Predictably, the U.S. news media are full of discussion and debate about thisweekend’s election in Iraq. Unfortunately, virtually all the commentary missesa simple point: There will be no "election" on Jan. 30 in Iraq, if that termis meant to suggest an even remotely democratic process.
Many Iraqis casting votes will be understandably grateful for the opportunity.But the conditions under which those votes will be cast -- as well as the largercontext -- bear more similarity to a slowly unfolding hostage tragedy than anexercise in democracy. We refer not to the hostages taken by various armedfactions in Iraq, but the way in which U.S. policymakers are holding the entireIraqi population hostage to U.S. designs for domination of the region.
This is an election that U.S. policymakers were forced to accept and now hopecan entrench their power, not displace it. They seek not an election that willlead to a U.S. withdrawal, but one that will bolster their ability to make acase for staying indefinitely.
This is crucial for anti-empire activists to keep in mind as the mainstreammedia begins to give us pictures of long lines at polling places to show howmuch Iraqis support this election and to repeat the Bush administration lineabout bringing freedom to a part of the world starved for democracy. Those mediareports also will give some space to those critics who remain comfortably withinthe permissible ideological limits -- that is, those who agree that the U.S. aimis freedom for Iraq and, therefore, are allowed to quibble with a few minoraspects of administration policy.
The task of activists who step outside those limits is to point out a painfullyobvious fact, and therefore one that is unspeakable in the mainstream: A realelection cannot go on under foreign occupation in which the electoral process ismanaged by the occupiers who have clear preferences in the outcome.
That’s why the U.S.-funded programs that "nurture" the voting process haveto be implemented "discreetly," in the words of a Washington Post story,to avoid giving the Iraqis who are "well versed in the region’s widely heldperception of U.S. hegemony" further reason to mistrust the assumed benevolentintentions of the United States.
Post reporters Karl Vick and Robin Wright quote an Iraqi-borninstructor from one of these training programs: "If you walk into a coffeeshop and say, ‘Hi, I’m from an American organization and I’m here to helpyou,’ that’s not going to help. If you say you’re here to encouragedemocracy, they say you’re here to control the Middle East."
Perhaps "they" -- those well-versed Iraqis -- say that because it is anaccurate assessment of policy in the Bush administration, as well as every othercontemporary U.S. administration. "They" dare to suggest that the U.S. goalis effective control over the region’s oil resources. But "we" in theUnited States are not supposed to think, let alone say, such things; that same Poststory asserts, without a hint of sarcasm, that the groups offering politicaltraining in Iraq (the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs,International Republican Institute, and International Foundation for ElectionSystems) are "at the ambitious heart of the American effort to make Iraq amodel democracy in the Arab world."
Be still my heart. To fulfill that ambition, U.S. troop strength in Iraq willremain at the current level of about 120,000 for at least two more years,according to the Army’s top operations officer. For the past two years,journalists have reported about U.S. intentions to establish anywhere from fourto 14 "enduring" military bases in Iraq. Given that there are about 890 U. S.military installations around the world to provide the capacity to project powerin service of the U.S. political and economic agenda, it’s not hard to imaginethat planners might be interested in bases in the heart of the world’s mostimportant energy-producing region.
But in mainstream circles, such speculation relegates one to the same categoryas those confused Middle Easterners with their "widely held perception of U.S.hegemony." After all, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has dismissed as"inaccurate and unfortunate" any suggestion that the United States seeks apermanent presence in Iraq. In April 2003, Rumsfeld assured us that there hasbeen "zero discussion" among senior administration officials about permanentbases in Iraq.
But let’s return to reality: Whatever the long-term plans of administrationofficials, the occupation of Iraq has, to put it mildly, not gone as they hadhoped. But rather than abandon their goals, they have adapted tactics andrhetoric. Originally the United States proposed a complex caucus system to tryto avoid elections and make it easier to control the selection of a government,but the Iraqis refused to accept that scheme. Eventually U.S. planners had toaccept elections and now are attempting to turn the chaotic situation on theground to their advantage.
Ironically, the instability and violence may boost the chances of the UnitedStates’ favored candidate, U.S.-appointed interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi.While most electoral slates are unable to campaign or even release theircandidates’ names because of the violence, Allawi can present himself as asymbol of strength, running an expensive television campaign while protected bysecurity forces. He has access to firepower and reconstruction funds, which mayprove appealing to many ordinary Iraqis who, understandably, want theelectricity to flow and the kidnappings and violence to stop.
Of course the United States can’t guarantee the favored candidate willprevail. But whoever is in the leadership slot in Iraq will understand certainunavoidable realities of power. As the New York Times put it -- in thedelicate fashion appropriate to the Times -- the recent announcement byShi’a leaders that any government it forms would not be overtly Islamic waspartly in response to Iraqi public opinion. But, as reporter Dexter Filkinsreminded readers, U.S. officials "wield vast influence" and "would betroubled by an overtly Islamist government." And no one wants troubled U.S.officials, even Iraqi nationalists who hate the U.S. occupation but can lookaround and see who has the guns.
The realities on the ground may eventually mean that even with all those guns,the United States cannot impose a pro-U.S. government in Iraq. It may have toswitch strategies again. But, no matter how many times Bush speaks of hisfondness for freedom and no matter what games the planners play, we should notwaver in an honest analysis of the real motivations of policymakers. To pretendthat the United States might, underneath it all, truly want a real democracy inIraq -- one that actually would be free to follow the will of the people -- isto ignore evidence, logic and history.
As blogger ZeynepToufe put it: "All these precious words have now become something akin tobrand names: "democracy," "freedom," "liberty," "empowerment."They don’t really mean anything; they’re just the names attached to thingswe do."
Right now, one of the things that U.S. policymakers do is to allow Iraqis tocast ballots under extremely constrained conditions. But whatever the results onJan. 30, it will not be an election, if by "election" we mean a processthrough which people have a meaningful opportunity to select representatives whocan set public policy free of external constraint. The casting of ballots willnot create a legitimate Iraqi government. Such a government is possible onlywhen Iraqis have real control over their own future. And that will come onlywhen the United States is gone.
Advertisement
Robert Jensen is on the boardand Pat Youngblood iscoordinator of the ThirdCoast Activist Resource Center in Austin, TX.
