- "...now that the targets have clearly expanded to
include Iraqi civilians, as well as foreign aid workers and journalists,
the White House is attempting to make the Iraqis themselves seem out of
control, riven with religious and ethnic hatreds, incapable of governing
themselves without U.S. involvement."
-
- In London, they unfurled a protest sign on Big Ben; in
Rome a million demonstrators filled the streets. Here in Iraq, there were
no such spectacular markings of the one-year anniversary of the invasion
ó a sign, the BBC speculated, that Iraqis are generally pleased
with the progress of their liberation.
-
- Yet, as I was driving around Baghdad on March 20, the
eerie quiet felt like a sign of something else: that symbolic anniversaries
are an unaffordable luxury when the war they are supposed to be marking
is still being waged. Several demonstrations were planned for the 20th
in Baghdad but were cancelled at the last minute, a response to three days
of rapid-fire attacks on Iraqi and foreign civilians.
-
- On March 19, an anti-occupation march designed as a show
of unity between Sunni and Shia Muslims was much smaller than organizers
had hoped, and no wonder: Less than three weeks ago, 70 people were killed
in a horrific attack on the same Shia mosque where demonstrators were meant
to gather. To underscore the threat, U.S. occupation chief Paul Bremer
chose the day of the planned protests to predict that more such major attacks
were likely "when you have masses of Shia together." Those who
dared to show up despite the warnings glanced around nervously, while men
armed with Kalashnikovs lined the streets and rooftops, looking for signs
of trouble.
-
- It's worth remembering that just two months ago, the
mood here was distinctly less tentative. In January, more than 100,000
Iraqis took to the streets of Baghdad and Basra to reject the U.S. plan
to appoint an interim government through a complicated system of regional
caucuses, and to demand direct elections instead. Under intense pressure,
Mr. Bremer was forced to scrap the caucus plan entirely. For a brief moment,
it looked as if U.S. President George W. Bush's empty talk of bringing
democracy to Iraq might just become a reality, not because the occupiers
were serious about giving Iraqis self-determination, but because Iraqis
seemed determined to seize that power despite their occupiers' best efforts.
-
- Now, after a month of terror and steady assertions from
"experts" that Iraq is on the verge of civil war, much of that
boldness has retreated. Which is precisely why they call it terrorism:
It sends people from the streets into their homes, replacing courage with
fear, self-reliance with dependency.
-
- There are rare exceptions, such as the recent Spanish
elections, when populations seem to collectively decide to try something
else ó to respond to horror with defiance. But more often than not,
terrorism simply terrorizes.
-
- But if terrorism sows fear, an obvious point, the obvious
question is: Who benefits most from the spreading fear in Iraq? According
to President Bush, the winners are faceless evildoers bent on undermining
Iraq's future democracy. "They understand that a free Iraq will be
a devastating setback to their ambitions of tyranny over the Middle East,"
he explained on the anniversary. According to Mr. Bremer, that means that
the attacks will likely continue as the June 30 handover approaches.
-
- It's a nice theory, but it's not the one gaining currency
on the streets of Baghdad. Just 20 minutes after the devastating bombing
of the Mount Lebanon hotel last Wednesday, the rumours began to fly: It
was the Americans, the Pentagon, the CIA, the British. If these conspiracy
theories have traction, maybe it's because the occupying forces have so
brazenly taken advantage of the attacks to do precisely what they accuse
foreign terrorists of doing: interfering with the prospect of genuine democracy
in Iraq.
-
- When it was only occupation targets ó contractors,
police - getting hit by the resistance soldiers, it made the occupation
seem inept and out of control, bolstering the argument that the United
States should pull out and hand over power to Iraqis or a more neutral
international force. But now that the targets have clearly expanded to
include Iraqi civilians, as well as foreign aid workers and journalists,
the White House is attempting to make the Iraqis themselves seem out of
control, riven with religious and ethnic hatreds, incapable of governing
themselves without U.S. involvement.
-
- With doubt successfully cast on the prospects for Iraqi
democracy, and terrorist attacks ensuring that there are far fewer Iraqis
in the streets demanding their democratic rights, Mr. Bremer is on the
verge of accomplishing what seemed impossible just two months ago: installing
an interim Iraqi government that is fully controlled by the United States.
-
- It now looks almost certain that Iraq's first "sovereign"
government will be created by a process even less democratic than the abandoned
caucus system: The U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council will simply be
expanded in size.
-
- This body is so discredited here that it is called the
"governed council," but widespread objections have so far been
drowned out by the nightly attacks.
-
- Mr. Bremer has also managed to use the terrorist attacks
to make sure that Iraq's next government will be able to do nothing but
implement his orders. Earlier this month, his plan to push through an interim
constitution seemed doomed, with several members of the Governing Council
refusing to sign the contentious document. But after the devastating attacks
on Shia religious sites on March 2, Iraqi leaders came under pressure to
sign the document as a show of national unity and stability.
-
- The interim constitution, signed two weeks ago, states
that, "The laws, regulations, orders, and directives issued by the
Coalition Provisional Authority ..... shall remain in force." The
laws include Mr. Bremer's Order 39, which drastically changes Iraq's previous
constitution to allow foreign companies to own 100 per cent of Iraqi assets
(except in natural resources), and to take 100 per cent of their profits
out of the country, paving the way for massive privatizations.
-
- Defying Mr. Bremer's orders won't be an option after
the "handover." The interim constitution clearly states that
the only way these laws can be changed is by a three-fourths vote by the
Iraqi transitional government. According to the same constitution, that
body won't exist until elections are held in early 2005.
-
- In other words, on June 30, the occupation won't end,
it will simply be outsourced to a group of hand-picked Iraqi politicians
with no democratic mandate or sovereign power. With its new Iraqi face,
the government will be free from the ugly perception that Iraq's national
assets are being auctioned off by foreigners, not to mention being unencumbered
by input from Iraqi voters who might have ideas of their own.
-
- At the economic forum on Iraq held in Beirut last week,
Nassir al-Jadarji, a member of the Governing Council, assured potential
investors that the deals made by these mandateless politicians will be
passed on to Iraq's future elected leaders. "Our policies toward investments
will not change in any form, and we assure the complete honouring of signed
contracts," he said.
-
- Some wonder why any company would even want to buy up
pieces of a country as chaotic and dangerous as Iraq. Perhaps the real
question should be: With the Iraqi people living amidst so much chaos and
danger, who is going to stop them?
-
- - Naomi Klein is the author of No Logo and Fences and
Windows.
-
- © 2004 Bell Globemedia Publishing Inc. All Rights
Reserved. http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20040324.
- wnaomi0324/BNStory/International/
|