are already four permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq with more being built. One does not build permanent military bases for a temporary occupation.
Further evidence of U.S. intent to remain in Iraq indefinitely was reported by Antonia Juhasz of Foreign Policy in Focus, the current interim Iraqi Finance Minister, Abdel Mahdi, told the National Press Club on December 22, 2004, that Iraq intends to amend its oil laws to allow complete privatization of Iraq's oil industry. Not coincidentally, Adbel Mahdi ran in the elections on the ticket of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution (SCIR), the leading Shiite political party in Iraq and considered the front-runner in the elections. The SCIR belongs to the United Iraqi Alliance (UIA) party, a large tent created to consolidate the Shiite vote. As such, the UIA includes the Iraqi National Council (INC). The INC is led by Ahmed Chalabi, the source of much of the false information used by the Bush administration to justify its invasion of Iraq in the first place. The UIA garnered the endorsement, so to speak, of the Shiite cleric Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani who issued a fatwa instructing Shiites to vote or burn in hell.
Connecting the dots, Ms. Juhasz sets out the following reasonable and rather compelling scenario: the Bush administration struck a deal the SCIR, guaranteeing SCIR's political power in exchange for Iraqi oil. As explained by Phyllis Bennis of the Institute for Policy Studies, Bush & Co. could strike such a deal because the U.S.-imposed Transitional Administrative Law (TAL) remains the law in Iraq regardless of the recent elections. The TAL cannot be amended without a super-majority of the newly-elected Iraqi National Assembly plus a unanimous agreement by the presidency council. The likelihood of either requirement being fulfilled is near zero given the range of constituencies which must be satisfied (not to mention the animosity between the Kurds and the Shia, the two factions likely to garner the most power from the elections).
All of this naturally leads to questions regarding the legitimacy of the elections in Iraq. Sure, everyone by now has heard that Iraq's Sunni population, who largely boycotted the elections, have declared the elections illegitimate. They may have a point. As explained by Ms. Bennis, the Iraqi elections were illegitimate as they were held under conditions of a hostile foreign military occupation, in violation of the Hague Convention of 1907, to which the U.S. is a signatory. The Hague Convention prohibits an occupying power from instituting any permanent changes to the government of the occupied territory. Despite such prohibitions, the elections in Iraq were conducted pursuant to an electoral law and overseen by an electoral commission created and imposed by the U.S., an occupying power. The elections took place under such violent circumstances that voters could not learn the names of candidates and were subjected to shoot-to-kill curfews.
According to criteria identified by the U.S.-based Carter Center (founded by former President Jimmy Carter and with experience monitoring elections world-wide for more than a decade), the Iraqi elections were illegitimate. According to the Carter Center, the criteria for legitimate elections include voters' ability to vote in a free and secure environment, candidates' ability to have access to voters for campaigning, a freely chosen and independent election commission, and voters' ability to vote free of fear and intimidation. The elections in Iraq failed to meet any of these criteria.
But hey, none of this matters because Bush and his cronies have declared the elections a success and Iraq is now a beacon of democracy in the Middle East. Who would dare to challenge such a declaration? Apparently, at least in the U.S., virtually no one.
If the past few days are any indication, the American public and news media will swallow Bush's claims hook, line, and sinker. Little in the way of critical analysis has occurred or is likely to occur in the mainstream media regarding the elections in Iraq or the repercussions thereof. If such an analysis were undertaken, the picture from Iraq would be far less rosy.
What no one from Washington or the fawning American news media is acknowledging is that Iraqis did not risk their lives to legitimize the U.S. invasion and occupation of their country; they risked life and limb to end the occupation and rid Iraq of U.S. presence. Of course, that will never happen. Bush is not refusing to provide a timetable for U.S. withdrawal from Iraq not simply because it "plays into the enemy's hands," as claimed by Dan Barlett. Bush refuses to do so because the U.S. has no real intention of leaving Iraq. There are already four permanent U.S. military bases in Iraq with more being built. One does not build permanent military bases for a temporary occupation.
Further evidence of U.S. intent to remain in Iraq indefinitely was reported by Antonia Juhasz of Foreign Policy in Focus, the current interim Iraqi Finance Minister, Abdel Mahdi, told the National Press Club on December 22, 2004, that Iraq intends to amend its oil laws to allow complete privatization of Iraq's oil industry. Not coincidentally, Adbel Mahdi ran in the elections on the ticket of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution (SCIR), the leading Shiite political party in Iraq and considered the front-runner in the elections. The SCIR belongs to the United Iraqi Alliance (UIA) party, a large tent created to consolidate the Shiite vote. As such, the UIA includes the Iraqi National Council (INC). The INC is led by Ahmed Chalabi, the source of much of the false information used by the Bush administration to justify its invasion of Iraq in the first place. The UIA garnered the endorsement, so to speak, of the Shiite cleric Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani who issued a fatwa instructing Shiites to vote or burn in hell.
Connecting the dots, Ms. Juhasz sets out the following reasonable and rather compelling scenario: the Bush administration struck a deal the SCIR, guaranteeing SCIR's political power in exchange for Iraqi oil. As explained by Phyllis Bennis of the Institute for Policy Studies, Bush & Co. could strike such a deal because the U.S.-imposed Transitional Administrative Law (TAL) remains the law in Iraq regardless of the recent elections. The TAL cannot be amended without a super-majority of the newly-elected Iraqi National Assembly plus a unanimous agreement by the presidency council. The likelihood of either requirement being fulfilled is near zero given the range of constituencies which must be satisfied (not to mention the animosity between the Kurds and the Shia, the two factions likely to garner the most power from the elections).
All of this naturally leads to questions regarding the legitimacy of the elections in Iraq. Sure, everyone by now has heard that Iraq's Sunni population, who largely boycotted the elections, have declared the elections illegitimate. They may have a point. As explained by Ms. Bennis, the Iraqi elections were illegitimate as they were held under conditions of a hostile foreign military occupation, in violation of the Hague Convention of 1907, to which the U.S. is a signatory. The Hague Convention prohibits an occupying power from instituting any permanent changes to the government of the occupied territory. Despite such prohibitions, the elections in Iraq were conducted pursuant to an electoral law and overseen by an electoral commission created and imposed by the U.S., an occupying power. The elections took place under such violent circumstances that voters could not learn the names of candidates and were subjected to shoot-to-kill curfews.
According to criteria identified by the U.S.-based Carter Center (founded by former President Jimmy Carter and with experience monitoring elections world-wide for more than a decade), the Iraqi elections were illegitimate. According to the Carter Center, the criteria for legitimate elections include voters' ability to vote in a free and secure environment, candidates' ability to have access to voters for campaigning, a freely chosen and independent election commission, and voters' ability to vote free of fear and intimidation. The elections in Iraq failed to meet any of these criteria.
But hey, none of this matters because Bush and his cronies have declared the elections a success and Iraq is now a beacon of democracy in the Middle East. Who would dare to challenge such a declaration? Apparently, at least in the U.S., virtually no one.
posted by Ken Sanders at
9:52 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home