The following is an archived copy of a message sent to the CASI Analysis List run by Cambridge Solidarity with Iraq.

Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of Cambridge Solidarity with Iraq (CASI).

[Main archive index/search] [List information] [CASI Homepage]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [casi-analysis] The UN Trojan Horse

[ This message has been sent to you via the CASI-analysis mailing list ]

It is very important for anyone addressing an
important matter to use the right terminology and to
get acquainted with the issue at hand. Unsurprisingly,
the IPO “analysis” lacks both the historic depth and
right terminology.

The UN has indeed been a “Trojan Horse”, most
effectively used by the US and UK to impose their will
on the Iraqi people and the world as a whole. Through
the UN, the US spied on Iraq, imposed sanctions that
killed almost two million Iraqis, decided what Iraq
can buy with its own money and what it can not,
prevented all attempts at lifting the sanctions, and
when it could not use it anymore, it decided the UN
was useless, and went ahead to destroy Iraq again.
Now, there are mounting calls to involve the UN,
because of the failure of the US and its diminishing
“coalition of the willing” to deliver what they
promised. Peace, democracy and prosperity are but
empty words that have no meaning for the people of
Iraq, who see more death and more starvation and more
suffering. Even people like Hans Blix, a strong critic
of Saddam’s rule, says that Iraq is worse off now.

It would be understandable if a westerner were to make
a mistake when dealing with the history of Iraq. But
when someone claiming to be an Iraqi writes “Following
the end of World War I the British established Iraq as
a country”, one wonders if that person actually knows
anything about Iraq, let alone be born in it.

Iraq existed as IRAQ centuries before there even was
BRITAIN… We know for certain that when the Muslims
entered Iraq, it was already called Iraq. As Shi’i
Muslims, people at the IPO should also know that Imam
Ali appointed a ruler for IRAQ and he himself lived in
IRAQ and died there, as did most of his descendants.

The name IRAQ is believed to have come from the old
Semitic name of the Akkadian capital city Uruk.
Scientists agree that the first settlers in the area
were the Semites, who came from the Arabian Peninsula,
where they had lived for millennia. The first
inhabitants of what is Iraq were the Akkadians at
Uruk, followed by the Sumerians (whose origin is not
yet known) who inhabited the same area and together
established the oldest known civilization. The Semitic
Arabs have a habit of calling the whole with the name
of the most important part of the land; thus Egypt is
called “Misr” after the name of Cairo, and Syria is
called “Sham” after the name of Damascus. Iraq follows
the same rule. We believe the name of the Akkadian
city was called URUK, because Western scientists have
thus deciphered the cuneiform writing. For all we
know, the name might have been pronounced differently.
 We are told that the most known Akkadian King was
called Sargon, but his name in the Akkadian language
was pronounced “Shrugin”. Hebrew offers us another
very good example. Modern Hebrew is pronounced
differently from the Semitic Hebrew, because those
coming from Europe were not able to pronounce the
Semitic guttural sounds, so the language was modified
to accommodate their shortcoming. Thus the name
“Menachem” is pronounced by Arabs “Menahem” with the
deep “Haa”.

The civilizations and empires established in Iraq
ruled not only the land where they lived, but the
whole area of what is now called the Middle East. With
the advent of Islam in the 7th century, Iraq was
recognized as being composed of the Arabic Iraq and
non-Arabic Iraq; a reference to the north where Kurds
had settled millennia after the Semitic Arabs. The
Muslims did not invent a new name for the land, nor
has any story told us that the people were forced to
learn Arabic; probably because the language was theirs

Iraq, in the Arabic language, also means the river
bank, a most fitting name for the land of the two
great rivers.
The Muslim rule of Iraq continued through the Umayyad
and Abbasid rule; through the different invasions and
dynasties, until the establishment of the Muslim
Ottoman Empire. With people of different ethnic
backgrounds also moving into the land, Iraq
nevertheless maintained its name and its dominant Arab

What the British did after World War I was not
“establish” Iraq as a country, but actually “divide”
the existing country of Iraq (and the whole area) into
states and protectorates. According to Ottoman
documents from 1914, Iraq was divided into three
provinces (Wilaya): Mosul, Baghdad and Basra. Baghdad
had authority over the two other Wilayat. Basra
included not only Kuwait, but extended down the east
shore of the Arabian (Persian) Gulf until the borders
of Oman, including areas of today’s Saudi Arabia, and
the whole of Bahrain, Qatar, and the UAE! The British
drew the map of the area as it suited their interests,
regardless of the structure of the area or its
Claims that the British “established” or “created”
Iraq after WWI started after the 1991 destruction of
Iraq. The British began calling Iraq “Mesopotamia”; a
term invented by the Greek historian Herodotus about
440 BC, but never used by the inhabitants of the land
or the area. The campaign of lies was spread through
the British “independent” newspapers and the “neutral”
BBC too. The aim was to threaten Iraq that if Iraq
wanted Kuwait back, the British would give Mosul
“back” to Turkey. What the British forgot was that
Mosul was never part of Turkey, nor was Iraq for that
matter. Iraq was part of the Muslim Empire whose
capital was Istanbul, just like Anatolia was itself
sometime under the rule of the Akkadians, Assyrians
and Babylonians, or Spain under the rule of the Muslim
Ummayyads…  In reality, southern Turkey of today was
inhabited by Arabs and Kurds.

The IPO seems here to be blindly repeating these lies
of the British establishment…

The claim that Iraq was ruled by Sunni Arabs since the
British occupation of 1917 is also incorrect. It is
true that the King who was appointed by the British
was a Sunni Arab from Hijaz, but the Prime Ministers,
who were the real holders of power, were Sunni Arabs,
Shi’i Arabs and Sunni Kurds/Turks. These included
Saleh Jabr, Sayyed Muhammad Hassan as-Sadr, Fadhil
al-Jamali, Noori as-Said, Ja’far al-Askary, and
others. They came from all ethnic and sectarian
groups. The appointment of Faisal ibn al-Hussein as
King of Iraq was reported to have the support of 95%
of Iraqis, both Shi’i and Sunni, because he was a
Sunni who was a descendant of the Prophet Muhammad.
The Shi’i leaders issued declarations welcoming the
appointment of the son of Sharif Hussein as a King of

One reason for the weak participation of Shi’is in the
political system was the Shi’is themselves. During the
Ottoman rule, the Shi’is evaded serving the Ottomans
by claiming allegiance to Iran (Persia); something
Saddam used against them in the late 1970s and
deported tens of thousands to Iran.
In 1921, Sheikh Mahdi al-Khalisi, a prominent Shi’i
leader, issued an edict (Fatwa) prohibiting the
acceptance of any position in the Iraqi government and
considering any such acceptance an act of cooperation
with the unbelievers…  As a result, Shi’is did not
join the army or the different ministries, allowing
these positions to be taken over completely by Sunnis.
The balance was perhaps never restored..
There is no doubt that there was discrimination
against the Shi’is in Iraq in the past 80 something
years, as there was during the Ottoman rule too, and
as there was discrimination against Kurds, Turkomens,
and other groups. The reasons were political rather
than ethnic or sectarian, especially when one notes
that the rule was in the hand of representatives of
all those ethnic and sectarian groups.

Saddam did not rise to power because of the domination
of the minority over the majority. That is a
misconception and is a distortion of the history and
the facts. One has to live these times to comprehend
them. Saddam rose to power through the Ba’th party, a
secular party, the majority of whose members were
Shi’is. In reality, the Ba’th party was formed in Iraq
in the late 1940s by Shi’is, like Sa’doon Hammadi,
Fouad ar-Rikabi and others. In 1963, the Regional
leader of the Ba’th party in Iraq was Ali Saleh
as-Sa’di, a Fuwaili Shi’i. The regional command of the
Ba’th party in Iraq which took power in 1963 was
composed of 5 Shi’is and 3 Sunnis !!!
The majority of the Iraqi army and police are Shi’is,
reflecting the structure of the Iraqi society. The
majority of the staff of the intelligence agencies and
security apparatus of Saddam come from as-Sadr city
(formerly Saddam city and before that ath-Thawra
city), a Shi’i district in the east of Baghdad. The
army which fought Iran from 1980 until 1988 was
majority Shi’i.

So when “proconsul” Paul Bremer “decreed” to disband
the Iraqi army, this was an illegal act violating
international law, leading to chaos and confusion and
more bloodshed in Iraq. He may have “put an end to the
legacy of minority rule in Iraq” as the writer would
like to believe, but in reality he brought more
unemployment and misery and poverty to hundreds of
thousands of Shi’is in the army.. Those unemployed
Shi’is form the heart of the Mahdi Army which Muqtada
as-Sadr established last year, and which opposes the
occupation of Iraq.

The formation of the Governing Council by Bremer was
indeed historic, because it brought to mind something
which happened also on July, but 63 years earlier,
when on 10 July 1940, the French parliament in joint
session dissolved the Republican regime and installed
Marshal Henri Philippe Pétain as head of the French
state with full governing powers. The government
established its seat at Vichy, in the southern part of
the country. The Vichy regime replaced the principles
of the French Revolution—Liberté, égalité,
fraternité—with new principles: Travail (work),
Famille (family), and Patrie (fatherland). The Vichy
regime, bolstered by nationalists who demanded a
policy of “returning France to the French,” began
systematically to circumscribe “aliens” influence.
The IGC bears incredible similarity to the Vichy
Government. While the Vichy adopted a policy of
courting Nazi Germany in order to extract more
tolerable arrangements from the German authorities,
the IGC is fully under the control of Bremer, who has
the right to veto any of their decisions. This Bremer
is the same person who said when he appointed the IGC:
“We dominate the scene and we will continue to impose
our will on this country.”

The fact remains that the Shi’is in Iraq refused to
take part in the rule of Iraq in the 1920s, and have
refused to establish a state controlled by Shi’is, at
a time when they had the chance. The reason was (and
should remain) that Iraq was NEVER structured along
ethnic or sectarian lines. The Iraqi Communist Party,
which was Iraq’s largest political party until the
late 1970s, was mainly Shi’i in its composition.
Politics in Iraq were not based on sectarian or ethnic
lines, just like today opposition to the occupation
comes from all sectors of the Iraqi society. To
restructure Iraq along ethnic or sectarian lines is
very dangerous and is a betrayal of Iraq’s heritage
and history. It is above all a crime against the
people of Iraq.

Self-deception has led some to believe that the IGC is
a body “that fairly represented Iraq's ethnic makeup”.
Those who talk about the democratization of Iraq fail
to explain to us how democracy and tribal thought can
work together. Who elected Barzani or Talabani to
represent the Kurds? Who elected Adnan Pachachi, Samir
as-Sumeida’i or al-Yawir to represent Sunnis? Who
elected Ibrahim asl-Ushayqer (al-Ja’fari) or Abdul
Aziz al-Hakim to represent the Shi’is?? Why should the
Kurds, Chalabi, Allawi have militias, but as-Sadr’s
militia is considered illegal and criminal?

The new attack on the UN was originated by some in
Iraq’s GC who realize now that the US is prepared to
dump them if that serves its interests. People’s trust
in the IGC is almost non-existent, and all realize
that they were brought in to serve a purpose, and
their use is over. They are, so to say, disposable…The
US seeks a way out of its crisis in Iraq, and the only
way it could get international support for its plans
would be through a new UN resolution. But unless the
UN is fully involved, no such resolution would be
coming. And without such a resolution, the coming
Iraqi government would not be recognized, and it can
not therefore sign agreements as a sovereign state
with the US to grant it bases or the control of its
army and economy. The US is not known to have morals
when it comes to foreign policy.

Lakhdar Brahimi is useful because he is an Arab (so
Arabs won’t object), and a Muslim (so Muslims won’t
object), and he is prepared to do the dirty work for
the US. That is a repetition of what Butros Ghali did
in the 1990s at the UN…
For such an “historic achievement”, the inability to
decide what sort of transitional government will guide
Iraq to elections in January 2005 is quite amazing. Do
the Americans know or don’t they?

And why did the US and the IGC refuse direct elections
which Ayatullah Sistani called for? Aren’t elections
(that would include some 80% of Iraqis) better than
the non-democratic appointing by the occupiers of
members to a government??
Brahimi wants to scrap the IGC seemingly because there
is a realization among the Americans and Iraqis that
the IGC has failed in carrying out its work. Bremer
makes his decisions without even informing them; he
appoints and dismisses ministers at will, in a manner
similar to what Saddam did. The Americans are killing
both Shi’is and Sunnis without the IGC being able even
to condemn such killings, let alone participate in
attempts to find a solution. And Iraqis now openly
demonstrate against the IGC. Yesterday people in Basra
accused the British of being behind the explosions
that left 70 people dead and hundreds wounded..

I believe that a caretaker government appointed by the
UN, and a national conference to choose a consultative
assembly is a much more democratic and representative
method of solving the issue. I am not a supporter of
the UN plan nor have any respect for that
organization. My views regarding the UN’s role in the
genocide of Iraqis has been publicly voiced. However,
those who oppose the UN plan do so because they know
that they will not win the proposed elections.
Otherwise, if the majority of Iraqis support those
members of the IGC, as is claimed, the IGC should
support Brahimi’s plan fully not oppose it..

What is more destabilizing for Iraq: appointing a
government by the occupiers or appointing a government
by the UN to choose a consultative assembly??

The IPO analysis has seemingly failed to see that
Brahimi is only reflecting the US views on Iraq. The
US administration in Iraq is going to end the
de-Ba'athification process, and will be hiring back
all those Ba’thists dismissed. It is already relying
on members of Saddam’s intelligence apparatus. Iraqi
opposition to UN involvement was not fuelled by
Brahimi's “lack of impartiality”, but by the
realization that the UN, which was used to destroy
Iraq in the 1990s, does not enjoy the trust of the
Iraqi people. Iraqis don’t forget what the UN did to
them since 1990… Ayatullah Sistani has made it clear
that he will not receive Brahimi, because Sistani
still insists on elections, which the CPA (and
consequently Brahimi) and the IGC oppose…

Why would the Shi’i majority feel cheated out of
power, if the UN appointed government would be a
care-taker government for six months only, after which
the Shi’i majority will elect their representatives??
How would such a plan cause democratization to be
Rejection of elections, support for the war and for
the occupation by the IPO does not surprise me. What
surprises me is that those people who supported the UN
sanctions against Iraq, supported the destruction of
Iraq, and supported the UN’s disarmament of Iraq for
13 years, are suddenly opposing the UN. When the UN
was party to the murder of Iraqis, people like the IPO
group supported it and its criminal involvement. No
one criticized it of being a Trojan Horse then. Why
the change of attitude? Because Ibrahim al-Ja’fari
said so, or because al-Hakim so wants? Or perhaps
because being British means you support the policies
of your government and serve your Queen??

Calls for UN involvement comes from Europe and from
within the US. The lies and fabrications upon which
the attacks and occupation of Iraq have been based are
fully exposed. Bush, Blair and Aznar have been exposed
for the petty liars they are, and history will judge
them, like it has judged murderers and criminals
before them.

If Iraq is to be a successful democracy, occupation
should end and so should interference of foreign
forces and states in its affairs. Only an Iraq free of
ethnic and sectarian agendas, free of biases and
strange loyalties, and built on equality and respect
for all, will be able to achieve democracy and would
lead the people of the area, once again, into success
and prosperity.


Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Photos: High-quality 4x6 digital prints for 25¢

Sent via the CASI-analysis mailing list
To unsubscribe, visit
All postings are archived on CASI's website at

[Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]