VOL. XLVI
No 17
Arab Press Review
US Occupation Of Iraq
(MEES Translation)
The following is an extract from an article by ΄Abd al-Wahab Badrakhan (Managing Editor of al-Hayat) entitled “Occupation Or What? that was published in the paper of 21 April.
The word makes the Americans angry, for they convinced themselves that they conducted and are continuing to do so a “war of liberation.” The Iraqi people are very grateful for this liberation that could only be achieved the way it was on account of the deep-rooted nature of the dictatorial regime and the way it eradicated its opponents, either by killing them or exiling them.
Because the Americans were firm, not to say coarse, in their rejection of the term “occupation”, so those states and governments that felt scared refrained from using it to describe Iraq’s state after the war. Instead, “liberation” became the buzz-word after the collapse of the previous regime, and it has been reinforced by the disappearance of statues, pictures and posters – as well as the arrest of “wanted” officials from the regime (wanted by whom and for what – especially since the Americans are the ones receiving them, and they are not the new authority in Iraq). So what are we to call the state of affairs following liberation?
There is nothing in international law to sanction a war like this, even if pretexts were proffered or imposed. So while this war is still outside the confines of international law, the occupying force is continuing to rule out the involvement of international legitimacy, by way of the UN. Perhaps it will allow a role for the UN, but only after shackling it with conditions. Out of caution, certain Iraqi parties have begun accepting the occupation and criticizing the UN, but there is no doubt that they are adopting these positions at the request of the occupation forces.
There is no question but that Washington would prefer the state of affairs in Iraq to remain outside international law to enable the US to maintain freedom of action. In this respect the US appears to have learned from the way Israel deals with the UN, even in blocking any UN resolution relating to Iraq if it would force it to submit to international law. This means that the US does not want a day to come when the Security Council demands that it ends its occupation of Iraq – because the occupation will continue as long as the US needs it, in order to carry out what it calls “the redrawing of the map of the Middle East” according to visions in which Israel shares – and Israel alone.
In the light of such talk, it seems that the UN and regional blocs, like the EU, will be asked to play humanitarian roles to embellish the occupation and give it de facto legality outside the law. Because this is the only possibility available, it is conceivable that other groups will get involved as well, hoping by doing so to enhance their own interests and take a share of the contracts that the US and its companies leave. Beyond doubt is the fact that the failure of the international community to authorize a legitimate war by means of a genuine international coalition will enable the US to ignore any attempt by the world to influence it in future phases of its strategy of “preventive” wars, because they will be a natural extension of the results of the war on Iraq.
Even the states that joined the US coalition, like the UK, do not feel that their words will be heard in the near future, as other states in the region are targeted. And despite the “liberation” tag attached to this war, there are some voices in the UK who are demanding an investigation into the pretext that the war was waged in order to remove weapons of mass destruction.
Despite the fact that the Americans have behaved and are continuing to do so as an occupation power – and without any embarrassment, to the extent of handing out contracts to companies directly linked to the hawks in the administration – there are some people who remain wary of describing their presence in Iraq as an occupation, with all that the word implies. Sadly, though, under international law, there is no other description for it. For the US forces did not enter Iraq by chance or unintentionally. And the Iraqi people have still not forgotten that in the periods when the US was a friend, it was a friend to the regime that it came to remove.
