Madeleine Albright, former US secretary of state, famously known for replying, “we think the price (the death of over half a million Iraqi children as a result of years of sanctions) is worth it” has changed her tune.
She now says while Saddam Hussein was “terrible” he did not pose a threat to the US, adding, “one cannot go to war with everyone one doesn’t like.”
Ignoring such criticisms, the great “decider” George W. Bush is touting a glorious new dawn for Iraq, which finally gets a new prime minister after four months of wrangling.
Replacing Ibrahim Jaafari, leader of the Shiite Dawa Party, is the party’s second-in-command Jawad Al-Maliki, a hard-liner who has sworn to form a government of national unity and get to grips with the insurgency.
Whether or not this new broom will be successful in sweeping clean is another matter. He may have been heartily welcomed by the White House but there were no celebratory firework displays at home, only more bombs, rocket attacks and internecine executions.
Ordinary Iraqis are disillusioned. They risked their lives to exercise their democratic rights at the ballot box and their reward was more of the same — a precarious existence devoid of essential services, jobs or security. Al-Maliki, who until now has taken a political back seat, must prove himself and fast, so say the pundits.
But are we kidding ourselves? Just how much autonomy does the Iraqi government really enjoy? It’s been two years since the US occupier officially handed over sovereignty to the Iraqis, but wasn’t this just a charade?
First, Saddam Hussein is still in US custody and the court that is trying him is obviously under US diktats.
More important, the Iraqi government still has to abide by a slew of edicts or “binding directives and directives” laid down by Iraq’s former US ‘viceroy’ Paul Bremer before the political handover.
Then the big question is who gets to control Iraqi oil. A report on the Global Policy Forum suggests, the future of “this valuable asset” is being decided behind closed doors.
The report suggests that while “Iraqi public opinion is strongly opposed to handing control over oil development to foreign companies” with the “active involvement of the US and British governments a group of powerful Iraqi politicians and technocrats is pushing for a system of long-term contracts with foreign oil companies”. These, it says, will “be beyond the reach of Iraqi courts, public scrutiny or democratic control.”
Bush says that once the Iraqi police and military become proficient, US troops can begin to withdraw. But what he doesn’t mention is that the new billion-dollar US Embassy currently being constructed is set to be the largest and most fortified in history.
This mammoth project will cover 104 acres and comprise massive office blocks, apartment buildings, villas, clubs, a food court as well as electricity and water treatment plants. The size of the Vatican, this complex is set to be entirely independent from the rest of Baghdad.
Given that Iraq is supposed to be a sovereign entity, one must surely ask why the US needs this town within a city. Will there be only diplomats living there or contingents from the military and the CIA? One thing is certain. They’ll be doing a lot more than hosting garden parties.
The US says it bought the land upon which the complex is being built from the Iraqis, but which Iraqi had the right to authorize this when until now there hasn’t been a permanent government?
Bush further omits to talk about the five permanent US bases that are rumored to being built in Iraq. In fact, the administration has attempted to quash these rumors.
However, the Pentagon has requested hundreds of millions of dollars for military construction in Iraq.
Even the US House Appropriations Committee is suspicious, citing the hefty amounts “of being of a magnitude normally associated with permanent bases.”
The crucial test of the Iraqi government’s independence is whether the US will quit the country if requested to do so.
Albright has referred to the invasion of Iraq as one of the greatest failures of US foreign policy. This depends on how one looks at it. If the US was out to control Iraqi oil, weaken Iraq so that it’s no longer a perceived threat to Israel and establish strategic control over the region then it has achieved just what it set out to do.
When one looks at the broader scenario, however, there are far larger repercussions with which the US is being forced to contend.
Top of the list is the loss of global credibility that the US once enjoyed. Nations that would once have followed the superpower blindly are now hesitant with the mood being “once bitten, twice shy”. Thus, the Bush administration is having serious problems gaining support for a confrontation with Iran over its alleged nuclear ambitions.
Indeed, there is currently a political reshuffle going on with America’s foes forming security alliances with other big powers such as Russia and China, while Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, and various Palestinian groups have come closer together. Iraq’s radical Shiite cleric Moqtada Sadr has said his militia would defend Iran if that country were attacked.
Bush’s hopes of bringing India into his ideological fold were dashed when it was announced that India, Pakistan and Iran had agreed to go ahead with a 2,100 km gas pipeline, against US advice.
Russia isn’t toeing the superpower’s line either. It is digging in its heels over plans to sell Tehran 29 TOR M1 mobile surface-to-air missile defense systems, and refuses to back Security Council sanctions against Iran unless there is absolute proof that Tehran is developing nuclear weapons.
It further looks as though Bush’s attempt to woo China have failed with no substantial agreements emerging from the recent visit of the Chinese premier Hu Jintao to Washington on policy relating to either Iran or North Korea.Closer to home, the US is losing its traditional influence in Latin America, thanks in part to the efforts of Venezuelan leader Hugo Chavez, who refers to George Bush as “Mr. Danger”, and is currently attempting to create an anti-globalization, anti-imperialist bloc. Interestingly, oil-hungry China is moving in.
Ms. Albright is probably right in her analysis. Going a step further, the days of the lone superpower may be coming to a close. It enjoyed a brief moment of being the world’s policeman and it has failed dismally on moral and ethical grounds.
It may be too soon to welcome in a bi or multipolar world but the signs are that red carpets are already being rolled out for the newcomers.
