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 ]

Dear all

The present dispute as to whether, prior to the emergence of a
democratically elected government, Iraq should be ruled by technocrats or by
a body in which the different peoples are represented proportionately seems
to me to miss the main point - that whatever happens it WON'T be a sovereign
government. It won't have control over security or over economic policy. And
it will only advance to a democratically elected government if the problem
of Kurdish autonomy is sorted out. And no-one yet has a solution for that (I
certainly don't. But I do think, with Sistani, that the democratically
elected government should come first, before agreement on a final

Even when and if something that could be called a democratic government
emerges it is still highly questionable if it will be able to regain control
over its own security or economy. Debt and reparations will be enough to
keep it in tutelage for the foreseeable future - which is why Justin
Alexander's Jubilee Iraq is such a good idea. I wasn't able to go along with
it because of the anti-Saddam rhetoric but the issue of the debt is
nonetheless fundamental, and relates to what ought to be 'our' issue: the
historical effect of sanctions. The world ought to be compensating Iraq for
the effect of sanctions.

It is difficult to see how Iraq could restore sovereignty without taking a
'revolutionary' path, whether revolutionary nationalist or revolutionary
Islamist, Shi'i or Sunni ie repudiating the debt and thus putting itself
outside the framework of 'international law'. That is of course a nightmare
scenario (think Myanmar and North Korea) but it is the only logical
implication of the rhetoric and actions of Moqtada al-Sadr or indeed of
Jabbar al-Kubaysi, whom I take to be representative of the nationalist side
of the equation.

In any case I continue to believe that the 'handover of power' on June 30
should be rejected - the 'international community' should refuse to
recognise it as an end to the occupation. The legal status of occupation
should continue until such a time as there is a democratically elected and
truly sovereign government with the power, whether they choose to exercise
it or not, to close US bases, instruct the US to leave the country and bring
essential industries under public control.



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]