• Investment World
• eWorld
• Catalyst
• Mentor
• Life
• Canvas
• Praxis
• Urban Pulse
• Brand Quest

G. Parthasarathy

The US has decided that as the victor it should call the shots in Iraq, and the country is to be governed by serving and retired American diplomats, military officials and security experts. While Iraqis may accept such an arrangement initially, their resentment could quickly turn violent should the impression grow that the main Washington aim is to secure a long-term presence in the country and to profit from its oil resources, says G. Parthasarathy.

The Iraqi opposition leaders... Rising for a new beginning?

AS THE American-British onslaught on Iraq enters its fourth week, one can arrive at some initial conclusions about the conflict unleashed by the US President, Mr George Bush, on the regime of the Iraqi President, Mr Saddam Hussein.

First, there is no parallel in the history of modern warfare where a numerically small force comprising just two divisions has moved with such speed across inhospitable desert terrain, while leaving its supply lines exposed to a professional army defending its own homeland.

America's main strike force — the Fourth Infantry Division — is yet to make a significant entry into the conflict. At the same time, large sections of the Iraqi armed forces deserve praise for the resistance offered to a juggernaut that totally dominates the skies and possesses an overwhelming firepower.

The conflict has seen horrifying images of civilian casualties. It has resulted in the erosion of the credibility of the American media and particularly channels such as CNN. Efforts to demonise the Saddam Hussein regime have not succeeded. The Americans have encountered a sullen population that feels that it is faced with a choice between the devil and the deep blue sea.

The British and the Americans have made little, if any, progress in winning the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people. The United States is going to find that winning the war was far easier than winning the peace. It seems determined to ignore symbolisms that are essential to correct image that this war being fought primarily in order to gain control of the oil and gas resources of Iraq. The Iraq Liberation Act passed by the US Congress on October 31, 1998 stated: "It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to remove the regime of President Saddam Hussein from Iraq and promote the emergence of a democratic Government to replace that regime".

The Act also authorised the President to provide military, humanitarian and broadcasting assistance to secure the ouster of the Saddam Hussein Government and allocated $97 million for the first year of this effort. The Clinton Administration designated seven Iraqi opposition groups for bringing about "regime change" in Iraq.

These included the Pentagon's current favourite, the Iraqi National Congress, besides the Iraqi National Accord, the Movement for Constitutional Monarchy, three Kurdish groups and the Shia dominated and Iranian supported Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, led by the Teheran-based Ayatollah Baqir al Haqim. While two of the Kurdish groups designated by Washington enjoy popular support in the Kurdish areas, other groups such as the Iraqi National Congress lack both credibility and support.

The leader of the Iraqi National Congress Ahmed Chalabi has been in exile for 45 years and is widely perceived to be an American stooge. His financial integrity is regarded as being dubious as he faces charges of bank fraud in Jordan. The popular support of the Iranian-backed Supreme Council is, as yet, untested.

In any case the Americans are not going to allow circumstances to be created wherein a pro-Iranian religious party plays a dominant role in Iraq. There are even now serious differences between the US and Iran on the role being played by the Al Badr Brigade, which is the armed wing of the Supreme Council.

Even today the only organisation that enjoys grassroots presence in Iraq is Mr Saddam Hussein's Arab Baath Socialist Party. And, lest one forgets, it should be recalled that the coups staged by the Baath Party in 1963 and 1968 enjoyed CIA backing.

The US has decided that as the victor it should call the shots in post-war Iraq. The country is to be governed by Lt Gen Jay Garner who has for years been a representative of the American arms industry specialising in missile and space defence systems, including missile sales to Israel.

He is to be assisted by a number of serving and retired American diplomats, military officials and security experts including, perhaps, former the CIA Director, Mr James Woolsey.

While Iraqis at large may accept such an arrangement as being inevitable during a short transition period, their resentment could quickly turn into widespread violence should the impression grow that the main American aim is to secure a long-term presence in the country and to profit from its oil resources. Efforts to promote such people as Chalabi in an interim set up would only strengthen this impression.

It is evident that the US would like to assume a significant, and indeed dominant, role in Iraq's oil industry. While an investment $5 billion would be required to update Iraq's dilapidated oil infrastructure, a further investment of around $40 billion would be necessary to raise its production from present levels of 2 million barrels per day to 6 million barrels per day.

Strategists like Mr Woolsey have long cautioned against allowing Saudi Arabia to play the dominant role that it plays today in world oil market. Thus, expanding Iraq's production capacity makes sound strategic sense. There are, however, indications that the Bush Administration has already reached agreement with Iraqi opposition leaders in London that Iraq will privatise its oil industry and "establish a conducive business environment to attract investment in its oil and gas resources".

The US will soon find that it will lose whatever little goodwill it has in Iraq if a perception grows that its main interest has been to put together a government in that country that is guided and dominated by American oil interests. The Americans will soon have to resort to imaginative diplomacy to ensure that the legitimate and often competing interests of Iraq's neighbours such as Iran and Turkey are accommodated.

While the current emphasis on giving a marginal role to the UN may seem attractive, the US will have to recognise that it cannot indefinitely function in Iraq without a measure of international legitimacy. There has naturally been a rising tide of public opinion in India against the conflict in Iraq.

It is important for the Vajpayee Government to take steps to see that the Indian public opinion is persuaded that moralistic posturing is no substitute for a measured policy based on a realistic appraisal of our national interests. The loudly moralistic German Foreign Minister, Mr Joschka Fischer, now proclaims that he "hopes that the (Saddam Hussein) regime will collapse as soon as possible" and the Russian President, Mr Vladimir Putin, avers that he has no desire to see the US lose in the Iraq conflict.

We should not forget that in prosecuting its war against Iraq the US has enjoyed either open or covert support from nine of Iraq's neighbours. While all these neighbours are Islamic countries, eight are members of the much-touted Non-Aligned Movement.

As British forces approached Baghdad on March 28, 1917 after defeating the armies of the Ottoman Empire, the British Commander, Lt Gen Sir Stanley Maude issued the following proclamation to the people of Baghdad: "Our armies do not come into your cities and lands as your conquerors, but as liberators".

Maude went on to assure the people of Iraq a "future of greatness". Within six months Maude died of cholera and the British faced an Iraqi uprising that ultimately forced them to leave Iraq. There is much that Generals Tommy Franks and Jay Garner can learn from the British experience. History, then, need not repeat itself.

(The author is former High Commissioner to Pakistan.)

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication

Stories in this Section
To break auditor-management nexus...
SEC lays first brick of Chinese wall

Copyright © 2003, The Hindu Business Line. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu Business Line