|
|
Iraq sectarianism strengthened
WEEKS AFTER elections in Iraq (15 December), the
result is still awaited. An announcement is imminent as we go to press.
Reports indicate that it will show an entrenchment of sectarian division
along ethnic and religious lines, contrary to upbeat comments by the US
regime, echoed by Britain’s politicians, junior partners in the
occupation of the country.
Of the 275 seats up for grabs, nearly half are
expected to go to the United Iraq Alliance (UIA), a coalition of Shia
Islamists headed by the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in
Iraq (Sciri, led by Abdul Aziz al-Hakim). The two main Kurdish parties
should hold around 50 seats, followed by the Iraqi Consensus Front
(Sunni Arab Islamists). The predominantly secular Shia grouping headed
by former prime minister, Iyad Allawi, could pick up 25, followed by
Sunni nationalists, Kurdish Islamists and others.
This reinforces the position Shia forces gained at
the last ‘elections’ (30 January 2005) – held under even tighter martial
law, when the vast majority of Sunnis boycotted the vote. It means that
the UIA can effectively pick who it goes into coalition with.
The title of an article in The Economist magazine,
The Wrong Lot Won, Dammit (7 January), sums up the despondency of many
capitalist commentators. Far from representing a step towards stability,
the opposite is the case. The invasion and occupation have set in motion
a process which could see the break up of Iraq into its main constituent
parts: a Shia-dominated south, Kurdish north and Sunni centre and west.
In all likelihood this would lead to severe repression against minority
groups. In fact, ethnic cleansing is already taking place as Kurds and
Shia move to control their respective oil-rich areas.
This could only be cut across by the development of
a united, non-sectarian insurgency fighting for national liberation.
Such a movement would be strongest if based on the working class, with a
socialist programme linking the expulsion of imperialist forces with the
need for working-class control and management of the economy. That would
include the demand for the nationalisation of oil to enable the natural
wealth of Iraq to fund jobs, housing, healthcare and education for all,
the right for all ethnic, religious and secular peoples to co-exist
peacefully and organise collectively. It would require worker and
community self-defence to be organised democratically and on a
non-sectarian basis. And it would attempt to link up with workers
internationally, starting with neighbouring states.
Unfortunately, at present, the momentum is in the
opposite direction. It is true that some sections of the working class
have taken important steps to organise collectively – for example, oil
workers in the south. And other workers, such as those in
administration, have the potential to play a progressive role. It is
also true that all the insurgent groups share the desire to kick out the
occupying forces. But there is no significant force putting forward a
unifying alternative in Iraq itself, let alone a socialist one.
Indeed, Sciri and the UIA have been emboldened by
the election to push through their sectarian Shia position. Al-Hakim has
stated that the constitution, endorsed by a referendum last October,
must stand without any substantial amendments. This allows a large
measure of autonomy to the Shia in the south. The UIA will have enough
seats in parliament to block any constitutional changes it opposes. So,
not only does the election strengthen the positions of the Shia and
Kurdish elites, but it also exacerbates Sunni fears that they will be
trapped in resource-poor, landlocked areas of the country. (Sunnis make
up a fifth of the population, but were the dominant group under the
brutal dictatorship of Saddam Hussein.)
Impossible as it is from a distance to have a
complete picture, it is clear that life in Iraq for the vast majority of
people is horrific. Basic infrastructure has collapsed, violence and
repression rule. Oil and electricity production remain below pre-war
levels, and it must be remembered that pre-war Iraq was languishing
under extremely harsh sanctions imposed by western imperialism.
The Guardian newspaper commented on a recent US
Agency for International Development (USAid) report. It described the
chaos: "It is increasingly common for tribes people to ‘turn in’ to the
authorities enemies as insurgents – this as a form of tribal revenge".
It says: "In the social breakdown that has accompanied the defeat of
Saddam Hussein’s regime, criminal elements within Iraqi society have had
almost free rein… Baghdad is reportedly divided into zones controlled by
organised criminal groups-clans". Running counter to the propaganda of
the British state, which tries to portray southern Iraq, where most
British troops are based, as a haven of peace and tranquillity, the
report says that in this region, "social liberties have been curtailed
dramatically by roving bands of self-appointed religious-moral police".
(18 January)
The increasingly stark sectarian divisions were also
shown up in the votes cast by the Iraqi military and police, which were
published in the International Herald Tribune (27 December). These
showed that 45% of votes went to the main slate of Kurdish candidates,
meaning that Kurds are massively over-represented in the armed forces,
as they make up around a fifth of the population. A further 30% of votes
went to the UIA. Only 7% went to the three leading Sunni parties.
The Financial Times reported from the Tal Afar
district of Iraq, north-west of Baghdad. This is a mixed Turcoman, Kurd
and Sunni Arab area on the border of the Kurdish autonomous region, and
is held up by the US as a model of ethnic interaction following a
massive show of military might, Operation Restoring Rights, last
September. Here, Sunnis have complained in writing of the "extreme use
of force" by Kurds and Shia in the Iraqi army. US major, James Gallivan,
said: "We have made partnering with the Iraqi army our number one
priority". (18 January) Gallivan meant it as a rebuttal of the
allegation when, in reality, given the composition of the army, it
reinforces the claim of sectarianism.
The occupation is sinking deeper into the mire. The
New York Times has pointed to attempts to divide the insurgency, in
particular, against Al Qa’ida in Iraq, headed by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
It would appear that support for Al Qa’ida is limited, above all,
because of its extreme brutality and the fact that it has killed many
Iraqi people. The problem for the US/UK, however, is that all the
insurgent groups demand a timetable for troop withdrawal, something
which Bush has repeatedly refused.
This tactic is leading US forces to contact groups
like the Islamic Army in Iraq and Muhammad’s Army, "which are believed
to comprise mainly Iraqi nationalists and former members of Saddam
Hussein’s Baath Party". The report said that in December the US released
Satam Quaood, described as a "former associate" of Saddam, as a
"goodwill gesture" to insurgent groups. (7 January) This means that the
US is attempting to deal with elements of the same vicious regime it
kicked out of power in the first place. After all, whereas Saddam was
the head butcher of the Iraqi working class, he was surrounded by
henchmen more than willing to carry out his bidding.
All this spells disaster for US imperialism.
Contrary to its assertions, there has been no let up in the violence.
Bush is desperate for some troop withdrawal before facing tricky
mid-term elections later this year. Troop numbers are still above the
levels they were before the Iraq elections, and which now represent the
baseline – 138,000.
Just at a time when the US regime is increasing
pressure on the Iranian regime, Iran’s allies in Iraq – Sciri and other
Shia forces – have been strengthened. Meanwhile, marginalised Sunnis
increasingly feel they have nothing to lose but to fight occupation.
And, although Sunnis are a minority in Iraq, they are an overwhelming
majority in the Middle East as a whole.
Does anyone still say this is not a quagmire?
Manny Thain
|