| |
| Join Our Newsletter |
 Please Select sub-criteria |  |
|
|
|
|
| |
| Iraq in Perspective: from Occupation to Self-Determination |
03 |
|
|
| |
| |
| |
However, such interference is entirely inconsistent with democracy and the principle of self-determination. Indeed, the Hague Convention of 1907, to which the US is a signatory, prohibits the occupying power from creating any permanent changes in the government of the occupied territory unless it is, “empêchement absolu”, or “necessityé”. xii It is questionable whether there was a necessity to rewrite the constitution of a people, particularly when such a people were ostensibly liberated and not defeated. If anything, these issues highlight the fact that the presence of foreign military forces is an obstacle rather than a facilitator for Iraqi self-determination. The US strategy of forcing through elections against the will of anyone who protests against a US presence will at least create resistance and enmity against the new Iraqi government and fuel the armed insurgency, especially if foreign troops do not leave Iraq. Even more worrying is the very real possibility that it will plunge the country into sectarian civil war. Indeed, if the turnout was in fact lower than what has been reported, the results also raise questions regarding the representative legitimacy of the assembly, which will in turn heighten and not pacify opposition to the new government.
The Bush Administration has not expressed any immediate plans to withdraw its troops and allow Iraqis to determine their political destiny despite polls showing that a sizeable majority of Iraqis want US forces to leave. The US, of course, relies on the invitation of the Interim Government of Iraq (IGI)xiii which authorised the continued presence of coalition forces beyond 28th June 2004; notwithstanding the fact that the IGI’s democratic legitimacy to acquiesce to this is debatable, given that most of its members were appointed by the US. In addition, since the occupation began, the US administration’s basic postulate for persisting with their democratisationprogramme, notwithstanding the concerns raised, has been based upon its successful post-World War II transformation of Germany and Japan to democracy. In both countries the people lived under military occupation, which did not hinder their right to self-determination. It is argued that they were able to stage elections and choose their governments and it therefore follows that Iraqis can also seek self-determination under occupation.
However, considerable differences exist between Japan and Germany and today’s Iraq. Instead of resisting the occupation both the Japanese and the Germans embraced the concept of democracy and abandoned their nationalistic indoctrination. The Japanese were profoundly sick of war and consequently were accepting and submissive to their US conquerors, to the extent that they were described by their occupiers as an ‘obedient herd.’ On the other hand, the Germans were ashamed of their association with a fascist ideology that they accepted had failed them and were numbed by their defeat.xv Ultimately, both nations were provoked to re-evaluate their values because they felt that their ideologies and their leaders had failed them. Thus the US and its allies did not face any significant incidents of armed resistance throughout their occupation of either country.
In contrast, the mass boycott of the election and the Iraqi insurgency are inextricably linked with the military occupation. The Iraqis on the whole have from the outset resisted the occupation and though some Iraqis at the gates of Baghdad initially embraced the ‘liberating forces’, they are now overwhelmingly seen as occupiers. To simply declare that American forces in Iraq are no longer an occupying army but are there at the request of a sovereign Iraqi government has not been enough to satisfy most Iraqis. For any government to be capable of running the country it needs to be seen as legitimate even though the people may disagree with its policies. It is unlikely that this will happen as long as there is a military occupation and an open revolt against the new regime, which is perceived as being installed by the occupying powers. This is reminiscent of the experience of the Afghans in the 1980s and the South Vietnamese in the 1960s where the majority failed to acknowledge the legitimacy of the regimes in Kabul and Saigon. These unpopular dictatorships came to power and maintained their control only as a result of superpower intervention. The foreign forces directed from Moscow and Washington were seen by the majority of the subjected populations as armies of occupation and, despite enormous advantages in firepower, were eventually forced out.xvi
| |
| |
| |
| |
« First < 1 2 3 4 5 >
Page 3 of 5 pages
| |
|
|
