Share this story!            

EDITORIAL: The Iraqi mess is getting messier

Iraq continues to burn. Prewar assessments by US experts and planners advocating an attack on Iraq that Iraqis would garland the US troops for ousting Saddam Hussain have proved highly erroneous. The reality has turned out to be complex and increasingly violent. Only yesterday, insurgents mounted another daring attack, which left more than 20 people dead. Earlier two attacks in as many days claimed nearly hundred lives and left more than that number injured. The message is clear: the US is not welcome and anyone seen cooperating with the US will be targeted. The United Nations, the only hope, is reluctant to come in at this stage given previous attacks on its headquarters as well as the deadly attack against the ICRC. To top it, plans to hold elections might run aground. L. Paul Bremer, head of the Coalition Provisional Authority, insists that Iraqis choose their new government through a complex system of caucuses while Shi’ite leader Ali al-Sistani, wants direct elections to a national assembly before Iraq regains sovereignty on July 1. Ayatollah Sistani’s supporters have threatened to rise in revolt if the demand is not met.

Clearly, the United States cannot keep operating on the basis of initial assessments. Reports indicate the US troops are not looking for winning hearts and minds anymore; they are trying to put down an insurgency that seems to be getting out of hands and claiming lives every day. So the question of putting in place a political system is intricately linked to the military situation on the ground. Some experts believe that elections per se are not an answer to problems of governance. In theory they are right. But attempts to prepare Iraq and its society for democratic good governance mean a long haul. Also, such a course presupposes that the military situation can be stabilised and slowly improved and that Iraqis actually want the Americans to walk them through the intricacies of a mature democratic system. That doesn’t seem plausible.

The long and brutal dictatorship of Saddam Hussain had managed to stitch together many fissures in modern Iraq. With Saddam gone, old ethnic and linguistic wounds have opened up. This was naturally to result in a bid for resources and power among Shi’ites, Sunnis and Kurds. Ayatollah Sistani’s demand for direct elections needs to be seen in that context. He knows, as do his supporters, that such elections would result in giving the Shi’ite majority its rightful share of power, long denied them by the Tikriti Sunni minority. So while the Sunnis are fighting the Americans because the US army changed the internal configuration to their disadvantage, the Shi’ites are threatening to pick up arms because they fear the Americans might deprive them of an historical chance to get what is theirs.

The political process also requires the drafting of a Transitional Administrative Law. This draft was to be put in place by the end of this month. Iraqi leaders have only now started debating it. It is important to focus on constitutional arrangements but such a mechanism itself is not going to improve the situation. The assumption is that to make Iraq a workable democracy, the various groups need to understand the inclusive spirit of any such arrangement. This will-o’-the-wisp has not been managed in most developing countries even without the chaos that currently attends Iraq. Also, any notion that the US can, even if belatedly, get the UN’s expertise on the issue of constitutional guarantees eschews the fact that the UN is averse to going in now that the US fingers are burning.

Moreover, the United States is now part of the problem. It is difficult to see how it can, on its own, become a part of the solution. Whatever route it might want to take, one thing is clear: it needs to get out of Iraq as quickly as possible. If that requires handing over authority to the Iraqis quickly, so be it. Once a government is in place, the world should allow the Iraqis to sort out their mess. *

A sensible decision

The Indian government’s decision to allow its cricket team to go ahead with the visit to Pakistan is sensible. The visit, which was okayed in the wake of the current thaw in relations, was again put in near-jeopardy by officials of India’s home ministry who came out in force against it on the pretext of security. While we understand that security is an important issue and also appreciate the fact that India should be concerned about the security of its players, the second thoughts did not wash with most Pakistanis for various reasons. Pakistan has given guarantees that the Indian players will be provided top security; a 500-strong Indian squad is scheduled to come to Pakistan to participate in SAF games; and the Indian team of handicapped cricketers will be in Pakistan to play here. In neither of the two cases did the Indian home ministry object to the players coming to Pakistan. Most Pakistanis, therefore, were justified in thinking that someone at the home ministry was deliberately trying to be difficult. The Pakistan Cricket Board even threatened to take the issue to the ICC if India did not come to Pakistan.

Mercifully, the issue has been sorted out. And it works to the advantage of India more than in favour of Pakistan. The Indian cricket board would have lost out on huge money if Pakistan had refused to go and play in India in the future. The real cricket market is in India which is why the BCCI rakes in money. We are happy that both sides have managed to work this out without having to go to war! *

Home | Editorial

Share this story!