People's Democracy

The American Occupation Of Iraq

  Prakash Karat

THE main purpose of the US  war on Iraq was the occupation of the country. After the invasion and fighting which lasted three weeks, the Occupation has become a reality. Nothing signifies this more starkly than the arrival of retired  Lieutenant General Jay Garner in Baghdad on April 21.  He is the new governor of Iraq. History is repeating itself. In 19l8 after the First World War, the British colonized the three provinces of Mosul, Baghdad and Basra which were earlier part of the Turkish Ottoman empire. Thus modern Iraq was constituted. Iraq was governed by British Civil Commissioners, till the monarchy was set up.  Garner is the pro-Consul of this new acquisition of the United States. He is taking over in his capacity as head of the Pentagon’s Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance. He has as his deputy, a British officer Major-General Tim Cross.  But the shots will be called by the Americans. More than 400 military and civilian officers will man Garner’s administration. Much before the war began, the Bush administration had worked out the plans for the Occupation. The purpose of the Occupation is not just a short-term or temporary goal.  It is the remaking of Iraq into a client state.

PLANS FOR THE OCCUPATION

The efforts to convert Iraq into an American protectorate are to be undertaken in three stages. Firstly, a military governor who answers to the head of Central Command Tommy Franks and the Defense Secretary Rumsfeld assumes power. This is to be followed by an interim administration run by handpicked Iraqis whose loyalty to Washington will be vouchsafed. The third stage would be holding elections and having an Iraqi government which can be paraded as an embodiment of the Iraqi people’s will.

The New York Times had set out this plan as early as January 2003 based on Administration sources.  Later the same newspaper outlined the ministries and the personnel who have been chosen to run them drawing upon  American diplomats, officials from various US government departments and the private sector.

The retired general Garner has not been chosen only for his military background. He happens to be a top executive of a corporation called L-3 Communications which produces defence equipment. The company earned $4 billion revenue in 2002 by mainly supplying the Pentagon with equipment like avionics.  Many of the missiles which hit Baghdad had guidance systems made by Garner’s company. So the new governor can be relied upon to look after not only the interests of the Pentagon but also the corporates of America.

How long will the first phase of an American occupation regime continue? Garner on reaching Baghdad refused to set a time-frame. “We’ll be turning portions of the government over to them, not in any time phase, but when they’re ready to accept it” he said.  Ahmad Chalabi, the favourite agent of the Pentagon, hoped that the setting up an interim administration will be done in a few weeks time and the drafting of a new constitution and  holding elections, will be completed in two years.  But according to the Washington Post,  Richard Lugar, the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee said installing a strong democratic regime will require at least five years as the US did not plan adequately for the post-war period.

The Americans will stay and govern till the whole business of setting up the lucrative deals for the reconstruction of the country is underway. Secondly, the US have to put their plans for the oil sector into operation. Even before the war was over, the rebuilding of the Umm Qasr port was given to an American company, so was the quelling of the oil field fires to a Halliburton subsidiary. The latter decision came in for a lot of criticism because Dick Cheney was formerly the head of  Halliburton. Now the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), has announced that the first contract for reconstruction has been awarded to the giant Bechtel Corp worth $ 34 million. This is expected to go upto $680 million in the next 18 months.

The war destroyed Iraq’s infrastructure and facilities. Now America’s corporations can be given the task of building them, of course, making a profit in the bargain. The American tax payer cannot naturally be burdened with this cost. So the Iraqi people will have to pay for it. In the war appropriations Bush has got from the Congress, out of the $75 billion, only $3.5 billion is set aside for relief and reconstruction. The bulk of the funds will have come from the revenue generated by the sale of Iraqi oil.

This explains Bush’s hurry in wanting to end the UN sanctions on Iraq. After doggedly insisting  on sanctions which have destroyed Iraq’s economy and society, the US  has now done an about face.  The sanctions continuing means that the United Nations will decide how Iraq’s oil can be sold and the proceeds utilised. The US wants to decide these matters, so the sanctions should go.

The US refuses to accept any major role for the UN in the interim administration.  Even Blair found himself in an embarrassing position after publicly stating that the UN should have a key role in the post-war set up. The reason for this refusal is straightforward and simple. The US is determined not to allow anyone to share in the spoils of war. The spending of Iraqi oil revenues by the US for reconstruction is unacceptable. America and Britain must pay for the cost of rebuilding what they have destroyed.

The big business in India is hoping to get some crumbs from the table of the big US corporates. The Larsen & Toubro managing director was to have left for the US to solicit sub-contracts from Bechtel, Halliburton and others. FICCI announced that a delegation would go to New York to lobby for contracts. A US Congress delegation met the union industry minister Arun Jaitley and hoped that India would participate in the reconstruction activities. The Vajpayee government would support the moves to get sub-contracts. However, this would be an immoral stand. Indian companies hope to get a small share of the profit from the US occupation and Iraq’s oil revenues. This would amount to exploiting the misery of the Iraqi people. The Vajpayee government must demand a UN sponsored interim administration and the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq. Till American occupation is ended, the Indian government should not allow Indian companies to accept contracts in Iraq.

DESIGNS ON IRAQI OIL

What will happen to the oil is the key question. In the pre-war occupation plans, this was left vague. The game plan seems to be as follows:

The immediate task is to resume the pumping out of the oil ready for shipment. The revenues from the oil sales should finance the US reconstruction project by the American companies. In the second stage, the United States would see how both the exploration of the oil reserves and the production and distribution of oil can be organised so that the American interests are served. There is already talk of reviving the oil pipeline project from Mosul in Northern Iraq to the Haifa port in Israel. The pipeline would go through Jordan which is within the US orbit instead of Syria. Israel, Jordan and a pliable government in Iraq can come to an agreement on such a project. This would be of immense benefit to both Israel and the United States. The extreme rightwing lobbies in the United States are already demanding privatisation of the Oil industry in Iraq. If Iraq’s huge oil reserves can be parceled out to private companies, not just on lease for exploration but with ownership, that would be a dream realised for the oil giants.

Already the designs on Iraqi oil have alarmed Iraq’s neighbours and the Arab states. In a meeting held in the Saudi Arabian capital, foreign ministers of six neighbouring states of Iraq (Iran, Turkey, Syria, Kuwait, Jordan and Saudi Arabia) apart from Egypt and Bahrain opposed the lifting of UN sanctions against Iraq till a legitimate government was formed in Iraq and warned against Iraq’s oil being exploited by foreigners.

In the meantime, the remaking of Iraq proceeds. The Americans have decided to introduce the dollar as the currency in use till a new currency system can be evolved. Twenty judges and lawyers have been recruited to remake Iraq’s judicial system.  A new police and army have to be built up.

The implanting of democracy in Iraq will proceed on the lines of the earlier colonial enterprise of the British. Britain in the first phase had directly governed Iraq after the mandate was given to it by the League of Nations. This phase lasted till 1920, after which a constitutional monarchy was appointed and a government set up with a bicameral parliament in 1926. The British got the Iraqi government to sign an Anglo-Iraqi Treaty in 1922 which gave the British the right to maintain bases for its air force. An oil agreement was signed in 1925 handing over the oil wealth to the Anglo-American oil companies. Iraq became nominally independent in 1932 but British tutelage continued. The Americans hope to emulate the British by setting up a pliant government with an elected parliament.

Both in the case of oil and the military relationship, America will have the upper hand. The New York Times quoted a senior US government official stating that “There will be some kind of long term defence relationship with a new Iraq similar to Afghanistan. The scope of that is yet to be defined – whether it will be full-up operational bases, smaller forward operating bases or just plain access -- to be decided”. There is talk of at least four permanent military bases in Iraq. Here again, the model will be Afghanistan where American forces are entrenched in permanent bases and special forces continue to operate all round the country.

The Iraqi Communist Party which was decimated by the Baathists after the coup in 1963 and who have been working in the Kurd areas illegally has rejected the US war of occupation while opposing the Saddam Hussein regime. The ICP had refused to join the American sponsored opposition meeting held in London in November 2002. They have demanded a United Nations sponsored interim administration and an all-parties conference to pave the way for early elections.

The Pentagon and Donald Rumsfeld would like the American sponsored Iraq National Congress and its leader Ahmed Chalabi to take over as soon as possible. The state department and the CIA have their objections about Chalabi being elevated as the leader of the new set up. The state department had given millions of dollars to Chalabi and later complained that he had misappropriated the money. The CIA’s assessment is that he is a rootless leader who has not been in Iraq for the past forty-five years. But Chalabi is backed by the hawks in the Defense department. 

Two weeks ago the Pentagon sent Chalabi with 600 of his so-called “Free Iraq Fighters” into An Nasaryah in southern Iraq. From there he has now reached Baghdad. Another Shia cleric chosen by America, Abdel Majid Khoei was sent into Najaf escorted by special American forces. Within days he was hacked to death by other factions who saw him as an American agent. The Americans and the British are also patronising tribal chieftains who from the old days formed the main landlords and oppressors. 

How to create a “democratic” government out of this motley crowd is a problem which is much more difficult than what was attempted in Afghanistan. Already the end of the Baathist  regime has led to a resurgence of Shia sentiments and assertion. Whatever its past sins and repressive record, the Bathist regime was secular and the vacuum created is being filled by religious forces, tribal chiefs and ethnic ties. The new colonialists would seek to exploit these divisions as in the days of the British empire. But the Iraqi people forged their nationhood in the fight against colonial oppression. The Shias fought the British as determinedly and valiantly as the Sunnis. It took them nearly four decades to end British suzerainty when in 1958 they overthrew the puppet regime. The demonstrations demanding the Americans quit Iraq have begun.

The American occupiers will soon learn that history is repeating itself not only by bringing colonization back to Iraq but also by opening a new chapter of resistance to neo-colonialism.