The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]
Now Tell Me Again, Iraq for the Iraqis? Thanks to Hassan Zeini for his post "Bush Chooses Iraq Civilian Administrator." Indeed, how Iraqi can a "special assistant or executive assistant to six secretaries of state" be? Will the Iraqi people be properly thrilled that L. Paul Bremer, past "chairman of the National Commission on Terrorism," the "State Department's counterterrorism office," will be their administrator and oversee their "transition to democratic rule?" Will it inspire confidence that Bremer left the State Department after 23 years to join Henry's consulting firm "Kissinger Associates," or that he is "chairman and CEO of the Marsh Crisis Consulting company?" Well, at least it gives us an idea what kind of democracy Bush has in mind for Iraq. It does not appear to be the classical version of government by the people, of the people, and for the people. It does look suspiciously like a police state in the making. Why else put in charge someone who probably has never been to Iraq in his life, was head of counter terrorism and now runs a crisis consulting company? This reminds me of recent assurances by the Bush administration that "this is not an American operation." I came across the farcical statement while picking apart an April 26 New York Times article titled "Pentagon Sending a Team of Exiles to Help Run Iraq." (Link at bottom of post) The NYT reported that a team of 150 Iraqi exiles had been dispatched to Baghdad in order to form a temporary government led by retired general Jay Garner. The exiles, all largely with administrative backgrounds, are meant to take over 23 Iraqi ministries, and "work closely with American and British officials." What struck me, was the term "technocrats," applied by the NYT to the group that apparently formed in February at an office in suburban Virginia. The story was presented in the context of Garner's convening meetings of Iraqi notables. Canada's CBC News was uncomplimentary in its April 30 report about one such meeting. (Link at bottom of post) It appears that Garner declined to invite Iraq's Communist party, one of the oldest and, according to party member Jasem al-Helfi, most respected parties in Iraq. "They brought their own parties, external parties. No one knows them. No one knows what they're doing," al-Helfi said referring to the "Iraqi National Accord" consisting of returned exiles enjoying the support of the US. Garner so far has had very little success in dealing with the fractious contingencies of post-Saddam Iraqi politics. The boycott of meetings by the largest group of Shi'ite Muslims and the rejection of Pentagon darling Ahmad Chalabi of the Iraqi National Congress, seem to particularly tax Garner's governing. Enter the "Iraqi Reconstruction and Development Council." The 150 hand-picked expatriate Iraqis aspire to help "rebuild the Iraqi government." The fact that the group's name emphasizes "reconstruction and development," may be less positive than the value of the words suggests. We know that Iraq reconstruction contracts are being handed out by USAID to US-based multinational corporations with connections to Bush and members of his cabinet. It is logical to suspect that the "development" part of the group's mission also refers to some nefarious aspect of US economic interests. Perhaps the repatriated technocrats in their 23 ministries are charged with facilitating developing plans by EXXON and other companies intent on carrying off Iraq's natural resources to a greedy world. According to the NYT piece, only after they thus "rebuild the Iraqi government" will it "be handed over to the new Iraqi authority." It might be worth looking into how closely this scheme resembles what has been promised to the world by the UK government in a motion on Iraq on March 18, 2003 (Link at bottom of post) ".on an urgent basis, the United Kingdom should seek a new Security Council Resolution that would affirm Iraq's territorial integrity, ensure rapid delivery of humanitarian relief, allow for the earliest possible lifting of UN sanctions, an international reconstruction programme." To me, "international reconstruction programme" means the participation of many countries in the effort. To Bush it obviously means American-based multinationals. "Use of ALL oil revenues" clearly means that all profits after costs Should go to the Iraqi people. This is probably not what the Iraqi Reconstruction and Development Council, has been working out with EXXON et al in their Virginia office. Interestingly, Garner claimed that an interim Iraqi authority would be in place "next week," but Rumsfeld quickly said the general's comments had been misinterpreted. (!) Even so, the consensus among US administration officials seems to lean toward as rapid a transition as is practical. As one put it, this is necessary "because we want to remove the appearance of this being an American operation." Now who could possibly think of this as an American operation, when only American companies get contracts, an American general handles day-to-day administration, and a group of Iraqi-American technocrats trained at an office in Virginia, is redesigning the Iraqi government, following American blueprint instructions. Surely nobody can mistake this for an American operation? Arch war-plotter Wolfowitz is given credit for having "selected" members of the Iraqi Reconstruction and Development Council. Not an American operation? Moreover, the 150 Iraqis are employees of SAIC, the defense contractor. SAIC says of itself that it "assists the Department of Defense, the FBI, and other agencies through Homeland Security, Information Dominance / Command and Control, Management Support and more... ) (http://www.saic.com/business/government/) How perfectly absurd to call this an American operation. The team's leader, Emad Dhia, is an engineer who left Iraq 21 years ago. He is to serve as Garner's top Iraqi adviser. Pentagon policy official, Victor Rostow, who is the liaison to the team, said its task would be to help General Garner "turn over functioning ministries to the new Iraqi interim authority after a period of time." This probably refers to the time it will take to make the ministries "function" in ways compatible with US plans for Iraq. Presumably Dhia's role is to advise Garner on how to make US square pegs fit into Iraqi round holes. Wolfowitz picked Dhia because of his prominence in the "Forum for Democracy in Iraq," a group said to have "played a leading role in last year's State Department deliberations on the future of Iraq. Dhia, on leave from Pfizer pharmaceuticals, helped the Pentagon cull other team members largely from his own organization. According to Rostow, only a few among the 150 allow themselves to be identified by name: "Most of these people believe that if they are seen as agents of America, they will be killed." One of these few, however, has some notoriety. Khidir Hamza, whose new job will be to head the Atomic Energy Ministry (?!), had been singled out as a habitual liar by the late General Hussain Kamel. For years Hamza told Congressional Committes, as well as CNN and FOX, that Iraq was close to producing nuclear bombs. The NYT article also identified Muhammad al-Hakim as slotted for the Ministry of Planning and provincial affairs, and Muhammad Ali Zainy as the senior Iraqi at the Ministry of Oil. Only six more are known. These and their assigned ministries: Sam Kareem, transportation, telecommunication; Sid Hakky, health; Muhyi al-Kateeb, foreign ministry; Ramsey Jiddou, industry; Adam Sheroza, youth ministry; and Ali Alzurufi, Najaf Province. I can only hope that the members of this secretive Iraqi Reconstruction and Development Council will remember that they are Iraqi, and that the people of Iraq are their true constituents. With their insight into how things work in the West, they could be an asset to their country. As American stooges, they could be equally detrimental. We shall see. Links to articles referred to in the post: "Pentagon Sending a Team of Exiles to Help Run Iraq." The New York Times, April 26, 2003 http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/26/international/worldspecial/26POLI.html?th "Communists not invited to Iraqi leadership meeting" CBC News, April 30, 2003 http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2003/04/30/iraq_communists030430 The United Kingdom Parliament Motions before the Parliament, March 18, 2003 http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200203/cmhansrd/cm030318/debtext/ 30318-06.htm#30318-06_head1 Best regards, JPH _______________________________________ They read good books, and quote, but never learn a language other than the scream of rocket-burn. Our straighter talk is drowned but ironclad: elections, money, empire, oil and Dad. ____________ Andrew Motion _______________________________________________ Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq. To unsubscribe, visit http://lists.casi.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/casi-discuss To contact the list manager, email casi-discuss-admin@lists.casi.org.uk All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk