- Once again, the U.S. government is contradicting itself
with regard to democracy in Iraq. By denying the people a chance to vote,
with UN monitors, the U.S. is pushing the idea of selected caucuses with
voting to be done in limited ways; by doing this, the U.S. is showing
that it is being hypocritical when it says it wants ãdemocracyä
for Iraq. What it actually wants is a fractured country, with Shiâa,
Sunni and Kurds all having small sections of the country and a legislature
that will be powerless to agree on anything because of these three divisions.
If we are to be the leader in "democracy," then we have to be
consistent and responsible in our behavior; otherwise, we will continue
to be seen as a hollow imitation of democracy in the third and even in
other first world.
-
- We believe that Ayatollah Sistani is correct÷if
youâre going to have a democracy, then have a democracy where every
person has a vote and the majority rules. Of course, there will be rules
to protect minorities, but there is no way you can have a true democracy
if minorities rule the country (as America seems want to do). Of course,
the Americans plan to keep over 100,000 troops in Iraq. This is fine with
the puppet ãgoverning council of Talabani, Chalabi and friends,
because this will protect their lives and their power÷but no true
democratic government in Iraq will allow the Americans to stay once the
Americans relinquish governing power. So, will America allow a true democracy
to rule the country, or will it be another set of puppets or groups unable
to do anything while Paul Bremer or some other American appointee actually
runs the show? If the present American plan goes through, this latter
option with an American running the show will be put in place and this
will bode poorly for "democracy."
-
- America as an example of democracy and freedom in the
world is all but gone under this absurdly contradictory regime of GW Bush.
The fiasco in Iraq is just another example; it has already been seen as
a lie in the recent Afghan ãelectionsä (where very few of the
Afghans actually voted in the new ãgovernmentä of Ahmad Karzai
and his group). Ironically, in order to calm matters, word has reached
me from some Afghan sources that Richard Armitage, of the U.S. State Department,
is becoming more cozy with the former Taliban Foreign Minister and other
officials heâs been meeting with of late. Is this how democracy comes
in and reforms a country? This approach, of trying to appease the warlords,
Karzai, the Pashtuns and Uzbeks will only be a band-aid in Afghanistan
because the divisions wrought from the tribal fighting of centuries will
not vanish,even with thousands of foreign troops on the ground.
-
- But in Iraq, the Shi'a, because of their firm, loyal
and organized religious bonds, will not be broken--as they have not been
broken for thirteen centuries. The American plan of divide and conquer
will not work in Iraq because the Baathist's back has been broken, the
Kurds cannot control the whole of Iraq and the Shi'a will not sell out
to America. They know they have aces in their hands and that the American
military has not,and cannot control the whole of Iraq, or even large sections
of it. Ayatollah Sistani, Imam Hakim and Imam Sadr have all made this
clear--and they are united as one in this Shi'a declaration for self-sufficiency,
self-governance and a UN monitored open democratic election. Of course,
the Shi'a favor this because they know they are the majority in Iraq. However,
it does not mean they will suddenly turn on their Iraqi brethren if they
win the election. Unfortunately, some American spin-meisters have been
pushing this story in the same absurd way they tried to deceive people
with the hoax of a relationship between the secularist Saddam Hussein and
the fanatic Wahabi Osama Bin Laden and this recent invention that Saddam
had a document that warned Iraqis not to work with Arab and Muslims fighters
that might come in to oppose the American occupation forces.
-
- Ayatollah Sistani has made clear, and he has the largest
following of any Iraqi, that he will not abide by a fractured Iraq or a
fake ãelectionä of caucuses running the country.
-
- He has made clear, as have so many Iraqis that they want
a real and open election of a new and Iraqi chosen government÷no
more American puppet groups, or American appointees running the country.
Unless this happens, you can be prepared for a massive resistance from
the Shiâa÷and this will make the disorganized resistance of
present day Iraqi Baathists, groups of families who want revenge for the
American killing of their relatives, parents or children, outside Muslims
and Arabs wanting to fight the occupying American forces, seem like childâs
play.
-
- Remember this about the Shi'a of Iraq÷they cannot
be bought and they have come to the end of their suffering in quiet. Unless
the Americans move toward a true democratic election, with UN Monitors
and with American hands off÷we shall pay a heavier price in Iraq
than any of the American government 'experts' will be able to even imagine.
-
- Sam Hamod is an expert on Middle Eastern and Islamic
Affairs; he is a former professor at Princeton, advisor to the US State
Department and served as Director of the National Islamic Center in Washington,
DC and as editor of Third World News (DC). He may be reached at shamod@cox.net
|
