Luc Debieuvre: A farewell to law
| Special to Gulf News | 13-11-2003
Did America ever realise it was returning to the cradle of
civilisation on reaching Mesopotamia? They went anyway, 3,000 years
back as far as pre-eminence of law versus absolute strength is
concerned.
America today is at war with Iraq not to fight criminals or terrorism
but because they have an interest in it: a revenge interest because of
September 11, 2001, although no link with Al Qaida was ever proven; a
security interest, although they could not find weapons of mass
destruction ,WMD; a faith interest because, as President Bush has
said, "Iraq is a part of a global democratic revolution".
The Bush Administration has many motives to stay where they are and
the way they call their war will change nothing to it, provided they
can justify a military occupation and a landmark for juicy contracts.
The lawless unilateral decision of the Bush Administration to declare
war on Iraq was supposed to be legitimised afterwards. History shows
it often happens to illegal actions that are successful. Yet, it did
not happen with Iraq where the situation worsens every day.
Let us put aside bombings, civilian dead and wounded, infrastructure
destruction and post-war management incompetence; let us focus on
daily realities: "Wouldn't you react if your country was invaded?" a
man in the street was heard as saying to the press. The rest is
insignificant.
Establishing a distinction among daily attacks between military, Al
Qaida or nationalist actions is indeed of very little value after
listening to an Iraqi child collecting the debris of a crashed Chinook
helicopter in Faludja: "I'll keep and give them to Saddam when he
comes back!".
What will Rumsfeld or Wolfowitz' incantations about their willingness
"to achieve our mission in Iraq which is precisely to get rid of this
type of criminals and to invite the world to fight against the new
alliance of Saddam supporters and international terrorism" do as long
as cheering crowds dance in the street when a US helicopter crashes?
Unforgettable words
The Bush Administration is leading a war in Iraq which incidentally it
is not winning in spite of the unforgettable words of Bush: "the more
progress we achieve on the field, the more ferocious attacks we shall
face".
American soldiers in Iraq, albeit hidden behind their concrete walls
with no contact with the local population, are foreigners. People
fighting them are mainly Iraqis, be they "Iraqi terrorists" or "Iraqi
resistance": since WWII, every occupying army has called "terrorist"
resistant.
In the meantime, US soldiers "bunkerise" themselves and become
increasingly distant and anxious whereas reconstruction actions slides
away and resentment exacerbates. Yet, they will not change.
They will even not share the slightest responsibility as for instance,
entrust the Iraqis with keeping the security.
"Leave the Iraqis take care themselves of their own security and you
will see that they know how to do it" recently said the Najaf Governor
to P. Bremer. But this is denied to Iraqis. The US will not give up a
nail until they get back a satisfactory return on investment.
They call it 'implementing democracy' but everybody understands.
Choking down a sob, the WSJ was recently complaining that "rather than
report on Saddam Hussain torturers, journalists care only about
Halliburton's contracts".
It would indeed be so easy to leave them and others go on reaping the
country and put it up for auction.
Even a former World Bank official rang the bell as to the way the
occupying Administration rules the issue of the privatisation, with no
technology transfer and little training: "Before privatisation, you
need a government, a functioning Finance Ministry and real security".
A recent lawyers' conference in London warned that many aspects of
this process may be illegal simply because they are contrary to local
law and constitution. But the US doesn't care because international
law doesn't apply to it. In modern times, when one started a crusade,
prior consent of the international community is needed.
"In an opened world, no one can live in isolation, no one can act
alone in the name of all" President Chirac said, echoed by Chancellor
Schroeder to whom "security in to-day's world cannot be guaranteed by
one country going it alone". Going together was the way countries
found to organise their relationship if it would not be founded on
strength only.
The place for that is the UN which were supposed to become
'insignificant' if they would not support the US in Iraq but still
remain the place today.
This is why the "global fight against terrorism" now comes in to
justify everything and this is when raises the legitimate question of
the "right of intervention", a matter often characterised by
cowardliness and hypocrisy.
Who would pretend that Saddam was not a terrible dictator and that the
world is surely better off without him? Yet, was his case an isolated
one and can one country act alone according to his own valuation
especially when the "45 minutes deployment time" and the WMDs proved
false?
Attacks take place daily in Iraq, even if they are 'co-ordinated',
come from many sources and the terrorist alibi is an intellectual
shame: terrorism is a multifaceted reality whose term is often used in
undiscerning ways.
Not recognised
What to think for instance of a country that would keep 680 prisoners
from 42 countries in 2.5 metee square aluminium cells with no
indictment, no judgement and no Geneva protection because they are not
recognised as 'prisoners of war' but merely 'combatant enemies'? This
is happening on an American-controlled territory, in Guantanamo.
Continuing to call both Iraqi nationalists or Saddam supporters
"terrorists", mixing up international terrorism, religious fanatic,
liberation movements or occupied populations fighting foreign presence
on their land will actually only result in diverting forces and
fighting efficiently none of them, would it only be because
international co-operation will miss.
Another step is now emerging with the 'forward strategy of freedom in
the Middle East', what President Bush calls "the establishment of a
free Iraq at the heart of the ME which will be a watershed event in
the global democratic revolution".
The point however is that the US are only interested in their
leaderships regardless their commitment to democracy.
"No one believes the US is genuine" says Jordan University's Harmane,
especially in front of US endorsement of Israel continued abuse of
Palestinian rights. There may be a solution, reminds Ph. Stephen in
the FT, as "only a political settlement between Israel and Palestine
will erode the visceral mistrust of the US". But this is not new; it
was written by the US envoy in Baghdad, in 1952.
The writer is a French political analyst and an economic expert.
.
|
