As the US and the UN are preparing the final touches of the “handover of sovereignty” to an Iraqi Government on June 30

Iraq Is Heading Towards a Black Hole, if the Present Course Continues

Ibrahim Allawi

Chief Editor

Al-Ghad Newspaper

Baghdad

To suggest that Iraq may be heading towards a black hole, may sound alarmist, given the famous deadline of June 30 for the transfer of sovereignty is only weeks away. But having been in Baghdad for the past seven months, and acquainted with the past developments of Iraq, the picture looks different as seen from there. To me it is a picture that gives mixed and strong feelings, of hope and despair. This is because the present situation in Iraq, as I have seen and lived could end in a world catastrophe, a black hole that can suck-in regional countries and as well as world powers, even against their will. Unintended consequences are not a new thing in international life. The first world war was triggered by an inept assassination attempt that nearly failed on Sunday 28 June 1914 in Sarajevo; let us hope such sequence of events will not be repeated, by the ineptness delusions of the sole world superpower. For if the present deadlock continues in Iraq, it would not be beyond possibility that a new more destructive would war be fought on top of the Earth’s main oil reservoir.

This extremely peculiar situation arose when Iraq was suddenly transformed into a political and military vacuum after the quick and easy collapse of the Saddam regime. After the looting and torching orgies of every precious thing (with exceptions of oil and the security archives) of the first few weeks, the vacuum was filled, not with official surrender of the former regime, nor by any nominal political Iraqi administration, but by the occupation forces themselves. There was no semblance of a plan or a vision for the country except destruction. When this was accomplished the Iraqi people woke up to a new nightmare of chaos, kidnappings and shortages of every kind. Only the hope of many extravagant promises (so far only promises) of democracy, prosperity and peace. Unemployment was widespread caused by the destruction and looting of public and private sectors factories. This was compounded by disbanding the Iraqi Army adding nearly another half a million to the unemployed. It is estimated that unemployment reached 70% of the working force, making a potentially explosive situation by itself.

It was possible to conclude at an early stage that the American project in Iraq and beyond would lead to failure. However this fact was not apparent for the general public both in Iraq and the world until the combination of the uprisings of Falluja and the south of Iraq, against the background of American wavering and confusion. These events created an even more explosive situation by making American defeat apparent, even to the neo-conservatives.

It is here that the situation in Iraq of a power vacuum, may hover on the brink of a black hole, for two reasons. First, because the Iraqi forces of various orientations, seeing the American military might to be a fiction, may venture into unilateral actions that could trigger the intervention of a neighbouring country, or countries into Iraq. This could alarm the US and world powers and drive oil prices sky high. Events can gain a momentum of their own, conflicts become unavoidable spreading by drawing in more and more others. As a matter of fact the beginnings of such a scenario are already there, having appeared in the last few weeks, thanks to the miscalculations and failings of the competing power centres in Washington.

This bring us to the second reason, loss of control and drift of the White House leading to a messy withdrawal of US forces and partition of Iraq or possibly both. The title and subtitle of a report in the Financial Times (7 May, 04) summed up the situation nicely: “Bush runs out of options as chaos deepens”, The report said ‘For many conservatives in Washington - especially the ideologues who envisaged Iraq as a shining example of America’s power to bring about change - talk of lowering expectations or allowing Iraq to fall apart smacks of “cut and run”. ... “I find even the administrating’s strongest supporters, including fervent advocates of the war a year ago and even some who could be labelled neo-conservatives, now despairing and looking for an exit,” Mr Kagan, a champion of American potency, wrote in the Washington Post.’

What is more noteworthy is what Peter Galbraith, former American ambassador in Croatia, said writing in the New York Review of Books (May 13) under the title “How to Get Out of Iraq”. To him there is no Iraqi people. He says “The fundamental problem of Iraq is an absence of Iraqis.” He sees no future for American control in a unified Iraq, as he believes Iraq “is not salvageable as a unity state.” Accordingly he concludes this will supply the safest way out of Iraq: “The best hope for holding Iraq together - and thereby avoiding civil war - is to let each of its major constituent communities have, to the extent possible, the system each wants. This too suggests the only policy that can get American forces out of Iraq.” Though he says the breakup of Iraq “is not a realistic possibility for the present”, he proposes splitting Iraq into at least four entities joint nominally in a loose confederating, one Kurdish, one Sunni Arab, two Shiite, with an Islamic constitution, and one shared state in Baghdad.

Hypothetically, the consequences of such a scheme, if carried out, especially in the wake of a probable American forced withdrawal and demoralisation, are so awesome that even the theorists of “Shock and Awe” shy off contemplating as they speak in a casual way of splitting Iraq. So it might be in order raise this sensitive topic.

Carrying out the scheme suggested for dismembering Iraq is a shortcut to a major world conflict, if not a world war. The reasons for this are not hard to guess as such a scheme cannot be confined to the present borders of Iraq, and is bound to have repercussions in all Iraq’s neighbours who share the same or similar problems. A separate Kurdish state would trigger immediate Turkish, Iranian and Syrian intervention, and by consequence Kurdish protracted resistance. On the other hand one or, worse, two Shiite states is the sure way to invite the sizeable and restive Shiite communities along the eastern shores of the Gulf, right on top the great oil fields, to rise up and demand their own states, and seek support from the Iran just across the Gulf. Clear signs of the sensitivity of this area is the fact that recent explosions have called for the evacuation of some foreign nationals working in the oil industry, and Kuwait has already protested “Iranian intervention” involving the Kuwait Shiite community.

Give this area is the heart of the Middle East, where two thirds of world oil are located, an armed conflict there would cause oil price to rise to unwitnessed heights. And, more seriously, the interruption of oil supplies. In such a situation,, what would those states which depend on imported oil do? It is not beyond imagination, we end up with a situation not far from of that of 1914. It is this casual way of splitting countries, and then invading, as if they are just pawns on chess board that launched the path to world war.

Having been deprived of the limelight certain American military leaders seem to yearn for “world wars”. General Tommy Franks, the commander of the coalition forces in the Iraq war, characterised the war against terrorism as the “fourth world war” according to Azzaman Newspaper (28/6/2003). President Bush, himself, says the front line of the war on terrorism is in Iraq and it is better to fight our enemies in Baghdad than in Baltimore. So what is to stop Bush or other hawks from extending that war to places far removed from Baghdad?

And what is worse is that other influential Americans from the Democrat camp seem to be infected with Bush war, even when their chief warriors have second thoughts. Writing in the May / June Foreign Affairs, Samuel Berger says “Iraq, too, will require a generational commitment by the international community. Regardless of whether the war was justified, everyone now has a stake in Iraq’s success. The disintegration of that country along ethnic and religious fault lines would destabilize the Middle East and energize radical movements that threaten the world.” While he disfavours the breakup of Iraq, he opposes Iraq independence calling for “internationalising Iraq’s occupation”. The fact is that many of the ingredients of a black hole that could suck-in the world into much wider conflict are already there, not least in the American recipes for a combatting terrorism or, currently, a “safe exist” from Iraq.

It is not too late to stop such madness, and resolve the present impasse. The necessary basis of lasting solution will depend on two preconditions, complete national independence and genuine democracy. A transition period, together with other conditions are necessary. These are:

First, a commitment to complete withdrawal of the occupation forces from Iraq, including military bases, with a veritable “road map” and timetable of the withdrawal and guaranties of Iraq sovereignty and independence endorsed by the Security Council.

Second, to strive to form a genuine alliance of, and by, the main political forces genuinely representing all the currents and components of Iraqi society, which would carry its work by consensus, on the basis of equal representation, doing away of the sectarian system introduced by the occupation forces. This alliance would set up the interim and necessary bodies for the transition to complete democracy.

Third, the adoption of the interim Iraqi constitution of 1958, for the transition period, which should be as short as possible. Elections should be supervised by international bodies and democratic personalities of high international esteem.

Fourth, abolition of the unjust debts and reparations imposed on Iraq, and imposition of compensation on the occupation forces, so as Iraq could carry through the necessary reconstruction.

Such a solution, has by far a better chance of solving the present impasse created by the Iraq War, and of avoiding the dire outcome alluded to above. “The Looming Catastrophe”, to borrow a phrase from the FT (May 13), is not fatally inevitable, and can well be forestalled. It can be even reversed, trasforming the Iraqi atmosphere from despair and paralysis to hope, peace and prosperity. What is needed above all is to come down to earth, and face the unpalatable realities of the Iraqi situation, not the wishful thinking of those who reside in the rarefied sky of Washington. One cannot rely on the US alone to reverse this process. In the end, it can always retreat to its own well protected shores, as had happened in the past. But there must be a unity of purpose from all the peoples and governments which have the most to lose from the repercussions of the Iraq War.