---

Iraq and the wider Middle East

That point is well made, and it was well put on the front page of The Independent last Friday in an article on the crisis in the Iraqi health service. The only fig leaf left is the claim to be promoting democracy. The elections held were deeply flawed and would not be recognised as democratic elsewhere in the world. Many Iraqis were disfranchised because they were murdered, under threat, under assault—as in Falluja at the time—or rendered homeless. If the US and the UK hold those elections dear, why have they not acceded to the main causes promoted by the parties at the election—an end to the occupation or a sovereign unified Iraq? The biggest threat to that still comes from the US, which could choose an option—the option to break up Iraq—on a whim or out of desperation. What about Iraqi resources for Iraqis? A platform briefing on oil law yesterday said:"““Oil accounts were more than 75 per cent. of GDP, and 95 per cent. of government revenue. For multinational companies to take a significant share of this revenue could cost Iraq literally hundreds of billions of dollars over the coming decades.””" The new contract with the multinationals would"““tie the hands of future Governments, depriving them of democratic control of the country’s natural resource””." The western occupiers have also shown that the so-called democracy that they have unleashed can also be barbaric—for example, the grotesque hanging under taunt of Saddam Hussein and the decapitation of his brother-in-law. Indeed, hundreds of other executions have taken place. There are death squads and militias, among others, in the governing parties. Free rein is given to the US occupiers. On the subject of the surge of US troops, The Economist on 11 January this year stated that"““more civilians could get killed, whether by error, carelessness or worse””." Or worse? That just shows that the troops are part of the killing. Then there is corruption. On 22 January, The Independent reported that of"““the $33 billion development fund for Iraq... more than half the money—$14 billion—is believed to have vanished through corruption, theft and payment to mercenaries.””" The lack of development and social progress is another factor. Again, The Economist said that"““the military campaign has to be intimately bound up with economic and political progress””—" fat chance of that. Democracy is incompatible with insecurity and I take the view that it is also incompatible with occupation. They are a contradiction in terms. To add a little philosophical basis to my argument, the Ugandan historian, Mahmoud Mamdani, said of the claims of colonialism to impose democracy that ““colonialism is intrinsically despotic””. He described the political system that results in a ““decentralised despotism””, which is what we have in Iraq. His words can be bolstered by those of Abe Lincoln, who said:"““When the white man governs himself, that is self-government, but when he governs himself and also governs others, it is no longer self-government; it is despotism.””" A more current writer, Sam Vaknin, said:"““As the United States is re-discovering in Iraq and Israel in Palestine, maintaining democratic institutions and empire-building are incompatible activities. History repeatedly shows that one cannot preserve a democratic core in conjunction with an oppressed periphery of colonial real estate.””" I believe that democracy is incompatible with occupation. Just look at it in Iraq. The power lies with the occupier and the democratically elected Government have very limited powers and are easily bullied by the occupying power. The police are not trusted and are ineffective. The army, which, ridiculously, was disbanded, is inadequate, and the occupying forces, despite their overwhelmingly powerful presence, are very limited in what they are prepared to take responsibility for and what they are prepared to secure. Protecting the oil wells rather than the population has had predictable results. The population does not live under a beneficent or even an efficient democracy, they live in terror—terror of being killed and of their loved ones being killed or being injured and finding that there are no medical supplies at the hospital. The occupiers are not a solution to the terror—they are contributors to it—and their presence provides the raison d’être for the violence of the insurgents, many of whom, both Shi’a and Sunni, see themselves as nationalist resistance freedom fighters. As Dr. Glen Rangwala said in the meeting that we held in Parliament yesterday:"““The occupation distorts and blocks the prospect of a compromise between the main groups. The prospect of such a compromise is much stronger without the US presence than with it.””" In those circumstances, the emerging new attitude of humility in the Government in the country—it was expressed by the Chancellor—is appropriate in acknowledging errors and the fact that the Government cannot do it all. In Iraq, the UK Government, as part of the occupying forces, have failed, and failed miserably. So humility is right, but it is not enough—bravery is needed—the courage to leave and to let Iraq heal itself without the occupying forces. Whatever the opposing fractions in Iraq, it is in our power to take out the causal factor, namely, the military occupation. Democracy is best served by the occupying forces leaving, and I say that they should leave quickly.