After Iraq

Ahmed Ibrahim* discusses the regional and international impact of the American occupation

---

The Iraq war represents an extremely important stage in the development of post- Cold War international relations. Its significance transcends narrow regional concerns, revealing the Bush administration's intention to establish a new set of principles for international relations. These principles proclaim the US's right to conduct military interventions as and when it wishes in accordance with the doctrine of preventive action, with the aim of countering all manner of threats -- including imaginary ones.

Iraq, where the Bush administration sought to intimidate almost the entire world into supporting a war to remove Saddam Hussein's regime on the pretext of his possessing weapons of mass destruction and his links with the Al- Qaeda organisation, was the main testing-ground for this doctrine. After the war, it soon became clear that these allegations were baseless.

This year's Arab Strategic Report concentrates on observing and analysing the repercussions of America's occupation of Iraq. The importance of the issue is illustrated by the fact that it is raised not just in the section on the Iraqi crisis, but also in the international, regional and Arab sections.

A great part of world interest in the events in Iraq is due to the threat they pose to the American occupation force. The United States, having taken upon itself the task of removing Saddam Hussein from power, and promised to build what it called "the new Iraq", is now being tested by the international community on its ability to achieve security and stability and to supply the Iraqi people with the building blocks for a dignified life in the occupation's aftermath.

Under this scrutiny, America's performance has been clumsy and confused. While American forces were able to win an extremely easy military victory over Hussein's regime, they failed dramatically to fulfil their responsibilities as an occupying force, leaving Iraq to collapse into chaos only a short while after the fall of the former regime. The chaos was exacerbated by the occupation forces' hasty decision to disband all government agencies, especially the armed forces, the security organisations and the Baath Party. The country thus found itself plunged into a security and institutional vacuum.

This was one of the main reasons for the sudden and speedy rise of the Iraqi resistance. Although it was clear from the beginning that this resistance was composed of a contradictory mix of groups without a common political programme or goal, its structure, members, objectives and political agenda remained largely obscure. Meanwhile, American efforts to rebuild the institutions of the Iraqi state suffered delays, thus increasing the suffering of the Iraqi people who were deprived of basic services, as well as security and stability.

The report focusses on the regional repercussions of the American occupation, and specifically the Egyptian position on Iraq's invasion of Kuwait and the attitude of the Gulf Cooperation Council's member states to a post-Saddam Iraq. Here the report concentrates on the occupation's creation of new political and security problems in the region, some of which are linked to transformations in the region's strategic balance of power, while others are a consequence of building what is termed "The new Iraq". As a result, the Arab states face a fundamental problem, which can be divided into two main issues. The first is that these countries want to help rebuild Iraq, restore stability and regional relations, but are worried that this would give the occupation an undeserved legitimacy. The second is that the region is now under strong outside pressure for internal reform. While most of this pressure is in line with similar internal demands, the reform process remains blocked by a number of internal obstacles. The fear that any such steps may be seen as no more than a response to external pressure further hinders progress in this direction.

The post-9/11 changes in American foreign policy led to an extensive re-shaping of international relations, with the main focus now on what the United States called the "War on Terror". This war is characterised by growing international concern over preventing nuclear proliferation and the spread of WMD, and driven by fears (circulated by the Bush administration) about the possibility of such weapons falling into the hands of terrorist groups or countries hostile to the United States.

These developments led to what might be called a "revolution in nuclear affairs" on an international level. This "revolution" was linked not just to the United States and the international community adopting a more serious approach to the possibility of nuclear terrorism, but also to new developments in American strategic thinking. Nuclear weapons were no longer considered to be weapons that could only be used as a threat and never in defence or attack (due to their awesome destructive capabilities), but were now seen as a viable option that in certain circumstances could be seriously considered for deployment. This shift in thinking became clear with the announcement of the new American doctrine on the use of nuclear weapons in the context of traditional conflict, in addition to changes in their approach to nuclear proliferation in the cases of Iran, Libya and North Korea.

The report also described other important developments on the world stage, in particular a number of international and regional issues, the most prominent of which are developments in the Euro-Med pact within the framework of the Barcelona process and positive progress in resolving the Kashmiri dispute between India and Pakistan. At the same time the report mentions new forms of globalisation, and especially their growing impact on the movement of international trade, an impact that is linked to the global information revolution. The report monitors and analyses these issues, considering them to be of the utmost importance in determining the future development of the international system.

When it comes to discussing the European treatment of Arab issues, the report analyses a number of reports that have emerged from European summits, but it only treats them in the most general terms, and is content to reiterate the chief components of the roadmap as a way of promoting peace in the Middle East. In particular, it insists on the importance of establishing a democratic Palestinian state that can co-exist peacefully with Israel within the framework of a comprehensive Middle East peace. It demands that the Palestinian Authority take decisive measures to combat terrorism and violence and to reform state agencies, as well as calling on the Israelis to halt their settlement-building policy and dismantle existing settlements.

The American occupation of Iraq has had profound repercussions for relations in the Middle East, not only between the countries of the region and the United States, but also between the countries themselves. This section focusses on Iran and Turkey's relations with the Arab world.

The US is seeking to use its presence in Iraq to intensify political and military pressure on Iran, both to uncover Iran's nuclear programme and to prevent Iran from intervening in Iraq's internal affairs. Following the occupation the process of establishing a regional order has formed a cornerstone of regional policy for both Turkey and Iran, and both countries are now keen to maintain full dialogue with the key Arab states over the situation in Iraq.

This section also contains an analysis of the work of the Non-Governmental Authority for Development (Al-Iyjad) and its role in resolving internal conflicts. Resolving conflicts is one of the most important elements of the Al-Iyjad group's founding agreement, through its insistence on preserving peace, stability and security, which it regards as the foundation for economic development and social progress. To this end, the group has established a regulatory mechanism for dialogue and cooperation towards the peaceful resolution of disagreements and conflicts.

The group has played a prominent and effective role in resolving internal conflicts in a number of member states, not least the Sudan and Somalia, where the authority was far more successful than the United Nations and the African Union, although it conducted comprehensive negotiations with both these bodies and received substantial support from them. Its ability to advance the resolution of conflicts which otherwise appeared hopeless illuminates the way in which it is possible for a secondary regional organisation to play a far more effective role in issues of peace and security than the organisation's stature would at first suggest.

* The writer is the managing editor of the annual Arab Strategic Report.