On record
By
Abdel-Amir Al-Rekabi*
Against the backdrop of current events, the war on Iraq is starting to seem inevitable. This is the critical moment in which we will see whether the United States will succeed or fail in its efforts to shape the world according to its own priorities, thus guaranteeing it complete control. With such an incentive, we cannot doubt the certainty of war. Indeed, it is a matter of life or death for a country that possesses everything it needs to achieve its goals. Meanwhile, those who will bear the brunt of the war do not seem attuned to the danger it represents. If they are aware, their efforts at protest pale in comparison to the magnitude of the threat to their interests. It is true that some opposition was seen in the discussions leading up to United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441, when America and Britain unveiled their plans for Iraq. But establishing a true, effective opposition, both popular and official, in Europe, France, Russia, and China -- to say nothing of the Arab world -- is still a long way off. Next to the diligent, organised efforts exerted by the US, the other side seems scattered and totally lacking in initiative. It can scarcely even articulate a position capable of counterbalancing the American march to war.
What can the opposition do to become effective now? We must first realise that war is not inevitable, as the US intimates. We must therefore put forth our own initiative to stop the countdown to war. This initiative should seek change without resorting to war, and it must be directed at the UN, the US and the Iraqi regime.
Real progress can realistically be achieved by examining all aspects of the Iraqi dilemma. As we know, the current regime is incapable of doing what it takes to avoid war; but regime change can be achieved peacefully, assuming this, and not the destruction or occupation of Iraq, is the goal. There is strong justification for this course of action. It would avoid another destructive war and the further victimisation of the Iraqi people. Such a war, if it takes place, could end in complete national disaster and a state of long-term civil unrest that might not be contained within Iraq itself. The pressures currently at work mean that peaceful change is within our grasp. There is no other way to guarantee that Iraq will end up a democracy in which all the major stakeholders in Iraqi society can freely participate.
How can we unify the potentially effective parties and make sure that the US does not destroy our efforts? We must concentrate on three parties, the first of which is the Iraqi regime, which is well aware of the effects a war might have. Now more than ever it may be prepared to offer substantial concessions if the outcome is guaranteed, and this, in turn, cannot be achieved except through a peaceful transformation towards pluralism and democracy. We have already begun to see rare signs of flexibility from the Iraqi regime. Despite rumors to the contrary, we can rest assured that the last thing Saddam Hussein's regime wants is war, particularly if we offer him an honourable way out. He is well aware of the impact a war will have on his interests and the lives of his associates, tribe, and perhaps even his relatives.
Secondly, we must focus on the Iraqi opposition, including the Kurds, the democratic left, tribal and Islamic forces, and other smaller ethnic and religious groups. Nor should we deny the Ba'ath Party the right to participate in public life. If certain conditions were met, these disparate forces would be willing to cooperate with the proposed initiative. After all, they represent the true political backbone of the country, as opposed to the so-called "Iraqi opposition" which is now urging the US on to war.
The final focus for such an initiative would be the US administration itself. Although it seems uncomfortable thinking about political alternatives for the post- Saddam era, a realistic alternative is a peaceful transitional period to democracy. The Afghan scenario cannot viably be applied to Iraq. In Iraq, the US has direct economic and strategic interests at stake, and it would be forced to maintain stability in order to ensure its own hegemony. If the US foolishly chooses to ignore these considerations, it will cause two catastrophes: firstly war and secondly the complete chaos that is sure to follow.
Do international forces have the will and the freedom to form a united front led by France, Russia, and China? The effort must include Europe and regional powers such as Iran and Turkey, who might find themselves forced to bear a war with extremely deleterious effects on their own interests and security. The Arab world also has a vital role to play in helping to articulate and defend the initiative. The discussions we saw over UN Security Council Resolution 1441 offer hope.
The establishment of an Iraqi national salvation government including representatives from all the major elements of Iraqi society is the best proposal we can put forth to the international community and Arab governments. The transitional government would last no more than one year, during which a constitutional, pluralistic system could be put in place with an appropriate administrative framework that would put an end to dictatorial rule. We should throw our support behind this initiative rather than unrealistic plans hatched from by-powers that do not represent Iraqi society. Their objectives cannot, in any case, be achieved by war, as a war will change the landscape entirely, destroying the fragile foundation on which their plans rest. Those Iraqi forces that have and are now working towards peaceful, democratic change can play an important role in this process, acting as the centerpiece for all efforts.
This is an auspicious moment for those who would take the opportunity, in the name of the global interests and the principles held aloft by those who care about the future of our planet. These values should not be slaughtered by the logic of force or left to die as we give in to despair.
* The writer is an Iraqi opposition figure living in France.
