Atlantic Free Press - Hard Truths for Hard Times - Legalizing Occupation: Bush’s Last Manoeuvre in Iraq

Home

Legalizing Occupation: Bush’s Last Manoeuvre in Iraq

Written by Ramzy Baroud
Wednesday, 18 June 2008
by Ramzy Baroud When US forces descended on Baghdad five years ago, they seemed unstoppable. Military arrogance had reached an all time high, and it seemed only a matter of time before the same frenzied scenario took place in Teheran, Damascus, and elsewhere. As it turned out, festivities began dwindling almost as soon as they were pronounced. One could argue that the day Saddam's status was toppled was the very same day that the US army faced its real battle in Iraq, one that continues to hinder long-term strategic planning, if not the once-touted US Middle East project altogether. Five years of continuous and unrelenting blood baths may have toned down Bush's expectations. The lonely crusader who once vowed to fight tyranny at any cost is now trying to secure a treaty that would indefinitely secure US interests in Iraq. His administration may essentially be hoping to achieve what it regards as the best possible outcome of a worst possible situation. Co-opting the UN has helped secure temporary legitimacy to the occupation. The international body, once rendered irrelevant, became a major hub for American diplomacy seeking to legitimise its occupation in a country that refuses to concede. Even willing Iraqi leaders, perfectly rehearsed elections and mass suppressions have failed to bring the desired stability and validation. Of course, White House, State Department and US military spokespeople ventured into endless predictable talk about democracy, freedom, liberty and security in order to woo an increasingly agitated American public. But US action on the ground spoke of another reality: an imperial quest, with monopoly on violence and disregard of international law, the national sovereignty of Iraq and near total disregard of the human rights of its citizens. Now the Bush administration is ready to crown its Iraq travesty with a long-term strategy that would turn Iraq's occupation into a lasting one. The US is 'negotiating' a treaty with the Iraqi government, one that would replace the UN mandate and legalise the US occupation of Iraq permanently. Basically, time is running out for Bush. If no treaty is reached by the end of the year, his administration could find itself pleading to the Security Council for another extension of the mandate. This would be an embarrassing and dangerous scenario for US diplomacy because it would allow Russia and China to re-emerge as important players wielding fearsome veto powers. By signing a long-term treaty, the Bush administration would pre-empt any action by a future Democratic president of Iraq. When the UN Security Council voted unanimously to extend the US-led multinational forces in Iraq in November 2005, the US celebrated the decision as a sign of international commitment to Iraq's political transition. John Bolton, US ambassador to the UN at the time, had repeatedly lambasted the UN and now saw "the unanimous adoption of this resolution (as) a vivid demonstration of broad international support for a federal, democratic, pluralistic and unified Iraq." After this the Pentagon said the "US planned to cut the numbers of troops next year." Since then, the opposite has actualised. Iraqi troops failed their first serious test — in failing to crack down on Al Mahdi army — and US forces grew in numbers. In order for the US to sign a long-term strategic treaty with the Iraqi government, it needs a level of stability. The US military should be able to macro-manage Iraq as troops relegate to their permanent bases — 50 according to a report by Patrick Cockburn in the UK Independent — while their Iraqi allies give an illusion of sovereignty in dealing with day-to-day life in Iraq. The US' dilemma is that this coveted stability is nowhere in sight. Since late 2007, officials in the US, the UN and Iraq have asserted that they have no intention of seeking another UN mandate. The US-Iraq treaty is thus the only option that will legalise the American occupation. The idea of the treaty is to give the impression that the relationship between the two is not that of the occupied and the occupier, but two sovereigns with mutual interests and equitable rights. Iraqis are, unsurprisingly, furious about US expectations from the treaty. According to Cockburn, "Iraqi officials fear that the accord, under which US troops would occupy permanent bases, conduct military operations, arrest Iraqis and enjoy immunity from Iraqi law, will destabilise Iraq's position in the Middle East and lay the basis for unending conflict in their country." Iraqi cabinet spokesman Ali Al Dabbagh was quoted by Iraqi TV as saying that government will not compromise on Iraq's sovereignty and is committed to "safeguarding Iraq's full sovereignty in line with international resolutions." Although it is difficult to believe in Prime Minister Al Maliki's commitment to 'full sovereignty,' one cannot underestimate the pressure he faces at the parliament — fractious alliances, nationalists from various backgrounds, unstable Shia front, sceptical Sunni leadership. Aljazeera reported on how two of these legislators testified to the House Foreign Affairs subcommittee that, "US troops should leave Iraq before talks on a long term security pact could be completed." Khalaf Al-Ulayyan, the founder of the National Dialogue Council wants talks delayed "until there is a new administration in the United States," the exact scenario that the Bush administration is hoping to avoid. The US wants an agreement by July, one that would be hard to reverse even by a Democratic president. To avoid embarrassment, "it's entirely possible that the Bush Administration, sometime this summer, will force the hapless regime of Prime Minister Maliki to submit to a US diktat on a US-Iraq accord." (Robert Dreyfuss, The Nation). "If Maliki signs the accord, and ignores the opposition from parliament, he would instantly lose whatever remaining credibility he has left as an Iraqi leader," which would lead to more violence in Iraq at the eve of US elections. "Not a pleasant scenario," asserts Dreyfuss. One can argue that no pleasant scenarios are possible in Iraq at any time under a US military presence. Iraq's past treasures were squandered immediately after its 'liberation' by US forces, and its present is daunted by bloodshed and uncertainty. The Bush administration now wants to ensure that the country's future is also compromised by violence, humiliation and war. Ramzy Baroud (www.ramzybaroud.net) is an author and editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers and journals worldwide. His latest book is The Second Palestinian Intifada: A Chronicle of a People's Struggle (Pluto Press, London) Comments (1) Subscribe to this comment's feed apna nam: nothing new-this is what I said 10 years ago about anglosaxon plan to steal others assets . year--1997 Irak is right in demanding ouster of anglo-saxon spies from hollowed Iraki's soil.In name of uno, and before that leage of friends ,and now Amnesty International, this heyena country called england has installed a lot bof speis all over World and has virtually hijacked Americans to do their domestic and foreign policies for furtherance of british (england's ) interest than even American 's interest. These days for last few years a lot of Kurdish refugees(who by the way are more aryans than all the europeans combined-though it is irrelevant here)are escaping from Turkey because of Turkish pressure. But nobody has ever stopped Turkey from having her air space nor has anyone bobed them. and why should anyone?Who has given right to a handfull of countries to be a policeman? Could they dare demand such thing at time of so called cold war? Every december,ever since gulf war there is a show of bullying tactics by anglo-saxons in middle east. There is really no ground but excuse is created because this race feels uplifted when others are insultated. Also there is a low cost exercise in bullying any other nation by military postures. Why should Iraq not have weapons as he desires?in 1981, when the israelis had bombed the iraqui nuclear reacto(a few days before going critical) it was britain)govt, and british media) who had vwhemently opposed Israeli daring action and did a lot of anti-jewish propaganda. Atleast Begin had a reason to fear from the arab enemy of israel. even in '82 Lebanon war it was britain which was most vociferous in criticizing Isreali militay action at the same time minimizing the Isreali Airforce's achievement in destroying Bacca's valley missiles through high tech method.In fact What americans did in gulf war was what Isreali had achieved way back in '82 in Lebanon war and America obtained that military know-how from Israelis after Lebanon war. But gulf war is justifiable on basis of military superirity but not Lebanon war. In fact when an american general said that america learned a lot from Israelis' achievement then the american defense minister Winnberg said that itAmerica learned not from Israeli but from British. Ofcourse we all know that Wnnberg was (awarded sir) more of anbritish defense minister than american one. He was pro-british and anti-jewish (and antirussian and all others aswell). In fact in lebanon war the american foreign secratary was changed because the british did not like Hague's attitude. This much britain exercises influence in american affairs. Now having installed all the stooges in Arab world britain has discarded her sham veil of Arabists and openly insults(through america ofcouse because on own britain is not even a fourh grade power)the arab world.Talking about the stooge, have you wondered why these days even Yeltsin's bad health no longer makes any headline news in anglosaxon world?Before any cold that Yeltsin had was niticed and still before that any peon from Russia had a headline news ' material. The reaon is simple. Britain has installed in Russia not only a mad man likes yelstin but also a second line of stooge successor to him. After Yelstin usefullness is over then he will be replaced by those second line of british stooge who at the moment are already controlling Russia and destroying her everyday. Democracy ,as understood today, basically means any system which gives free hand to britain to exploit other races. If their is one example of what an evil this so called capitalism is and what a saviour communism(britain does not dislike communism, she dislikes other's prosperity and independence whether it comes from communism, nationalism or what ever)is: this ruinous example of Russia is the real lesson. China is right to hold on to her nationalistic pursuit. It really is a war between anglo-saxons and the rest of the world. It is a race war.Sooner the rest of the world realizes that better it would be and this danger would be sorted out. You remember that at the height of cold war in mid 80's there was a lot of activities of C.N.D. You would expect that with so called cold war finished, this C.N.D. would be asking to the british peoples to leave the nuclear weopons given to her,out of pity and filiaty, by the United states. But exactly opposite happened. C.N.D. has been defunct since than. It is as if that was a front of the british govt. to show by way of propaganda that that country had some moral voice.In other words, C.N.D. was a sham created by the british to give them respectability. Ofcourse when a non-anglosaxon country aould perfect their nuclear weopon,as France rightly did, then there would be a lot of hue and cry by the anglo-saxons' media. France and china are right in strenghtening their independent military power. The real danger to world comes from england and her anglosaxons agents. France understand that and Germany was a fool in not supporting France in Nato meeting this Summer. Just as Cnd has been proved a sham of british propaganda, more so is the sham which goes by the name of amnesty international. It is interesting that as soon falkland war started, within a few weeks this amnesty international presented a dozier on Argentina. In the same way as soon gulf war started(soon after Iraqui's intervention in kuwait) the same amnesty international presented a dozier and report on Iraqui's atrocities. an fact many of the amnesty allegations were just a copy of what british media was saying and which later on proved to be fabrication and great big lies. But bthis did not dent the reputation of amnesty international. british propaganda ensured that. IN '88 when Dalia lama,at the height of Tibetan disturbances, visited west, the then british prime minister refused to meet Him. Later on with the demise of Russia and usefullness of China gone and with manipulation to keep power in Hongkong somehow intact, the same british media and government ,like dog, started barking at China. It is interesting that amnesty international selectively targets those very countries(as it did china after cold war) who are out of faviour(because they would not be a brtish sttoge)of the british media and govt. This is not surprizing as amnesty international is the creation of british govt, and british media. england with the most appaling record of human rights in last 200 years of her evil rule, needed some organisation to keep the others from chrging england off her past and current evil practices. In other words it went for aggresive posture in propaganda war so that others can be demoralized and stopped from ponting out the real evil which is england. That is why amnesty international is one armour of the british lies to exploit the rest of the world. Amnesty international must be ignored and an independent human watchdog (which england will simply ignore) created. One purpose of amnesty international is to create an atmosphere for hatred towards the would be vitims of british exploitation so that a victim could be blamed to have deserved the consequences. That is why ,now amnesty international sometimes threatens China, sometimes India and etc. India because india needs to be cowed down and also so that India does not make nuclear wepon and thus feel free from future american(read english and anglosaxon)aggression. This is all to create an atmoshphere of mis information. The other countries are also responsible(out of sheer inferority complex) for giving these instuments of british propaganda so much imporatance. If they simply ignore and then the british lies and then themselves go in offensive(they can do it-no problem)against british exploitation and propaganda then tose countries would not in such dire strait as they are now. Think, this deteriration has happened in only last 20 years(thogh the british have been at this game for a long time but they were not always succesful when others have been vigilant).Ignoring and fighting all this anglosaxons propaganda, the other races(yes it comes to that) must unite and support each other against this common enemy england. The other nations should also go nuclear and assemble as much arm as possible ,collaborate on it and ignoring this anglosaxon race they must be prepared for war which tjhen would be prevented otherwise it would come inevitably. The other nations need to arm themselves to protect themselves from anglo saxon race. Thinking any other way is simply kidding oneself. And it can be done and will be done. WE throw a challenge to these low lifes-if the English feel themselves ao powerful them let them attack and win even Irak(already weaken by u.n.sanctions)without the help of u.n.sanctioins(that means Irak would have same freedom to acquire arms and means and Arabs and Israeli had in thier war) and with out u.s.a. England is neither Isreal of today nor Sparta of yesterday.Let them be reminded that at height of thier empire in 1917, England was almost defeated by Germans when German army's 3/4 th division was concentrated on Eastern front. These english are that weak and coward people.But thir mouth will have to shut for ever when all the whites ,European and Thirld world unite against this english disese. There is no point in telling them truth, they understand only one thing which they will soon get-tatal beating physically-the only language these animals understand. Hitler,who these worship was wrong about the jews who were only british agents-what Hitler said about jews applied not to jews but to the english(anglo-saxons).race-pity he did not do the the british what should have been done instead. Well It is never too late. For all those who talk of globalization and protection of intellectual property right, a small news which was never in prominent place in any of english speaking papers or news but was very much reported in French media. In the last weeks of October 98 was reported in French papers that 4 different French members of European Parliament were going to raise the question of industrial espionage of some 100 each of French and German companies by england in collaboration with u.s.a. and other anglo-saxon countries like Autralia and new zealand. In other words they same countries who made a lot of hue and cry over Indias nuclear test and who are the ones pushing for intellectual property rights and globalization. Thier modus operandi? Checking all satellite bases communication(telephone, fax, internet,etc)with help of klistening devices in anglosaxon countries and spying ao all the talks and messages all over world.This illegal activity is cordinated in england. European countries are loosins billions of dollars each years through leak of confidential techiqe and discovery. Apart form the fact that for tea,china, spices and plants this thief country england never paid anything for others' intellectual property right(why does royal doulton or british tea company not pay royalty to China?) this thief country england has done theft of German technology like urea making ang consequently ammunition making. In fact Standarsd oil company of america made a lot of theft of BAAs. a Germany company and many of the bombs which fell on Germany came from german tech. stolen by anglosaxon thieves england and america. That is not counting stolen from germans the tech. to make nuclear bomb and rockets. With these stolen technology has this anglo-american race been able to bully the rest of the world. And it wants to freeze the DIFFERENCE between it and other races in stone-for ever so that it can rule others unhindered. By the same mechanism it destroyed japanes and other Asian econmis. That is why India and others need very badly neclear deterence against enemies of the rest of the world.And the rest of world wants to break from ythier cluthes but has no courage because most of thirld world is governed by the likes of traitors like manmohan singh and Ahulliavala and spineless people like Jaswant Singh and Gujral and Atal bihari Vajpaye types 1 June 25, 2008 Write comment Name Title Comment Did you enjoy this article? Please bookmark it onto: Recommend this article...