My generation learned in school that colonial occupation and imperialism were over and their only place was in history books. The great powers of the world, however, who once occupied the Arab World and divided it, now have other means of protecting their interests. So much for school. This is the 21st century. For those of us who never experienced foreign occupation, we now have a chance to see it on live as-it-happens TV. In Al-Firdaws Square in Baghdad people were cheering the American and British forces, shouting, “Welcome, welcome!” People who had suffered under Saddam were understandably happy to be free of him. They tried to topple a statue of Saddam but had to ask for American help to finish the job. Down the statue came and it was danced upon and shoes struck its face in the ultimate Arab insult. Is this now the end of the Iraqi story? Will the invading conquerors be charitable enough to leave since their objective of “liberating” has been achieved?
Images followed of major looting in Iraqi cities; from all kinds of buildings, people stole furniture and anything that was portable while US Marines sat there in dark glasses, grinning at the scenes of liberation and chaos. An Egyptian TV news presenter said bitterly that these were not the Iraqi people who had been supported by marches in the streets of Arab capitals. He said that the looters were mercenaries brought in by the British and Americans to create chaos. His comments, however exaggerated, were heard throughout Saudi Arabia and people were shocked that this was the reaction of the Iraqi people after three weeks of bombing.
But think about it. Disappointing as it may be, are these not the same people who lived under Saddam’s oppressive regime and who endured and suffered 12 years of sanctions that left them completely vulnerable? It was a reaction that should have been foreseen and planned for. It is almost normal behavior in such circumstances. Yet even if such behavior is normal, shouldn’t the liberating — and occupying — forces have restored order and prevented looting? Isn’t that what the Geneva Conventions obliges an occupying power to do — protect civilians, private property and the basic infrastructure.
And after the euphoria, can we look at people who are searching for their dead relatives or their imprisoned relatives or trying to salvage their belongings from the rubble of war. An Iraqi woman was quoted in Arab News, “It’s good to have this new liberation. But life has got worse for us, not better.” Some people say that the Iraqi people are happy and that critics simply refuse to admit it. They may indeed be happy today, but for how long? How long can a father be happy when his children have no water, no medical care and when he himself has neither job nor income?
Anas Shallal, founder of Iraqi-Americans for Peaceful Alternatives, says: “People are happy, not just because Saddam is out, but also because of the end of the bombing and of 12 years of economic sanctions.” Shallal recalls: “When I was a kid in Iraq, we had coups and I would go out and jump in the street because it was the coolest thing. The problem is what comes after.”
Sinan Antoon, an Iraqi poet, writes in Al-Ahram Weekly, “Tyranny is now replaced with colonialism ...Yes there were Iraqis cheering and dancing, but that should not be (mis)interpreted as rolling out the red carpet for American tanks.” He is skeptical about the intentions behind the liberation. “After surrounding the statue and announcing the end of Saddam’s era, the liberators stood still and watched the country descend into lawlessness....It is surely no coincidence that the only ministry protected from looting was the Ministry of Oil!” So what does come after Saddam? Ahmad Chalabi, leader of the Iraqi National Congress, is one suggested to lead Iraq. Chalabi, who has close ties to the Pentagon, seems to be “discredited” among a lot of Iraqis and Arabs because of alleged illegal financial transactions. Then there is Jay Garner, who is supposed to supervise the rebuilding of Iraq. Garner is known to have strong ties to Israeli Premier Ariel Sharon. In neither of these cases will the men suggested be acceptable to Iraqis. Shallal said on this subject in an e-mail to Arab News, “Not only will they not tolerate Jay Garner but they abhor Ahmad Chalabi.” And so it seems that whoever runs Iraq will have to be approved by and actually close to America. Does that say anything to those who have been cheering the liberation? Of course, in this new colonial era, it would not be “acceptable” to have those who are pro-Arab running an Arab country. It is time for us to wake up and smell the coffee.
Arab News Opinion 15 April 2003
