english.daralhayat.com 2008/10/08 11:14 GMT

Reforming American Policy Towards Iraq Is An Opening For Moderation To Suffice

Raghida Dergham Al-Hayat 2004/06/11

Some thing is happening. A change is taking place in International relations and in the way the Administration of George W. Bush deals now with partners and competitors, friends and foes. Iraq is undergoing an eventful period, surely historical, though transitional and fragile. Palestine is at intersection that could bring to it an independent state or could throw it a prey to further maneuvering, disintegration, and false promises. Reform has become an achievable promise but remains at the mercy of Arab governments' reluctance. It also remains a hostage to the unpredictable evolution of George W. Bush and his Administrations' thinking which sways between reasonableness of avoiding dictation and zealousness for forcing change through wars and chaos. The notion that Reform must be a precondition to solving the Arab-Israeli conflict is losing ground just as the counter notion that solving the Arab-Israeli conflict is a precondition for Reform. This is happening despite continued efforts by both camps to drive forward their opposing views. Some thing is happening. But the unknown actor, known as Terrorism, still possesses the tools to thwart, or, as some see it, to force redressing the wrongs. Resistance to both occupations, the American of Iraq and the Israeli of Palestine, forced an awakening on both occupiers. But the objectives of the resistance are completely different from those enshrined in the Project of Terrorism; it is fundamentally in its interest to publicly distance itself from that project. What is happening globally and in the Middle East region is an event in the making. It is a working progress which provides the forces of moderation the opportunity to take back their future from the forces of extremism.

From Europe to the UN Security Council in New York to the G8 Summit in Sea Island, the Bush Administration knit in the past two weeks the fabric for reconciliation and consensus disavowing the pattern of arrogance and dictation.

What happening in the Security Council when negotiating the Future of Iraq Resolution- adopted last Tuesday- revealed the distance the Administration was ready to go to secure consensus. It also revealed extensive readiness by the countries who opposed the Iraq war to turn the page of disagreement and division but with utmost care not to enter the Iraqi dilemma with their forces. In its Resolution, the Security Council made clear that this is a bilateral American-Iraqi issue blessed with international legitimacy. It gave this strategic partnership the right to use all necessary means to help Iraq in its strive for democracy as well as to combat terrorism.

There is no precedent for Resolution 1546 which reconciled endorsing full sovereignty for an Interim Government with legitimizing the presence of foreign troops at the request of a "Government in waiting"- a government to whom sovereignty is not yet officially transferred. Never before has the Security Council held back an authorization for a war only to come back a year and a half later to legitimize the results of that war.

To some extent, many members of the Security Council acted on the basis of possible optimism in Iraq's future and continued pessimism about its reality today. The general thinking went as follows: should Iraq remain in trouble, let it be exclusively an American-British mess with no commitment to bail out the two countries that rushed to war without an international authority. Should Iraq be on its way to recovery, let Resolution 1546 take credit for endorsing the political process and for declaring Iraq officially free from occupation. Such thoughts cross the minds of many Security Council members when debating the Future of Iraq Resolution.

Both the United States and the Interim Iraqi Government benefited in any case. The resolution itself promises to be of great advantage for Iraq only if the Hawks in the Pentagon do not "re-invade" it and if the Interim Government adheres to its promises regarding the political process. This process includes holding direct elections by 31 December 2004 and "in no case later than 31 January 2005," leading to a Transitional Government and drafting a permanent constitution leading to "a constitutionally elected government by 31 December 2005."

The American forces- which will now work as a "Multi National Force" (MNF) under American command- will stay in Iraq until the political transition to a democratic government is accomplished. The mandate of the MNF shall "expire upon the completion of the political process" according to the Resolution, but will be terminated earlier if requested by the Government of Iraq. The mandate can also be extended upon a request from the Iraqi Government.

One of the important amendments in the Resolution gave the current Interim Iraqi Government full sovereign authorities including the right to request he departure of foreign forces. In its first drafts, the Resolution gave such right exclusively to the Transitional Government which general elections would produce seven months later; it held back this right from the Interim Government. But Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari succeeded in convincing the United States and Britain to change the language so that the Interim Government would be sovereign enough to exercise such a right if needed.

He also succeeded in clarifying that the Sovereign Government will have full control of Iraq's natural resources and allocating oil revenues by having the Resolution state that the funds "shall be disbursed solely at the direction of the Government of Iraq"- be it Interim, Transitional, or Permanent.

The military relationship between the Iraqi Government and the United States will be, according to the Resolution, one of coordination and close consultation between the two military leaderships including on "sensitive offensive operations." The Iraqi leadership can decide not to participate with the MNF should it choose to. But the MNF, under the American command, can launch such "sensitive offensive operations" without making Iraqi consent a prior condition.

This is where the Iraqi Interim Government might undergo the toughest test. It risks being viewed as a partner of the occupation- even though the status of occupation is officially eradicated- should it engage in such "sensitive military operations." It could, on the other hand, be accused of being marginal and ineffective should it reject a "sensitive" operation yet fail to convince the American command not to launch it.

There will be offensive operations for sure. But it is necessary for the United States now to listen carefully to the Iraqi point of view. It should avoid further slippage behind the miserable notion that says Iraq is the forefront on the war on terrorism. If the Administration adheres to this dangerous concept, it would gamble Iraq away and will risk a quagmire for the US in Iraq.

There are indeed pockets of terrorism in Iraq but there is also a resistance in occupation and an opposition to the Interim Government and the way it was formed. Dumping the two together is extremely dangerous; so is dealing with both with one military criterion. It would be wise if George W. Bush stops his political discourse that mixes helping Iraq in the political process with the war on terrorism.

The most important ally against using Iraq as an arena for terrorism is the Iraqi people. At this point in time in particular, it is essential to invest in this people so that frustration, suspicion, and fear are replaced by optimism, trust and responsibility.

The contributions by the American Administration and Iraqi Interim Government to such transfer are of the utmost importance. But there also obligations that are international and regional. Iraq must become now an international project without reservations for the purpose of providing jobs for the Iraqis and investing in their ambitions and dreams.

The Arab environment has particular responsibilities. It should take all preparatory measures to positively respond should the Iraqi Government request Arab assistance in future peacekeeping forces. It should begin immediately helping the Iraqi people through financial investments that create jobs so that unemployment does not fail the Iraqi plight for recovery. The Iraqi individual wants to earn a living. He is not interested in bags of flour and passing aid. The Iraqi individual does not benefit from "solidarity" with him, or at his expense, so long as such "solidarity" is only slogans for consumption.

This is a people allergic to pity and is tired of one-upmanship. A people that rid themselves from despotism and will liberate themselves from occupation. This is a people that would make the best Arab investment in combating terrorism, defeating it, and preventing its export.

For that reason, the ultimate Arab interest- not only the Iraqi interest- requires empowering Iraqis with jobs and investments, confidence, and optimism. Iraq is likely not only to be freed from occupation as it had been freed tyranny, but also it is a country where moderation can win over extremism in any shape it comes.

Some neighboring countries fear the success of the Iraqi experiment and its consequences on them. They fear that such a success would lead to the boasting of the American administration claiming that wars are the right tactic for reform. Those neighbors have one of two choices. Risk isolation and punitive action should their borders be used as a crossing point by volunteers for Al Qaeda and its likes believing that Iraq would be the quagmire for American might. A second option is to invest in necessary internal reform as well as Iraqi intent on shedding occupation and defeating extremism through a visionary, gradual, and alert strategy.

To be sure, this is not a call for an automatic trust in the American Administration, nor is it a call to bless its war in Iraq. This is not to say that Iraq is immune to disintegration, a civil war, and wars of others in its territory. It certainly is not a call to embrace the charm offensive by the American Administration as a permanent downfall for its extremists, the Neo-Conservatives, and the Hawks who are lying low now in the aftermath of there grave mistakes in Iraq.

However, this charm offensive, the readiness to correct mistakes, work for international consensus and reconciliation with France and Germany, and retracting the language of dictate, are not insignificant. Ignoring these nuances would be bad. Worse would be to decline the opportunity to influence the changes so that they may become permanent. There is a space now to keep American extremists in the corner of decline and possibly future isolation. This is a true opportunity for moderation given the fact that extremism has ruled on American, Israeli, and Arab fronts for a long time. Moderation is an integral part of the needed reform in the Middle East as well as in the United States.

The Arab leader who attended the G-8 Summit of industrial nations in Sea Island this week worked at amending the American project for reform. Arab reaction had forced the Administration to adjust its project for "the greater Middle East" that was launched with arrogance and a total absolved Israel.

The Europeans at the Summit also tried to adjust the wrong American logic, which demanded Arab reform as a precondition for solving the Arab-Israeli conflict. Turkey warned that the American project will completely collapse should the Administration continue turn a blind eye to Israeli accesses. Prime Minister Rajab Ardogan said that in order for democracy and reform strategy for the middle east to be true, "we must adopt policies that would put an end to violence in the Arab-Palestinian conflict and bring Iraq back to normality."

The "greater Middle East" project became a declaration of "partnership" for a "common future" as a result of both protest and participation. This new plan has practical steps for enhancing democracy and human rights in the region. Surely the G-8 emphasis on the need to find a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict as part of reforming the region is not enough. However it is far better than shelving this conflict to absolve Israel from accountability as extremists in the Administration had wanted.

The Arab region's need for transformation is urgent. This is in the Arab interest first and foremost and it does require urgent governmental steps, institutionalized democracy, and an end to considering Arab reformists as traitors.

What is happening in the Arab arena includes a new page in the battle between moderates and extremists. Until recently, the ideology of extremism and the doctrine of destruction had overcome that of moderation and construction. The destructors succeeded in isolating and weakening the reformists. They were able to do that because American extremism had overwhelmed American moderation, which resulted in stripping Arab moderates of ammunition.

Reforming American policy towards Iraq is an opening for moderation to suffice in the Middle East and the United States. Reforming American policy towards Israel- one of qualitative alliance- is the most difficult equation. This is when Israel's word is above America's particularly during elections. Nevertheless the partnership between American extremism and Israeli extremism was forced to be less active for the moment. Good news by itself.

Something is happening, unfinished, but promises possible positive outcome. Something else could happen whose purpose to solely benefit the association of international extremists.

<h1>Reforming American Policy Towards Iraq Is An Opening For Moderation To Suffice</h1><h4>Raghida Dergham     Al-Hayat     2004/06/11</h4>Some thing is happening. A change is taking place in International relations and in the way the Administration of George W. Bush deals now with partners and competitors, friends and foes. Iraq is undergoing an eventful period, surely historical, though transitional and fragile. Palestine is at intersection that could bring to it an independent state or could throw it a prey to further maneuvering, disintegration, and false promises. Reform has become an achievable promise but remains at the mercy of Arab governments' reluctance. It also remains a hostage to the unpredictable evolution of George W. Bush and his Administrations' thinking which sways between reasonableness of avoiding dictation and zealousness for forcing change through wars and chaos. The notion that Reform must be a precondition to solving the Arab-Israeli conflict is losing ground just as the counter notion that solving the Arab-Israeli conflict is a precondition for Reform. This is happening despite continued efforts by both camps to drive forward their opposing views. Some thing is happening. But the unknown actor, known as Terrorism, still possesses the tools to thwart, or, as some see it, to force redressing the wrongs. Resistance to both occupations, the American of Iraq and the Israeli of Palestine, forced an awakening on both occupiers. But the objectives of the resistance are completely different from those enshrined in the Project of Terrorism; it is fundamentally in its interest to publicly distance itself from that project. What is happening globally and in the Middle East region is an event in the making. It is a working progress which provides the forces of moderation the opportunity to take back their future from the forces of extremism.From Europe to the UN Security Council in New York to the G8 Summit in Sea Island, the Bush Administration knit in the past two weeks the fabric for reconciliation and consensus disavowing the pattern of arrogance and dictation.What happening in the Security Council when negotiating the Future of Iraq Resolution- adopted last Tuesday- revealed the distance the Administration was ready to go to secure consensus. It also revealed extensive readiness by the countries who opposed the Iraq war to turn the page of disagreement and division but with utmost care not to enter the Iraqi dilemma with their forces. In its Resolution, the Security Council made clear that this is a bilateral American-Iraqi issue blessed with international legitimacy. It gave this strategic partnership the right to use all necessary means to help Iraq in its strive for democracy as well as to combat terrorism. There is no precedent for Resolution 1546 which reconciled endorsing full sovereignty for an Interim Government with legitimizing the presence of foreign troops at the request of a "Government in waiting"- a government to whom sovereignty is not yet officially transferred. Never before has the Security Council held back an authorization for a war only to come back a year and a half later to legitimize the results of that war.To some extent, many members of the Security Council acted on the basis of possible optimism in Iraq's future and continued pessimism about its reality today. The general thinking went as follows: should Iraq remain in trouble, let it be exclusively an American-British mess with no commitment to bail out the two countries that rushed to war without an international authority. Should Iraq be on its way to recovery, let Resolution 1546 take credit for endorsing the political process and for declaring Iraq officially free from occupation. Such thoughts cross the minds of many Security Council members when debating the Future of Iraq Resolution.Both the United States and the Interim Iraqi Government benefited in any case. The resolution itself promises to be of great advantage for Iraq only if the Hawks in the Pentagon do not "re-invade" it and if the Interim Government adheres to its promises regarding the political process. This process includes holding direct elections by 31 December 2004 and "in no case later than 31 January 2005," leading to a Transitional Government and drafting a permanent constitution leading to "a constitutionally elected government by 31 December 2005."The American forces- which will now work as a "Multi National Force" (MNF) under American command- will stay in Iraq until the political transition to a democratic government is accomplished. The mandate of the MNF shall "expire upon the completion of the political process" according to the Resolution, but will be terminated earlier if requested by the Government of Iraq. The mandate can also be extended upon a request from the Iraqi Government.One of the important amendments in the Resolution gave the current Interim Iraqi Government full sovereign authorities including the right to request he departure of foreign forces. In its first drafts, the Resolution gave such right exclusively to the Transitional Government which general elections would produce seven months later; it held back this right from the Interim Government. But Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari succeeded in convincing the United States and Britain to change the language so that the Interim Government would be sovereign enough to exercise such a right if needed.He also succeeded in clarifying that the Sovereign Government will have full control of Iraq's natural resources and allocating oil revenues by having the Resolution state that the funds "shall be disbursed solely at the direction of the Government of Iraq"- be it Interim, Transitional, or Permanent.The military relationship between the Iraqi Government and the United States will be, according to the Resolution, one of coordination and close consultation between the two military leaderships including on "sensitive offensive operations." The Iraqi leadership can decide not to participate with the MNF should it choose to. But the MNF, under the American command, can launch such "sensitive offensive operations" without making Iraqi consent a prior condition.This is where the Iraqi Interim Government might undergo the toughest test. It risks being viewed as a partner of the occupation- even though the status of occupation is officially eradicated- should it engage in such "sensitive military operations." It could, on the other hand, be accused of being marginal and ineffective should it reject a "sensitive" operation yet fail to convince the American command not to launch it.There will be offensive operations for sure. But it is necessary for the United States now to listen carefully to the Iraqi point of view. It should avoid further slippage behind the miserable notion that says Iraq is the forefront on the war on terrorism. If the Administration adheres to this dangerous concept, it would gamble Iraq away and will risk a quagmire for the US in Iraq.There are indeed pockets of terrorism in Iraq but there is also a resistance in occupation and an opposition to the Interim Government and the way it was formed. Dumping the two together is extremely dangerous; so is dealing with both with one military criterion. It would be wise if George W. Bush stops his political discourse that mixes helping Iraq in the political process with the war on terrorism.The most important ally against using Iraq as an arena for terrorism is the Iraqi people.  At this point in time in particular, it is essential to invest in this people so that frustration, suspicion, and fear are replaced by optimism, trust and responsibility.The contributions by the American Administration and Iraqi Interim Government to such transfer are of the utmost importance. But there also obligations that are international and regional. Iraq must become now an international project without reservations for the purpose of providing jobs for the Iraqis and investing in their ambitions and dreams.The Arab environment has particular responsibilities. It should take all preparatory measures to positively respond should the Iraqi Government request Arab assistance in future peacekeeping forces. It should begin immediately helping the Iraqi people through financial investments that create jobs so that unemployment does not fail the Iraqi plight for recovery. The Iraqi individual wants to earn a living. He is not interested in bags of flour and passing aid. The Iraqi individual does not benefit from "solidarity" with him, or at his expense, so long as such "solidarity" is only slogans for consumption.This is a people allergic to pity and is tired of one-upmanship. A people that rid themselves from despotism and will liberate themselves from occupation. This is a people that would make the best Arab investment in combating terrorism, defeating it, and preventing its export.For that reason, the ultimate Arab interest- not only the Iraqi interest- requires empowering Iraqis with jobs and investments, confidence, and optimism. Iraq is likely not only to be freed from occupation as it had been freed tyranny, but also it is a country where moderation can win over extremism in any shape it comes.Some neighboring countries fear the success of the Iraqi experiment and its consequences on them. They fear that such a success would lead to the boasting of the American administration claiming that wars are the right tactic for reform. Those neighbors have one of two choices. Risk isolation and punitive action should their borders be used as a crossing point by volunteers for Al Qaeda and its likes believing that Iraq would be the quagmire for American might. A second option is to invest in necessary internal reform as well as Iraqi intent on shedding occupation and defeating extremism through a visionary, gradual, and alert strategy.To be sure, this is not a call for an automatic trust in the American Administration, nor is it a call to bless its war in Iraq. This is not to say that Iraq is immune to disintegration, a civil war, and wars of others in its territory. It certainly is not a call to embrace the charm offensive by the American Administration as a permanent downfall for its extremists, the Neo-Conservatives, and the Hawks who are lying low now in the aftermath of there grave mistakes in Iraq.However, this charm offensive, the readiness to correct mistakes, work for international consensus and reconciliation with France and Germany, and retracting the language of dictate, are not insignificant. Ignoring these nuances would be bad. Worse would be to decline the opportunity to influence the changes so that they may become permanent. There is a space now to keep American extremists in the corner of decline and possibly future isolation. This is a true opportunity for moderation given the fact that extremism has ruled on American, Israeli, and Arab fronts for a long time. Moderation is an integral part of the needed reform in the Middle East as well as in the United States.The Arab leader who attended the G-8 Summit of industrial nations in Sea Island this week worked at amending the American project for reform. Arab reaction had forced the Administration to adjust its project for "the greater Middle East" that was launched with arrogance and a total absolved Israel.The Europeans at the Summit also tried to adjust the wrong American logic, which demanded Arab reform as a precondition for solving the Arab-Israeli conflict. Turkey warned that the American project will completely collapse should the Administration continue turn a blind eye to Israeli accesses. Prime Minister Rajab Ardogan said that in order for democracy and reform strategy for the middle east to be true, "we must adopt policies that would put an end to violence in the Arab-Palestinian conflict and bring Iraq back to normality."The "greater Middle East" project became a declaration of "partnership" for a "common future" as a result of both protest and participation. This new plan has practical steps for enhancing democracy and human rights in the region. Surely the G-8 emphasis on the need to find a solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict as part of reforming the region is not enough. However it is far better than shelving this conflict to absolve Israel from accountability as extremists in the Administration had wanted.The Arab region's need for transformation is urgent. This is in the Arab interest first and foremost and it does require urgent governmental steps, institutionalized democracy, and an end to considering Arab reformists as traitors.What is happening in the Arab arena includes a new page in the battle between moderates and extremists. Until recently, the ideology of extremism and the doctrine of destruction had overcome that of moderation and construction. The destructors succeeded in isolating and weakening the reformists. They were able to do that because American extremism had overwhelmed American moderation, which resulted in stripping Arab moderates of ammunition.Reforming American policy towards Iraq is an opening for moderation to suffice in the Middle East and the United States. Reforming American policy towards Israel- one of qualitative alliance- is the most difficult equation. This is when Israel's word is above America's particularly during elections. Nevertheless the partnership between American extremism and Israeli extremism was forced to be less active for the moment. Good news by itself.Something is happening, unfinished, but promises possible positive outcome. Something else could happen whose purpose to solely benefit the association of international extremists.