MGG Pillai Commentary View

<< Previous || Next >>

Iraq has a brutal dictator in power now, as it has for more than 80 years

BRUTAL DICTATORS IN IRAQ are not new. The British was one in iraq. So were the Sunni leaders that followed. Iraq had no free elections since the 1920s. And it showed during the recent referendum. The Americans, and its sidekick, the United Nations, are happy that all went well. As Saddam Hussein would have crowed in his day. The Iraqi know which way the bread is buttered, and voted accordingly. So it is not surprising that the Americans recorded, so they said, more than 90 per cent of the votes in many Shia and Kurd provinces. The Sunnis, having lost power, were expected to vote against. But the Americans added difficulties at the last minute. One would have required two thirds of a province to vote "no". The people did not know the details of the constitution they were voting for. The ministers did not go to the ground in a country which CNN had a think tanker in Washington say is better than during Saddam Hussein and and security improving day by day. But the Americans are caught in a Catch-22 situation: The Sunni and the Iraqi nationalist, who include Shias, Kurds, Turkomen and others, have vowed to make it difficult for the latest dictator in Iraq to succeed. The Sunnis know they will never rule Iraq again, and they will make it difficult for others to rule. Their task is made easier by the invader dismantling what existed in government and not putting its own in force. Now it is too late. Iraq is in the throes of a civil war. The invading force, the United States, will have its troops in Iraq for decades for it will be worse after they leave. Iraq is now a fourth world state, with anarcy and no government. You would not hear it in the newspapers.

What gets through to the world outside is particularly audacious attacks. The bombing of the Palestine hotel last week is one. The insurgents did it, the American-run cabal in Iraq tells us. We are also told that no US troops can be seen on the roads of Baghdad and those in Humvees and other military vehicles are told not to entertain Iraqis within ten feet. The American troops regard the Iraqi as their enemy. But could not the Palestine hotel bombing be the work of Iraqis who would do anything for money. The reporting in becoming more hostile, and the United States would like them to leave. What better way to force them to leave by bombing their residence and work place in Bangkok? I do not buy the theory that is current on television networks and newspapers, not yet, that it is the Iraqi nationalist who did it. Not when the British raided a police station under its command to rescue British troops caught setting off a car bomb, and two US troops were caught for the same reason. This is information war. So, news that is not favourable to the invading force is not revealed or when revealed, is brutally put down. The public the world over is fed with "official" views that all is well. The reality is worse. The Muslim, not only in Iraq, will not hear of any attacks on his religion, as a Christian would not in the United States or Europe or the world over. Each look upon the other as they are. In practical terms, the lowest common belief matters. The war against the adjective is deliberately taken to Iraq but it is actually against Muslims. In this period of racial equalty, the West will not say it, but in practice it is.

The dictator in Iraq, Saddam Hussein or the United States, is brutual, a mirror image, if you like, of the Muslim and the Christian on the ground. The people of Iraq, having only known dictators for 80 years, will vote what the dictator of the day wants. He knows no free election, and the rhetoric of one cuts no ice with him. To go against the referendum, two thirds must vote "no". No where else is this required. Not in the best of times. But is not the constituition a failure when it did not get two thirds in any province? Or in Iraq? The constitution is a failure. The United States knows it. The Sunnis are not part of the original constition-drawing committee. The Americans decided to invite non-elected Sunnis favourable, That does not ensure Sunni representation. When the United States lays great store in elections, an appointed Sunni joins the team subject to severe conditions. The non-elected member of parliament in Singapore is subjected to restrictions, but his presence in parliament gives the ruling Peoples Action Party credit for it is seen in public that it is not in full control of state and institution, which in fact it is. In Malaysia there is no such deviousness. The forms are followed, but the laws are made so that the opposition has no chance. It adopts the opposition, something the United States is trying to do in Iraq. Like the United States in Iraq. The Sunni, the powerhouse in Iraq for 80 years, knows he will not return, so he will destroy the country. No amount of paperwork, or misreading history, both of Iraq and the United States, will change the situation. Bringing an federation into Iraq could mean its breakup. Saddam Hussein ruled with an iron hand, and kept sectarian divisions under control. But the United States allowed it. It has lost the propaganda war, for its reasons for invading Iraq has been found false.

Would the election in December make any sense? The Sunni underground will not vote, or is he does, he will make sure his vote will not be counted. He does not see any hope in this new Iraq. Those Iraqis in power hold citizenships of the West and most were parachuted in. The discussion on the constitution was not with the people who had to vote for it, but President Bush, Prime Minister Tony Blair and other Western leaders. A referendum on the lines it was held in Iraq will not be held in settled communities. In Malaysia, the election in 1969 was postponed twice in Malacca - when the candidate died before the election and when a state of emergency was imposed for riots in Kuala Lumpur. Public rallies, especially by the opposition but not by the National Front, in peaceful Malaysia. Elections are postponed if there is any serious law and order situation. The referendum in Iraq annoys the Sunni and the Iraqi nationalist, and would make it difficult for the United States to succeed. I keep harping on what happened in South Vietnam. It is the United States which invaded the country, and fought against the nationalist. But there was not much destruction then. There is in Iraq. The Vietcong and Vietminh eventually won in South Vietnam. In Iraq, the nationalist knows the dice is loaded against him, and does not want to return to the power that Saddam Hussein had.

Another factor making the American invader having a rough time is Saddam Hussein's trial. The man is behaving not as the United States expected, and his trial, with his principled stand, will give the Sunni and the Iraqi vicarious victory. The United States is now talking of shifting the trial to another Middle Eastern country. If it does that, he, and the Iraqi nationalist and Sunni has won. The United States, faced with an insurgency that has no end is now faced with the fallout of the Saddam trial and gowing US public reaction against the war. You cannot run an empire on other people's money. But that is what the United States is doing. Its only product is money, and so it allowed US companies to hive off its manufacturing to cheaper Asian countries. The public was kept quiet for a while, but it lost the jobs as a result. Now, President Bush and the neocons are in trouble with his own Republican Party over the war in Iraq. The smoking gun is in the closet of the highest offical, and he would be forced to pull back the troops in Iraq before the next election. Vice President Cheney is implicated, and would have to resign to save the president. But unlike Vietnam, the United States has gone to war on terror with a Muslim country, and blamed Al Qaeda for it, and has made plans to get rid of the Saudi monarchy. I think he would not be allowed to, for local reasons, as he does not want to invade Syria over the Hariri assassination. He hopes the IAEC will rein in Iran on its nuclear plans. But the IAEC is discredited, although it has won the Nobel Peace Prize. The United States has manouevred it such that he got it. But it has to fight its battle in Iraq, with or without troops, for it has started a battle with no end in sight. The United States undersecretary for public diplomacy, Mrs Karen Hughes, visited Muslim nations to get these countries over, and her record is patchy at best. In Malaysia, the newspapers sang in praise of her visit and her results, but would the National Front go against the war in Iraq? It would not. The National Front cannot be against the war on Iraq, knows full well that the people are with Al Qaeda in this war on terror. Pak Lah is chairman of the Organisation of Islam Countries, but he is in the minority in supporting the United States. His attempt to get Dato' Seri Anwar Ibrahim to the chairmanship of a Muslim fund of nearly a billion US dollars came to nought. All Muslim countries now supporting the United States in this war on Iraq must eventually change sides, or its Muslim street would not let it alone.

M.G.G. Pillai
pillai@streamyx.com