Middle East Economic Survey
VOL. XLVII
No 31
The Political Scene (2 August 2004)
Iraq’s Interim Prime Minister Ayad ΄Allawi has been on a two-week tour of six Arab states, including three bordering his country, with security at the top of the agenda. The Iraqi leader won promises of support in trying to stop infiltration into Iraq, and he laid the foundation for the resumption of normal diplomatic relations with key states in the Arab world. The crisis in Sudan is deepening, with the Khartoum government powerless to meet the demands being made by the international community if it is to avoid eventual UN sanctions being imposed on the country.
Iraq Wins Regional Friends
On the face of it, this was perhaps not the most appropriate moment for Iraq’s Interim Prime Minister Ayad ΄Allawi to undertake a lengthy tour of Arab states (Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait). At home he faces a mountain of problems, not least those of deteriorating security. In the period since the transfer of sovereignty on 28 June, around 1,000 Iraqis have been killed. Not only have police stations and other buildings associated with the government been coming under daily attack from suicide car bombers but dozens of people – Iraqis, other Arabs, Asians and Africans, as well as Westerners – have been kidnapped.
But it was with the aim of winning regional support for his government’s efforts to end the lawlessness in Iraq that Mr ΄Allawi undertook his two-week regional tour, which began on 18 July. In particular, he sought and won assurances from his Arab neighbors that they would cooperate in trying to stop the uncontrolled passage of people across Iraq’s borders that has been possible since the US-led coalition authorities disbanded the Iraqi army and security services after the invasion last year. Speaking during his visit to Saudi Arabia, Mr ΄Allawi blamed his American backers for much of the chaos that his government is trying to deal with today. Removing the security apparatus, he said, “was a gross mistake which opened the door for different gangs to wreak havoc in Iraq.”
Securing the border, of course, will do little to ease Iraq’s current security problems. And with a frontier that is thousands of kilometers long, much of it passing through empty and inhospitable desert, the task will be far from easy. Nevertheless, Mr ΄Allawi will be content that he received undertakings from his Arab neighbors that they will do their best in the campaign to stop the movement of undesirable elements into Iraq.
Political Gains
Aside from the pledges of help with security issues, Mr ΄Allawi will be satisfied with the political gains of his regional tour. In all the states he visited he was able to lay the ground for the resumption of normal diplomatic relations – evidence, he will judge, of the unequivocal recognition by the key Arab states of the legitimacy of the Interim Government in Baghdad. In particular he will be relieved to have received such recognition from Syria, one of the most vocal opponents both of the US-led invasion of Iraq and America’s subsequent political and military role there. Speaking on 26 July, Syria’s Foreign Minister Faruq al-Shara΄ said the legitimacy of the ΄Allawi government derived from the fact that the UN had played a role in its formation.
Nevertheless, not all political groups in the Arab world share this view. The main Jordanian opposition Islamic Action Front protested against the ΄Allawi visit, describing the current administration in Baghdad as “a puppet and tool in the hands of the Americans,” and accusing it of fighting the “honest Iraqi resistance.” In Lebanon, a number of left-wing and Islamic groups urged Lebanese officials not to receive the Iraqi delegation. The Druze Progressive Socialist Party said Mr ΄Allawi’s tour was taking place in an atmosphere in which people were “keen to jump on the American bandwagon.”
Nevertheless, such sentiments will not cause the interim Iraqi prime minister to lose sleep. Rather, his hope will be that the leaders he has met over the past two weeks honor their promises to cooperate in his government’s Herculean task of restoring peace to Iraq.
Iran: Iraq’s “Main Enemy”
The one regional power not on Mr ΄Allawi’s agenda – and the one with a very long shared border – was Iran. During his visit to Saudi Arabia, the Iraqi leader made a passing reference to his country’s eastern neighbor, saying: “We are working on having better relations with Iran. We have no proof that Iran or any other state is implicated in terrorist activity in Iraq.” But a strikingly different tone on this subject was adopted in separate statements from two of his senior ministers. Defense Minister Hazim Sha΄lan, in an interview published in the Washington Post on 25 July came out with the astonishing assessment that Iran remained “the first enemy of Iraq,” adding that Iranians had taken over Iraqi border positions, sent spies and saboteurs into the country and infiltrated the new government. “I’ve seen clear interference in Iraqi issues by Iran,” he said. “Iran interferes in order to kill democracy… We can send the death to Tehran’s streets, like they do to us. But we can’t do it if we are a democracy. But if my people say do it now, I will do it.” Four days later, Asharq al-Awsat quoted Iraq’s Interior Minister Falah al-Naqib as saying there were signs that Iran was directly linked to acts of terrorism being carried out in his country – but he did not know whether the Tehran government itself was involved. He added that this matter and the issue of controlling the common border would be discussed during a meeting of regional interior ministers in the Iranian capital in August.
Given the vehemence of the two ministers’ comments, one has to assume that Mr ΄Allawi, in his remarks in Jiddah, was simply observing diplomatic niceties. If so, then the rather ominous prospect is the possibility of yet another era of strained relations between Baghdad and Tehran.
Darfur Crisis Deepens
With the growing threat of international sanctions hanging over it, the Sudan government finds itself in an increasingly helpless position. It faces demands from the international community to disarm the Janjaweed militias and arrest those responsible for the killing of an estimated 30,000 people or face eventual UN sanctions. No matter how dreadful the humanitarian aspect of the crisis may be, these are demands that the Khartoum government will be unable to meet. The Janjaweed militias are a group of Darfur tribes allied with the Sudanese army against other tribes associated with the southern rebel movements. The Khartoum authorities may have been at fault for not imposing the control of its own army there in the first place. But the notion of disarming vast tribes in the region is totally unrealistic. In essence, the conflict in the Darfur region is tribal – stoked and encouraged by a number of Sudan’s neighbors for their own reasons. Different tribes – made up, to a large extent, of people of mixed Arab/African descent – are competing for meager resources. It is misleading, therefore, to characterize it as a battle between Arab Jangaweed militias and others of African origin.
The more important question is whether economic sanctions on Khartoum would have any effect on a conflict of this kind. It seems unlikely. Not only are the Sudanese authorities physically unable to disarm the Janjaweed, but to even order such a move would almost certainly lead to the collapse of the government and a period of political instability. Furthermore, sanctions would further undermine Sudan’s already ailing economy, causing still more hardship for large sections of the population. It would be surprising if the demonization of the Khartoum government by the international community and the alienation of the Sudanese people living under sanctions did not result in a surge of support for anti-Western Islamic groups. Sudan can be helped more by keeping it within the family of nations rather than expelling it.
It is with such thoughts in mind, and clear memories of the damage that sanctions have done to the economies and people of Iraq and Libya, that a number of states – including some permanent and temporary members of the UN Security Council (China, Russia, Pakistan, Algerian, Angola, the Philippines and Brazil) – are opposed to them. Darfur is a regional problem that needs to be dealt with by those in the region. Bringing the full weight of the Security Council to bear is tantamount to taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
Gerald Butt
(Charles Snow is on holiday)