A Tale of Two Wars

Compare Iraq now with Afghanistan two years ago. Note the similarity in the promises made by Bush and Blair. Note the similar rhetoric. Note the easy dismissal of those who dared question whether our leaders would live up their claims. Now compare the Afghanistan that was promised with the one that now exists. Does that make you worried for Iraq's future? It should do.

Two years ago, Tony Blair pulled his sincere face, and promised the Afghan people that "this time we will not walk away from you". He said "we've got to make sure this time that we do it properly". All the promises were trotted out. A robust constitution, free elections, free worship, human rights. All the trite phrases. A beacon to the world, example of what can be done. The aim was clear - Afghanistan would be turned from a broken, abused country into a modern, wealthy state. Yet today, Afghanistan does not resemble this wonderful promise. The media turned their attention elsewhere, the world's politicians sloped away, and the warlords walked back. Today, much of Afghanistan is back under the control of warlords. Even the Taliban is regaining power. Western troops, let alone the locals they guard, cannot reliably travel to much of the country. Opium production is increasing again. And, although there is no direct evidence, it seems likely to me that such chaos means that al Qaeda cells are again resident within Afghan borders.

In two years, Afghanistan's bright future has gone from beyond debate to empty rhetoric. Is there any reason to believe that the future is any brighter in Iraq? In some ways, yes. For all its problems, Iraq as a whole has not been as brutalised as Afghanistan. At the moment, this appears to have lead to a greater belief amongst ordinary Iraqis that they may actually have a say in their country's future. For all that the visions of that future vary greatly, many people feel they have a vision worth fighting for. Where that fighting can be confined to the ballot box and the debating chamber this is clearly a good thing. Where violence breaks out, however, this is a recipe for civil war.

Enter America, with its plan for an interim constitution, an interim government, and an indefinite peacekeeping presence. At its most simplistic, this looks like the right idea. Keep the lid on the security situation, while the apparatus of government are put in place. If done properly, the new apparatus will become capable of providing its own security, while allowing the people the freedoms they deserve. But, as always, the devil is in the details.

At present, Iraq's security relies on just one country - America. And America is there not simply for the benefit of Iraq, but with its own agenda. Witness the number of contracts that American firms have signed, which the new Iraqi government will not be allowed to over turn. Witness the fact that American troops are shielded from prosecution, regardless of their crimes. Witness the fact that Iraq's oil will only be controlled by the Iraqi government under international supervision. And we all know which country will dominate that supervision, don't we. On the 30th of June, Iraq will become a sovereign country in name only. America will still control everything that America feels is important.

There are a number of problems with American dominance in Iraq. Top of the list is that Bush has an election to fight this November, and Iraq is likely to be a big issue. If it comes to a choice between abandoning Iraq and losing the White House, there is no doubt that Bush will pull American troops out. Even if this extreme case doesn't occur, the future of Iraq is simply too important to be left to the whims of any one other country's electoral timetable.

America's desire for control causes other problems. We know that Iraqis are being tortured and murdered by a minority of western soldiers. We know that American firms have agreed contracts that are, to say the least, not best value. Yet the proposal now before the UN would protect both groups from any come back. Now, our leaders will doubtless tell you that protection from prosecution isn't an issue, as if the evidence justifies it, our troops will be prosecuted at home.

The problem here is not that our governments have been exceedingly reticent to investigate allegations - although they have. The real problem is that if you had been raped, tortured, or had a relative murdered by an invader, how confident would you be about complaining to other members of the same group? Especially if you don't speak the language. The policy of protecting our troops from prosecution means that we are giving the abused Iraqi people that we are no different from the previous regime - we can act with impunity, no matter who we hurt. Is this really the impression we wish to give? And if we don't hold ourselves to the same standards, what right do we have to judge the misbehaviour of others? Surely the rights of the victim are greater than the rights of the perpetrator.

And what of the rights of Iraq as a whole to control its own economy? Granted, American attempts to dominate the economy of lesser countries is nothing new, but to do so following a military invasion is disgusting. Transfer of sovereignty without transferring the right to cancel contracts imposed on them by the occupying force makes this appear to be nothing more than an attempt at economic imperialism on behalf of Vice President Cheney and his friends. I still believe that the expense of this operation makes this an unlikely explanation for the war as a whole, but as a side effect, this appears to be an effective way for Republican supporting corporations to loot the American treasury. Full economic control must be handed to the Iraqi people, with all contracts declared subject to approval by the elected government.

There is the potential for Iraq to be changed for the better. But American and British insistence on control, economic imperialism, and protection from the consequences of their actions both threaten Iraq's future, and raise difficult questions about our leaders' motives. Only by handing real power to the interim government, handing oversight of the reconstruction to the United Nations, and removing blanket protection from both troops and corporations is there any chance that Iraq's promised future will become a reality. Even then, if Iraq is not to suffer Afghanistan's current fate, the world's leaders and media must also not lost interest, and allow the necessary resources to be deployed elsewhere.

Graham Robinson. 26th May 2004.

archives :: links :: faq :: feedback

Find out how you can support Online Opinion

Online Opinion is a trademark owned by Graham Robinson. All rights reserved. The copyright on all articles, columns, and letters on this site is owned by the original author. The copyright on all other material is owned by Graham Robinson. Permission is granted to download and store these pages for personal or research purposes only, and only as is consistent with normal viewing of web pages. All other rights reserved. Permission is granted to freely link to any page within this site, as long as ownership of the material linked to is clear. No advertisements may be associated with this site, whether explicitly or implicitly, without prior written permission.