Posted on 21-8-2003
Bush's
Crumbling Authority in Iraq
By Robert Fisk, The Independent Digital UK, 20 August 2003
What UN member would ever contemplate sending peace-keeping
troops to Iraq now? The men who are attacking America's occupation
army are ruthless, but they are not stupid. They know that President
George Bush is getting desperate, that he will do anything--that
he may even go to the dreaded Security Council for help--to
reduce US military losses in Iraq. But yesterday's 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 militarising
itself. True, too, it was a shattering assault on the UN as
an institution. But in reality, yesterday's attack was against
the United States.
For it proves that no foreign organisation--no NGO, no
humanitarian organisation, no investor, no businessman--can
expect to be safe under America's occupation rule. Paul Bremer,
the US 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 nightmares--and has
been able to do nothing about it. Pipeline sabotage, electricity
sabotage, water sabotage, attacks on US 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 Saddam's
two sons, but they can't reconstruct Iraq.
Of course, this is not the first indication that the
"internationals" are in the sights of Iraq's 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 all--the old Canal Hotel, which
housed the UN arms inspectors before the invasion--has 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 yesterday's tragedy could have been written
in advance. The Americans will tell us that this proves how
"desperate" Saddam's "dead-enders" have
become--as if the attackers are more likely to give up as they
become more successful in destroying US rule in Iraq. The truth--however
many of Saddam's old regime hands are involved--is that the
Iraqi resistance organisation 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 Saddam's former retinue,
the Americans will have to conjure up foreign intervention.
Saudi "terrorists", al-Qa'ida "terrorists",
pro-Syrian "terrorists", pro-Iranian "terrorists"--any
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 adventure--even the Indians have had
the good sense to decline the invitation--yesterday's bombing
was therefore aimed at the jugular of any future "peace-keeping"
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 UN's legitimacy was bound to be locked on to the
occupation authority. Thus could it be seen--by America's detractors--as
no more than an extension of US 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?
|