The capture of Saddam Hussein on December 13 has raised many questions about the future of Iraq. Will the illegal occupation of Iraq by the United States of America bring peace, stability and democracy to the country? Will such democracy conform to the principles of modern governance? And will the United Nations be the catalyst in restoring the sovereign rights of Iraqis, now or later?

The neo-conservatives in the US have made Iraq the nub of their strategic doctrine of “benevolent dominance” of the world. And events are moving in their desired direction. The liberals in the West have finally come around, under the face-saver of bringing about democracy and freedom in west Asia. The former communist states of Europe are trusted partners in the US occupation of Iraq. Most Arab countries have chosen support for the US strategy over defiance, while other Afro-Asian countries are following the usual policy of benign neglect of Iraq. Only Syria has been consistently emphasizing the need to safeguard the unity and sovereignty of Iraq, as guaranteed by international law.

Most Iraqis have denounced the US as an aggressor. To them, the issue was not Saddam Hussein’s capture but the lifting of sanctions, which were harming Iraqi citizens. The US has been talking about the reconstruction of Iraq, but even if the occupiers leave the country now, it will take many years to restore it to its pre-war condition.

Cut him to size

It may be recalled that Saddam Hussein was aided by the Americans in the war against Iran and the campaign against the Kurds. But he became a liability when he got too assertive, particularly in the Persian Gulf region. Is it any wonder that the world now feels that Saddam Hussein has been punished for his defiance of US authoritarianism, support for the Palestinians, agreements with Iraq’s neighbours and moves to bring about Arab solidarity?

Arabs and people all over the world are even more outraged at the US aggression because they remember the many compromises Saddam Hussein had made — submitting all documents relating to weapons of mass destruction to the UN as well as allowing inspectors unlimited access, and permission to surveillance flights. Their outrage has been strengthened by the fact that no WMD has been found in Iraq.
Such is its double-standards that the US has never paid any attention to para 14 of the security council resolution 687 (pertaining to a WMD-free west Asia) under which the number of Israeli nuclear weapons increased from 14 in 1967 to 400 in 2002.

Imperial designs

Iraq will remain unstable under the US policy of encouraging the presence of the Kurds in Iraqi affairs. By deliberately fomenting Shia-Sunni discord and aiding Iraqi opposition, Iraq will remain unstable and divided.

The two words, “freedom” and “democracy”, used to justify the US war, have been frequently used by the two countries with imperial ambitions — France and later Britain — to quell popular rebellions against them or to defeat the Ottomans after World War I.
The US is perhaps looking to make Iraq a semi-permanent military base from which to control west Asia. The project has already got underway with the imposition of sanctions against Syria. Iran is now firmly under the control of the International Atomic Energy Association, while Libya has announced its surrender to the US.

Interestingly, occupying powers have a dismal record in promoting democracy where the prime motive has been exploitation and hegemony. In west Asia, the imperial forces have traditionally promoted sectarian divide, tribal rivalries and crushed popular revolt. They have also kept the Arabs at war with each other.

In Iraq, the new measures adopted so far — imposing a puppet interim government, creating a new Iraqi army and police force, and victimizing the opposition — are evidence that the US-sponsored structures of governance in Iraq lack legitimacy.