|
aljazeerah.info Opinion Editorials |
|||
|
Human Price of the Israeli Occupation of Palestine Israeli daily aggression on the Palestinian people Mission and meaning of Al-Jazeerah Cities, localities, and tourist attractions
|
|
Terrible truth about US imperialism Nihal Singh CURIOUS thing has happened
in the American war on Iraq. Going into the second week of the war, as the
mirage of a quick victory and welcoming Iraqis has faded, the premise of
the invasion has been tested and found wanting. No one doubts that given
American power, the Bush administration will ultimately prevail
militarily. But the world has grave and increasing doubts about the Day
After.
In recent times, the Bush administration
has shifted ground in justifying the invasion of a sovereign country
without UN sanction, ranging from the necessity to disarm Iraq for
American and world security by a regime change to spreading democracy from
Iraq in concentric circles. But the neoconservative elite that
ideologically underpins President George W. Bush has made no secret of its
desire to proclaim a Pax Americana in the 21st century based on the
unparalleled military strength of the country. An ancillary objective
propelled, among others, by the allied fundamentalist Christians of the
South is to enhance Israel's sway over the Middle East. If Americans can go so wrong in projecting
the premise of their invasion, where will they take the world after they
have won the war? Clearly, President Bush confused the parochial interests
of Iraqi and other players in the field with a universal Iraqi desire for
change. For a majority of Iraqis, their attitude to President Saddam
Hussein is secondary to their desire to fight an invader arrogating to
himself the right to change their ruler and lay down the law on what is
good for the country. Left to themselves, the Kurds in North Iraq
were quite happy with the de facto independence they have been enjoying
for the past decade, thanks to the illegal American-imposed no-fly zone.
They did not have the option of retaining this status indefinitely, with
the Americans set on building an empire and the Turks ever watchful of
Iraqi Kurdish ambitions with an eye on their own truculent Kurds. Nor is
the Iraqi diaspora a good indication of resident Iraqis' feelings even as
the Bush administration and its gendarme in Europe, Tony Blair, were
expending much energy on bringing the disparate and ambitious gaggle
together. For Iranians, the welcome prospect of the
departure of President Saddam comes with the unwelcome reality of having
the United States as its immediate neighbour. The Shias in South Iraq are
a natural Iranian constituency and Teheran has hosted and financed its
Iraqi co-religionists. This is a hand Iranians must play with great care
because it could prove to be the thin end of the wedge. Recent American
warnings were meant to convey the message that they were being watched. By
all events, the Bush administration has decided that, Tony Blair's
pleadings notwithstanding, it will impose a two-year American military
government on Iraq, to begin with. Whatever civilian faچade the
military governor might give his administration, Americans will install
themselves as the new imperialists. This will truly generate what
Washington unsuccessfully sought to undertake on the battlefield: shock
and awe. Domestically, an American general ruling
Iraq will encourage guerrilla warfare and suicide bombers. In the region,
the Palestinian intefada sought to be crushed by Israel will take on a
wider character. One can only bewail President Bush's 'road map' leading
Palestinians to permanent Israeli captivity. US Secretary of State Colin Powell, whose
influence in the Bush administration is diminishing by the day, has
proclaimed that having expended men and money on the Iraq adventure, the
US would want to have a dominant say in the country's, and region's,
affairs. If such say is exercised through making Iraq a colony, as seems
more than likely, America would face the perils of donning the mantle of a
colonial power in the 21st century. A Washington wag has suggested that the
United Nations is there to do the dishes after America has partaken of a
repast. UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan has muscled himself back into the
oil-for-food programme - for 45 days, but his task of winning influence
for the world organisation in an age of America's declared imperialist
ambitions will prove more difficult. Annan found his way to blessing
Nato's 11-week bombing of Serbia and Kosovo after bypassing the UN
Security Council with the fig-leaf of 'humanitarian intervention'. The US
failure to obtain a resolution specifically authorising an attack on Iraq
led to a mild reprimand from him. France and Russia, among others, have made
it plain that they would not want to give post facto legitimacy to the
American invasion of Iraq. Although a compromise on this issue is
possible, giving the world organisation a subsidiary political role a la
Afghanistan, with the appointment of a personal representative of the
secretary-general, is more problematic. An invasion undertaken against the
wishes of the majority in the UN cannot be given the seal of UN approval. That the Arab world remains divided on Iraq
is evident, but America can hardly expect to win friends and influence
people in the region through inaugurating a new phase of imperialism. To
begin with, the US will have its hands full in seeking to keep Iraq
together in a federation of sorts without the country splintering into a
Kurdish North, a Shia South and a Sunni middle. One consequence could well
be that Al Qaeda the Bush administration has so desperately sought to link
with Iraq might well emerge in the country to exploit a climate newly
hospitable to its aims.<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
/>
Opinions expressed in various sections are the sole responsibility of their authors and they may not represent Al-Jazeerah's.
|