Mission paradox

[ By Hans Dembowski ]

Everyone is well aware of the failures. The occupying powers in Iraq do not have the mandate of the United Nations, nor do they have a plan to lead the country peacefully to democracy and prosperity. No weapons of mass destruction were found. In May, shocking photos from prison corridors shattered every last ounce of credibility. Arabs and Kurds know what it means when powerful men speak of freedom and then hand detainees over to torturers. That is what local despots do. Al Qaeda was not significantly weakened as had been promised. Instead, Islamist terrorists now have battlefields and recruitment topics, the effectiveness of which Osama bin Laden would not have dreamed of.

All this is carefully analysed in quality papers from New York, Washington and London. Their analyses can be read on the Internet. But for all those who were opposed to the war right from the beginning, there is no point in gloating. What matters most is what will happen next. The complete failure of the “coalition of the willing” would be disastrous from a development point of view. The dilemma is obvious. On the one hand, one cannot expect any positive impetus from an occupying power with no credibility. Paradoxically, however, the withdrawal of the US troops and their allies would not be desirable either. Most likely, Iraq would sink into a civil war, leaving behind a particularly dangerous failed state. Moreover, universal principles of democracy are now at stake in Iraq.

At the end of this month, the US command wants to hand sovereignty over to an Iraqi government – selected by UN diplomat Lakhdar Brahimi. Five weeks before the effective date, however, it was still totally open as to who was going to be appointed to the new cabinet. In some respects, that hardly matters anyway. The deadline seems to be dictated by the US election campaign and has little to do with the situation in Iraq. And as long as the US troops represent the unsupervised power in the country, most Iraqis will consider any local government to be little more than a puppet regime.

At best, there is still one alternative: the occupying troops must not remain under the supreme command of the Pentagon. The UN should assume authority and make sure that the coalition military serves an internationally legitimate interim government in a correct and loyal manner. This scenario is, of course, utopian in terms of real politics. It requires remorseful humility from those politicians who thought that the best approach was unilateral, armed force. Sadly, however, no one is offering a realistic alternative to my utopian scenario.

Even from the US point of view, it may yet prove a blessing that Germany, France and Canada did not join the war coalition. Three members of G7 have not put their credibility at risk. They should now assume mediatory roles. These governments are not under suspicion of believing that this difficult socio-political project adds up to little more than a military manoeuvre. It would be superb if, at the summit meeting in Georgia this month, they made sure that more than just hollow talk resulted from the much discussed democratic transformation of the Middle East.

A true fresh start is needed in Iraq, not merely a symbolic transfer of sovereignty. It would be helpful if Amercican citizens were to follow the Spanish example in November. They should not vote for a president who led their nation into war under false pretences. The defeat of George W. Bush in the elections would be the most convincing signal of substantial democracy that the USA can send to the Islamic world in 2004.