The Iraqi Predicament

Jacqueline S. Ismael, Tareq Y. Ismael

Description

On February 15, 2003, over 6 million people around the world marched in protest against a threatened war on Iraq. In the light of these remarkable events, and the conflict that followed, it is now more important than ever to properly assess Iraq's role in world politics.



This book provides a history of Iraq, an assessment of its position in the broader political landscape, and a moving account of the day-to-day reality experienced by the Iraqi people. The authors look at Iraq's -- and Saddam Hussein's -- relations and influence in the region of the greater Middle East. They examine the role of the UN, sanctions and warfare, explaining the impact this has had on Iraq's civil population and related humanitarian questions.



They assess American policy towards Iraq and how this has changed since September 11, setting it within the broader context of America's involvement in the Middle East. Finally, they look at social policy within Iraq, explaining how the internal welfare system has collapsed since the Gulf War, and examining the continuing effects of depleted uranium.
Dedication

Preface

1. Introduction: The International Setting

2. The Iraq Question in Arab Politics

3. The U.S., September 11 and the Invasion of Iraq

4. UN Sanctions: Tools of domination and oppression

5. Social Deconstruction: Social development under siege

6. Russia and the Question of Iraq

References

Index

Sujets

• International Relations
• Political Science
• Iraq
• Irak

Informations

• Publié par: Pluto Press
• Date de parution: 20 mars 2004
• Nombre de lectures: 0
• EAN13: 9781849642156
• Langue: English
• Poids de l'ouvrage: 1 Mo

Extrait

The Iraqi Predicament

People in the Quagmire of Power Politics

Tareq Y. Ismael and Jacqueline S. Ismael

P Pluto Press LONDON • STERLING, VIRGINIA

First published 2004 by Pluto Press 345 Archway Road, London N6 5AA and 22883 Quicksilver Drive, Sterling, VA 20166–2012, USA

www.plutobooks.com

Copyright © Tareq Y. Ismael and Jacqueline S. Ismael 2004

The right of Tareq Y. Ismael and Jacqueline S. Ismael to be identified as the authors of this work has been asserted by them in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

ISBN ISBN

0 7453 2150 X hardback 0 7453 2149 6 paperback

Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Ismael, Tareq Y. The Iraqi predicament : people in the quagmire of power politics / Tareq Y. Ismael and Jacqueline S. Ismael. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 0–7453–2150–X (hardback) –– ISBN 0–7453–2149–6 (pbk.) 1. Middle East––Foreign relations––United States. 2. United States––Foreign relations––Middle East. 3. Arab countries––Foreign relations––Iraq. 4. Iraq––Foreign relations––Arab countries. 5. Iraq War, 2003––Protest movements. I. Ismael, Jacqueline S. II. Title.

10

DS63.2.U5I86 2004 956.7044'3––dc22

9

8

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

2003025961

Designed and produced for Pluto Press by Chase Publishing Services, Fortescue, Sidmouth, EX10 9QG, England Typeset from disk by Stanford DTP Services, Northampton, England Printed and bound in Canada by Transcontinental Printing

To Zayd,

who arrived in winter, carrying the promise of spring and the seeds for a new world.

Preface

1

2

3

4

5

Contents

Introduction: The International Setting

The Iraq Question in Arab Politics Arab Popular Opinion Arab Regional Politics Arab Regional Politics and the Iraq Question

The US, September 11 and the Invasion of Iraq The Development of American Policy Towards the Middle East Understanding Dollar Hegemony Background to the Presidency of George W. Bush and September 11 The Aftermath of September 11 The Prism of Media Power Discourse Prelude to Invasion Invasion and the Aftermath Conclusion

UN Sanctions: Tools of Domination and Oppression Tools of Coercion Tools of Domination and Oppression Weapons Inspection Humanitarian Aid Aid without Inspections

Social Deconstruction: Social Development under Siege (co-authored with Shereen T. Ismael) Social Development before the 1990–91 Gulf War Social De-development after the 1990–91 Gulf War Assessments of the Humanitarian Impact of Sanctions on Iraq Depleted Uranium in Iraq People in the Quagmire: ‘…a minor point in the history of…war’ The Invasion Attacks on Infrastructures

ix

1

9 11 17 21

39

42 53

56 57 60 68 75 87

90 91 95 95 101 108

126 126 130

136 151

153 155

viii

6

The Iraqi Predicament

Targeting Ambulances and Medical Infrastructure The Plight of Hospitals under US Occupation Gallantry of Selfless Iraqi Health Workers The Tragedy of Iraqis Continues Conclusion

Russia and the Question of Iraq Soviet Background Post-Soviet Russia and Iraq

Notes Bibliography Index

157 158 161 164 165

167 168 174

210 249 260

Preface

The war on Iraq, initiated on 18 March 2003, and the occupation that followed, is a product of the degradation of international politics. This book provides a case study of that process through an examination of the international setting that has produced today’s global environment, as reflected in the relationship between Iraq, the United States and a moribund United Nations since the 1990–91 Gulf War. As an exploration of a bounded system, a case study presents a microcosm of the larger world. By taking one problem, located at a particular point in space and time, the case study explores the problem to reveal the inter-relationship and inter-connectedness present. Iraq is a case study about the fate of people caught in the quagmire of international politics. It is this fate that reflects the degeneration of the international system built up from the ashes of two world wars in the twentieth century and embodied in the principles of international law and the United Nations charter. ‘Misgovernment is of four kinds, often in combination’, observed 1 the prominent war historian, Barbara Tuchman. State–society discordance in the Arab world is largely explained by the first three: tyranny or oppression; excessive ambition; incompetence or decadence. Arab state–international system discordance, on the other hand, appears to be largely a product of Tuchman’s fourth kind – folly or perversity – which she explains as ‘the pursuit of policy contrary to the self-interest of the constituency involved. Self interest is whatever conduces to the welfare or advantage of the body being 2 governed; folly is a policy that in these terms is counter-productive.’ From this perspective the Iraq question in world politics has the aura of a ‘march of folly’ that there is every reason to believe will have repercussions for regional and international politics as profound and unpredictable as the repercussions of the First World War. As the lessons of history reflect, these repercussions reverberate on humanity as war and oppression, as well as the increasing resistance of people caught in the quagmire of world politics to the march of folly. When the idea of this work first developed, our intention was to provide a more rational perspective on the Iraqi question: one that did not oversimplify or rely heavily upon dogmatic interpretations or orientalist approaches to this issue. Our methodology was to

ix

x

The Iraqi Predicament

approach the issue from the angle of the effects of international power politics upon the population, caught between a dictator, a hegemony, and an ineffectual and bureaucratic international structure. While years of war and sanctions, followed by the Anglo-American invasion and occupation, have had an undeniably traumatic effect on the Iraqi social fabric, the identity and cohesion of Iraq remains intact and may be quite capable of overcoming this series of historic tragedies, if finally left to its own devices: hence the title of this book, The Iraqi Predicament: People in the Quagmire of Power Politics, which surely speaks for itself. Directly or indirectly, this work is indebted to so many people, without whose efforts it could not have been possible. We would like to thank our research assistants, Mark Bizek, Warren Bridgewater, Mike Gladstone, Lisa MacIsaac, John Measor and Yousri Wagdi, who, through countless revisions, chased information, footnotes, etc. We would be remiss if we did not thank Professors Norton Mezvinsky and Christopher Vassilopulos for their helpful suggestions, input and constructive criticism. Also, Doreen Neville, for all of her amazing patience in dealing with our endless updating and reformatting, cannot be forgotten. We are especially indebted to Professors Raymond Baker and William Haddad for their patience, continuous input and editorial suggestions, which kept us grounded. As authors of this book, we are solely responsible for its content and the ideas expressed. We also wish to acknowledge the support for this work provided by the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada and the University of Calgary Research Grants Committee.

Calgary, Alberta, Canada 25 September 2003

1 Introduction: US Militarism and the Globalisation of Manifest Destiny

The hawkish National Security Advisor to President Carter, Zbigniew Brzezinski, explains the dynamics of the American global domination in his bookThe Grand Chessboard. He argues: ‘Ever since the continents started interacting politically, some 500 years ago, Eurasia has been 1 the centre of world power.’ Eurasia is the territory east of Germany, and includes Russia, the Middle East, China and parts of India. The newly formed EU enjoys sufficient economic and political resources to become a global hegemony, while Russia and China, which border oil-rich central Asia, constitute, by virtue of location, a threatening challenge to US dominance as well. In this strategic context, Brzezinski maintains that the US must be prepared to use military force against 2 any state, or group of states, that challenges its superpower status. Brzezinski argues further that the interests of the United States in the former Soviet republics – and now independent states – of Central Asia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikstan and Kyrgyzstan lie in oil and gas, in securing them from their immediate powerful neighbours: Russia, Turkey and Iran, and in blocking China’s attempts at bridgeheads. He notes how the world’s energy consumption keeps increasing; hence, those entities controlling oil and gas would be able to dominate the world economy. Brzezinski rationalises that the US wants nothing for itself, but rather, that it only wants to protect the identifiable ‘good people’ from the ‘evil people’. In other words, America’s primary interest is to ensure that the US has unhindered financial and economic access to resources. The thrust of Zbigniew’s thesis leaves the reader with this subtle message: the establishment, consolidation and expansion of US military hegemony over Eurasia through Central Asia, and the Middle East (where oil is abundant) requires the unprecedented, open-ended militarisation of foreign policy, integrated with an unprecedented manufacture of domestic consensus behind this campaign of militarisation. With the

1

2

The Iraqi Predicament

publication ofThe National Security Strategy, it is clear that the 3 Bush–Cheney power bloc has put this thesis into practice. What distinguishes Brzezinski’s vision is not its novelty, but rather its assertive character of unapologetic rationalisation. Conditioned by the security afforded to them by two oceans, and a vast land of abundant economic resources, the American political culture gradually manifested a proclivity for controlling the ‘other’, while subverting the ‘norm of co-operation’ in favour of unilaterally imposed domination. Proclaimed in 1823, the Monroe Doctrine demarcated Latin America as the ‘back yard of the US’, under whose banner, thenceforth, a series of military interventions took place to consolidate America’s pre-eminence over the American Hemisphere. With no credible justification, the US intervened militarily in Puerto Rico (1824), Mexico (1845 and 1847), Nicaragua (1857 and 1860) and in the province of Panama (1860). Alarmed, the governments of Chile, Bolivia, Ecuador, New Grenada (Colombia) and Peru met in Lima in 1847 to examine the increasing militarism and aggression of their American neighbour. The outbreak of war against Mexico in 1848 justified their concern: from Texas to California, the US annexed half of Mexico’s territory. While the traditional European powers remained pre-eminent globally, the notion of ‘manifest destiny’ became clear during General Ulysses S. Grant’s presidency (1869–77), highlighting American ambition to control the continent. After the Spanish-American War in 1898, Spain gave up Cuba, the Philippines and Guam under American pressure, and was forced to accept an addendum to its constitution which gave the US the right to intervene ‘for the preservation of Cuban independence’ or to maintain a government protecting ‘life, property and individual liberty’. Thus, Cuba lost its independence before ever having won it. Cuba was a US protectorate until 1934, ruled thereafter by governments without any real power. To ensure that the Latin American states might respect their ‘international obligations and justice towards foreigners’ and to ‘bring about progress and democracy for backward people’, marines landed in Mexico, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Colombia, and Ecuador. In 1912 President Taft stated: ‘The whole hemisphere will be ours in fact, as by virtue of our 4 superiority of race, it already is ours morally.’ A consequence of the Spanish-American War was the development of the two-ocean naval supremacy cannon, which catapulted the US into the global arena and set the stage for their rise following the First and Second World Wars. Meanwhile, two successive wars had

Introduction: US Militarism and the Globalisation of Destiny

3

destroyed Germany’s industrial base and it was no longer a European superpower, thus paving the way for an unchallenged US global role. In 1941–42 the United States intended that France, together with soon-to-be defeated Italy, Germany and Japan, were to be part of a protectorate run by the Allied Military Government of the Occupied Territories (AMGOT). According to the agreement of November 1942 between Admiral Jean-François Darlan and US General Mark Clark, which secured France’s commitment to the Allied cause, AMGOT would have abolished France’s national sovereignty, including its right to issue currency. The US feared that despite the French defeat in 1940, France might reject the plan, especially if its presidency went to De Gaulle, who had vowed to restore French sovereignty. The US entertained serious concerns about the French obstructionist capacity, which France had manifested when it had opposed pro-German US policies after the First World War. With a De Gaullist regime, the US feared that France would not relinquish its empire, which was rich in raw materials and strategic bases, and on which the US had long set its eye by calling for an open-door policy for goods and investments in all colonial empires. To negate the De Gaullist challenge, the US relied on the twin strategies of ignoring De Gaulle, and dealing with Pétain’s regime through accommodation and toughness. US leaders realised that the Vichy regime in France, like the Latin American regimes, was more malleable than a government with broad popular support. After US forces landed in Morocco and Algeria on 8 November 1942, General Mark Clark courted Admiral Darlan, who was stationed in Algiers and served as Pétain’s vice-premier and foreign minister from 1941 to 1942. General Clark had Darlan sign an agreement on 22 November 1942 placing North Africa at the disposal of the US and virtually rendering France a ‘vassal’ state, subject to unprecedented US rights over French colonies in Africa, including overseeing troop movements, ports, airfields, military defences and munitions, communications networks and the merchant navy. The agreement also provided for US requisitions of goods and services, tax exemptions, extraterritorial rights, and US-determined military zones. However, before the Vichy government could ratify the agreement, Darlan was assassinated by an anti-Vichyite with Gaullist connections on 24 December 1942. The US depicted De Gaulle as a right-wing dictator, but it had to abandon its plans to impose the dollar in liberated territories after the Allies, on 23 October 1944, officially recognised De Gaulle as head of the French government. The USSR had already recognised