The dignified indifference displayed by ordinary Iraqis at the so-called handover on 28 June 2004 sends an important message to both the United States and those (mainly Arab) critics who have been beating their chests in dismay at the sight of Iraqi sovereignty under the US imperial jackboot. It contains a wake-up call for those wise enough to hear it: that once-lofty ideals like independence, sovereignty and national integrity have been tarnished by rulers like Saddam Hussein in Iraq, Mullah Omar in Afghanistan, Slobodan Milosevic in ex-Yugoslavia and Pol Pot in Cambodia.
The low-key, hastily arranged ceremony behind closed doors has prompted sceptics, among them Haider Saeed, to brand the whole affair as a stage-managed charade. How many times, they seem to wonder (to rephrase Bob Dylan) must a country win independence before it is allowed to be free? But in their grief over the loss of Iraqi sovereignty, these voices forget that, in the colonial era, people longed for independence as a means to get rid of their foreign oppressors not to replace them with a local version.
openDemocracys coverage of Iraq includes the voices of Iraqis in dialogueand the weekly global security column of Paul Rogers. A selection from our two years of debate is here.
They forget, in short, the tortuous route that has brought Iraq and its people to this point. Over thirty years of brutal dictatorship, three bloody wars and unprecedentedly cruel United Nations sanctions (imposed and maintained at the behest of the United States) have reduced the great majority of Iraqis to a condition of disoriented, listless, despondency in which mere day-to-day survival is the primary concern.
Many have reacted by seeking succour in religion, praying for strength to endure their suffering. What the irrationally fatalist, resigned patient needs now is to be helped to stand on his feet and regain a semblance of normality. To assail the phoney sovereignty granted on 28 June is to hit the wrong target.
There is an Iraqi joke which I find instructive in this context. A young couple are caught doing it in public. The young man explains to the police officer that he had been showing the girl how to mend an oil leak under a lorry. The police officer patiently listens, then says finally: First, you dont repair an oil leak with your pants down; second, she will not learn how to repair it with her skirt up covering her face; and third, what lorry?!
Let us not kid ourselves. What sovereignty?! The United States invaded Iraq for reasons that have nothing to do with the plight of Iraqis under dictatorship. It was recognised by the United Nations as an occupying power with responsibilities towards Iraqis, which it has failed to fulfil. The US appointed an Iraqi government and decided to grant it legal sovereignty. America may have its own reasons to boast of the handover; but Iraqis should be unillusioned and honest with themselves.
Instead of taking their cue from the mendacious United States, Iraqis in positions of influence should frankly tell the Iraqi people: limited as our power is, we should do our best with what we have. They should make it clear that they have no illusions about American motives, including the voracious demand for oil. But they should also recognise that there are benefits in a historical moment when Iraqi interests broadly converge with those of the United States.
To have the most powerful country in the world as a partner is a valuable asset in the murky politics of the Middle East. What is more, America has much to impart in terms of individual liberties, technological innovation and scientific brilliance. Germany and Japan were able to rise from the ashes under its tutelage to build prosperous economies and cultivate developed democracy in a state of diminished sovereignty.
The post-handover government could explain this to the Iraqi people, and invite Iraqis to consider whether or not even incomplete sovereignty is better than having the former murderous regime in power. Would they rather have an occupying power whose abuses can be exposed by its own people than a regime where all kinds of crimes and atrocities were committed in total secrecy and with absolute impunity? Would they prefer a flourishing free press, the freedom to demonstrate against occupation and protest against its practices, to being muzzled, repressed and persecuted?
Iraqs best hope
Pan-Arabists and other nationalists who lament the loss of Iraqs sovereignty would do better to remember that the former dictator was quite happy to rule a country with a seriously truncated sovereignty. Saddams Iraq had two no-fly zones in the north and south of the country, and about 4 million Kurdish citizens beyond his remit. The irony is that they were safer then than they are now.
No, I do not subscribe to the view that the handover is part of a bigger political game or charade, as members of the conspiracy club argue, and as Haider Saeed implies.
There is, nevertheless, a big problem of credibility regarding United States policy and its commitment to democratic change. As it was preparing to bring democracy to Iraq, Washington recognized a coup that toppled Hugo Chàvez, the democratically-elected president in Venezuela. It has since turned a blind eye to fraudulent elections in countries like Azerbaijan. Some of Americas closest allies have been some of the worst human rights abusers, including medieval fiefdoms in Iraqs backyard.
I have a hunch that it will be enormously thrilling, and equally embarrassing for some, to hear what Saddam has to say at his trial about the aid showered on him by the US, Britain and other western democracies as he was gassing his own people in the 1980s. But let us get one thing straight: I firmly believe that nothing better can happen to Iraq than for it to develop into a viable western-style democracy without its former external arrogance, aggression and hypocrisy. One aggressive democracy in the region is already one too many.
