Write us! |
|
Bushs Crumbling Authority in Iraq By Robert Fisk What UN member would ever contemplate sending peacekeeping troops to Iraq now? The men who are attacking Americas occupation army are ruthless, but they are not stupid. They know that President George Bush is getting desperate, that he will do anythingthat he may even go to the dreaded Security Council for helpto reduce U.S. military losses in Iraq. But yesterdays attack on the UN headquarters in Baghdad has slammed shut the door to that escape route. Within hours of the explosion, we were being told that this was an attack on a soft target, a blow against the UN itself. True, it was a soft target, although the machine-gun nest on the roof of the UN building might have suggested that even the international body was militarizing itself. True, too, it was a shattering assault on the UN as an institution. But in reality, yesterdays attack was against the United States. For it proves that no foreign organizationno NGO, no humanitarian organization, no investor, no businessmancan expect to be safe under Americas occupation rule. Paul Bremer, the U.S. pro-consul, was meant to be an anti-terrorism expert. Yet since he arrived in Iraq, he has seen more terrorism than he can have dreamt of in his worst nightmaresand has been able to do nothing about it. Pipeline sabotage, electricity sabotage, water sabotage, attacks on U.S. troops and British troops and Iraqi policemen and now the bombing of the UN. What comes next? The Americans can reconstruct the dead faces of Saddams two sons, but they cant reconstruct Iraq. Of course, this is not the first indication that the internationals are in the sights of Iraqs fast-growing resistance movement. Last month, a UN employee was shot dead south of Baghdad. Two International Red Cross workers were murdered, the second of them a Sri Lankan employee killed in his clearly marked Red Cross car on Highway 8 just north of Hilla. When he was found, his blood was still pouring from the door of his vehicle. The Red Cross chief delegate, who signed out the doomed man on his mission to the south of Baghdad, is now leaving Iraq. Already, the Red Cross itself is confined to its regional offices and cannot travel across Iraq by road. An American contractor was killed in Tikrit a week ago. A British journalist was murdered in Baghdad last month. Who is safe now? Who will now feel safe at a Baghdad hotel when one of the most famous of them allthe old Canal Hotel, which housed the UN arms inspectors before the invasionhas been blown up? Will the next spectacular be against occupation troops? Against the occupation leadership? Against the so-called Iraqi Interim Council? Against journalists? The reaction to yesterdays tragedy could have been written in advance. The Americans will tell U.S. that this proves how desperate Saddams dead-enders have becomeas if the attackers are more likely to give up as they become more successful in destroying U.S. rule in Iraq. The truthhowever many of Saddams old regime hands are involvedis that the Iraqi resistance organization now involves hundreds, if not thousands, of Sunni Muslims, many of them with no loyalty to the old regime. Increasingly, the Shias are becoming involved in anti-American actions. Future reaction is equally predictable. Unable to blame their daily cup of bitterness upon Saddams former retinue, the Americans will have to conjure up foreign intervention. Saudi terrorists, al-Qaida terrorists, pro-Syrian terrorists, pro-Iranian terroristsany mysterious terrorists will do if their supposed existence covers up the painful reality: that our occupation has spawned a real home-grown Iraqi guerrilla army capable of humbling the greatest power on Earth. With the Americans still trying to bring other nations on board for their Iraqi adventureeven the Indians have had the good sense to decline the invitationyesterdays bombing was therefore aimed at the jugular of any future peacekeeping mission. The UN flag was supposed to guarantee security. But in the past, a UN presence was always contingent upon the acquiescence of the sovereign power. With no sovereign power in existence in Iraq, the UNs legitimacy was bound to be locked on to the occupation authority. Thus could it be seenby Americas detractorsas no more than an extension of U.S. power. President Bush was happy to show his scorn for the UN when its inspectors failed to find any weapons of mass destruction and when its Security Council would not agree to the Anglo-American invasion. Now he cannot even protect UN lives in Iraq. Does anyone want to invest in Iraq now? Does anyone want to put their money on a future democracy in Iraq? The Independent (UK), August 20, 2003 |
|
Write us |
|