UNITED24 - Make a charitable donation in support of Ukraine!

Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD)

Direct elections dangerous for Iraq: Russian analyst

IRNA - Islamic Republic News Agency

Moscow, Jan 24, Ria-Novosti/ACSNA/IRNA -- The USA has promised to hand
over control of the country to the Iraqis by July 1, 2004. But nobody 
can guarantee that the transition will be effected on time, if at all.
If the security situation in Iraq deteriorates seriously, the 
Americans may go back on their promise. 
However, if the restoration of Iraq continues to go badly and the 
resistance exceeds the admissible level, the Americans may leave the 
country, turning over control to the Iraqis they think they can trust.
It would be similar to the withdrawal of Soviet troops from 
Afghanistan at the time of Najibullah: everyone remembers what 
happened to Najibullah as a result, wrote Ria-Novosti analyst Yevgeny 
Satanovsky in an analysis. 
As of now, the situation in Iraq is not favorable for either the 
Americans or the Iraqis. The arrest of Saddam Hussein has not stemmed 
the resistance, which is logical, as it was never controlled from a 
single center and the role of the former president and Baath party in 
organizing it should not be overestimated. 
It is impossible to say, in each individual case, if the Americans
and British are fighting the remaining groups of the Baath regime or 
religious fanatics, tribal groups, criminal gangs, or groups of Iraqis
out for personal or collective revenge for the deaths of their 
relatives. 
The absence of a harsh regime, which the population would fear, is
not a positive but a negative thing in the eyes of common Iraqis, who 
therefore do not fear the occupying forces. No wonder that resistance 
to the foreign presence keeps growing in Iraq. The sooner local 
governments are created, the quicker this resistance will become 
organized. 
The majority of Iraqis view the coalition forces as occupiers. 
Even those Iraqi leaders who have sympathy for the Americans and 
British do not intend to remain their clients forever. 
The power which any Iraqi politicians gain under the patronage of 
any foreign military presence, be it American, Japanese or Polish, 
will not be legitimate for the Iraqis. 
The situation will not change even if the political settlement is 
turned over to the UN, if only because the possibilities of that 
organization are rather limited. Besides, Washington will resist the 
enlargement of the UN role in Iraq because the USA is not the leading 
power in the UN, where decisions depend on the opinion of Third World 
(read: Islamic) countries. Logically, the Americans do not want to bow
to their decisions. 
Not just US skepticism but also the open desire of the Iraqi 
Shiite leaders to involve the UN in the settlement of the Iraqi 
problem show that the real role of the UN in Iraq will be very small. 
The weakness of the UN will allow the local leaders to do what 
they want, while formally remaining under international protection and
preventing any interference in their internal conflicts. 
The Shias also hope that the UN will support their idea to hold 
direct elections. However, while demanding this voting procedure, the 
Shias are promoting not democratic principles but their own interests.
Constituting the majority of the population in Iraq, they will 
ensure victory for their parties in this case. 
The Shiite demand for direct elections is a problem for the 
Americans. Not that it would be organizationally difficult to hold 
such elections now, as the official version reads. The trouble is that
direct suffrage by secret ballot in the Middle East and Africa does 
not result in a victory for democracy and respect for the rights of 
minorities in the representative bodies of power, but in the seizure 
of power by the largest and more aggressive group of population. 
It was not by chance that Saddam Hussein ruled the country 
dictatorially. Any direct suffrage by secret ballot in Iraq would 
inevitably disrupt the fragile ethnic-confessional balance in its 
power structures. 
The Shias will hardly give up the chance of gaining power for the 
first time in the history of Iraq. (To this day, Iraq has always been 
ruled by Sunnis.) It is also apparent that the Shias` demands will not
be satisfied. Hence, they will either rise en masse against the 
coalition forces or instigate a civil war in Iraq, whose first signs 
are already discernible. 
Clashes between Kurds and Turkmans, Kurds and Arabs are becoming 
more frequent, while problems in Shias` relations with Sunnis and 
Christians are piling up. 
The current developments in Iraq have been predicted by many 
experts and discussed with the US leadership more than once. But the 
trouble is that many American politicians had a distorted view of the 
situation in Iraq. 
The situation in Iraq could have remained stable if Saddam 
Hussein`s removal from power had not affected the ruling elite. The 
Americans made a mistake in not preserving a firm power-base in Iraq 
when they could not replace it with their own rule. They tried to 
reconstruct a political regime created thousands of kilometers away 
from Iraq in a different historical era in a country that is not ready
for such experiments. 
Western mechanisms are ineffective in the East. Trying to enforce 
them is like using the methods of Western supermarkets on an Oriental 
political bazaar. 
The US operation in Iraq could have been successful if the 
Americans had kept the country on a short leash for a long time, 
sufficient for the development of a new generation of Iraqi 
politicians who would not remember Saddam but would look up at the 
USA. Only after that would it be logical to turn power over to the 
Iraqis. 
But the USA can hardly maintain the occupation for a long time. 
The US media keep reporting the number of difficulties and losses of 
the coalition troops in Iraq that is impossible to grasp after WWII. 
It is not clear how the US public, which has become aware of its 
strength since Vietnam, will react to the growing reports about the 
death of Americans in Iraq (the number of casualties is bound to 
increase). 
Besides, public opinion in the West is being told that the 
Americans are using the mechanisms of power created by Saddam Hussein 
instead of bringing democracy to the country. This will not encourage 
the USA to pursue a harsh policy in Iraq, though it would have been 
the only correct way of settling the situation. 
Authoritarianism is the only stable power in the Middle East 
today. It can be moderate or harsh, bordering on totalitarianism or 
sliding to religious theocracy, but authoritarianism it must be. 
It would most probably suit the USA if a new Saddam came to power 
in Iraq, but a Saddam who, though taking into account the anti-Western
sentiments of the bulk of his population, would maintain open 
relations with the West. 
/AH/210 
End 



NEWSLETTER
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list