Iraq crisis: divide-and-rule in defence of a neoliberal political economy

by Ali Al-Jaberi

The roots of the most recent crisis in Iraq can be traced to the US-led invasion of 2003 and western meddling in Syria. At stake, is the neoliberal blueprint of post-invasion Iraq, now defended in an effort coordinated between the Baghdad government and its western backers.

Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld gestures to emphasize his point during a press briefing with Ambassador Paul Bremer in the Pentagon on July 24, 2003. Rumsfeld and Bremer briefed reporters about the coalition progress in Iraq. Photo: R.D. Ward, 24 July 2003, Wikimedia Commons.

What today is ISIS, the self-proclaimed Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS), was founded as an Al-Qaida´s franchise in Iraq in direct response to the US-led invasion. The group thrived in the security vacuum the invaders created by dismantling the Iraqi security apparatus. At the time, Amnesty International criticized the US for not sufficiently investing in the security of civilians, while guarding oil fields around the clock. Needless to say, oil was the primary motive behind the invasion.

Dismantling Iraq´s security infrastructure entailed the dismissal of over 400.000 soldiers and intelligence personnel. With one stroke of the pen, Paul Bremer, who headed the occupation forces in Iraq, granted jihadi groups the ultimate recruitment ground: an ´army´ of jobless men who know their way around weapons. It was only a matter of time before various armed groups were rampaging through the country. Among those, the Islamic State of Iraq, ISIS before expanding to Syria, won most infamy for targeting Shia.

Then, as now, western designs for Iraq were at the root of the sectarian logic of the violence. From his office in one of Saddam´s former palaces, Bremer issued his first ‘order’, which banned all public sector employees affiliated with Saddam´s Bath party from current and future employment by government, including a majority who had party membership forced upon them.

Although victimized like all other groups, Sunnis were favoured by the Saddam regime and thus disproportionately targeted by ‘de-Bathification’. In fact, according to the International Crisis Group (ICG), a Brussels-based think tank, Sunni Arabs were “treated (...) as representatives of an oppressive state structure in need of dismantling” which “sent the message that de-Bathification was tantamount to de-Sunnification.”

Even when disregarding Bremer’s first order, post-Saddam Iraq was sectarian by design. As ICG explains, the US “enforced stringent security measures in Sunni-populated areas, even those traditionally hostile to the former regime” and built a political system “along ethnic and sectarian lines, making clear that Sunni Arabs would be relegated to a minor role”.

In doing so, the US essentially reproduced the British colonial legacy of ruling Iraq by sectarian division, with predictable outcomes. Although useful allies are co-opted regardless of sect, consecutive Shia majority governments have divided public position and resources on an ethno-sectarian basis. Meanwhile, elastic de-Bathification laws continue to deprive many Sunni families from employment and pensions, while equally flexible ‘anti-terrorism’ laws are used to eliminate political opponents of the establishment, including key figures in the Sunni community.

Against this backdrop, peaceful protests were staged in Sunni-majority areas in 2012 following the arrest of bodyguards working for Rafi Al-Issawi, a prominent Sunni politician. The protesters consisted primarily of ordinary people demanding decent living conditions and an end to Sunni exclusion by the government as well as political factions, ranging from militants to those seeking concessions from Baghdad.

The government responded violently. Four months after the demonstrations started, a protest camp in Hawija (Kirkuk province) was raided leaving dozens dead and over 100 wounded. Violence escalated, empowering militant groups, primarily ISIS. Soon, sectarian hostilities soared to levels unseen since the height of the US-occupation, reaching a monthly death toll of approximately 1000 by January this year.

The recent meteoric ascent of ISIS in Iraq, having been largely contained by around 2010, is closely tied to its newly acquired position in Syria. There, it has trained fresh fighters, amassed advanced weapons and found new financial resources to an extent unimaginable without de facto western support.

ISIS troops have reportedly received training from US instructors at a secret base in Jordan. At the Turkish border with Syria, NATO - represented by Germany, the US and the Netherlands - deployed patriot missiles and 1200 troops, prompting any Syrian pilot to think twice before venturing within NATO´s reach in northern Syria, the location of the main ISIS strongholds. The US has knowingly contributed to shipments of weapons most of which have been delivered to jihadi hardliners fighting Bashar Al-Assad.

But when ISIS took control over large swathes of territory in western Iraq, the US administration quickly sent Apache helicopters, drones and hell-fire missiles to the embattled Iraqi regime it had once installed. Targeting Al-Assad is fine, but turning your weapons against a US ally is a different matter altogether. It appears one man´s freedom fighter can be the same man’s terrorist.

For much the same reason, New York, London and Paris newspapers devoted their headlines to ISIS when it reemerged in Iraq, but were largely silent when the same ‘terrorist liberators’ were committing gruesome atrocities in Syria, ranging from summary executions of civilians, to imposing misogynist laws and the recruitment of child soldiers.

Likewise, atrocities committed by the Iraqi army while “fighting terrorism” are generally withheld from mainstream media audiences. When ISIS troops raised their black-and-white banners in Fallujah, the city was indiscriminately shelled by the US-armed Iraqi forces. The newly obtained hellfire missiles killed unarmed civilians, including children. With this in mind, some 500,000 people fled from Mosul after it was seized by ISIS, more out of fear of the Government´s response than jihadi extremism.

The success of a few thousand ISIS troops facing a US-backed army, is dependent upon the support of Iraqi Sunni fighters and at least some tolerance by the civilian population. Further alienated by recent government violence and in some cases out of sheer self-defence against indiscriminate cruelty, a significant section of the Sunni community has felt compelled to strike a Faustian bargain with ISIS against the central government. More than just a jihadi exploit, the advance of ISIS thus represents widespread popular opposition to the ruling elite after peaceful resistance was thwarted.

Mainstream reporting is all but entirely oblivious of the above, reducing the whole affair to purported ‘ancient hatreds’ between Shia and Sunnis. It should be common sense, however, that sectarianism, in Iraq and elsewhere, is an elite-constructed vehicle to channel popular dissent in a manner that maintains the status quo. In the case of Iraq, this amounts to preserving western interests at the cost of the common people.

The protesters in Tikrit and Anbar were demanding an end to corruption, poverty, unemployment and shortages of water and electricity. These grievances are at the root of popular dissatisfaction and by extension the advance of ISIS. Though articulated in sectarian language, they target the very economic architecture of post-invasion Iraq.

Under military occupation, Bremer’s infamous orders transformed Iraq into a neoliberal, free-market paradise. Order number 39 for example, allowed the unrestricted, tax-free export of profits by corporations and granted them 40-years ownership licenses. Order number 12 lifted all protection of Iraqi industries.

In exclusive hotels, public firms were auctioned at fire-sales prizes to foreign investors and the newly-arrived pro-US elite. Most importantly, Iraqi oil has been all but privatized and is exploited by multinational corporations without parliamentary approval. The lion’s share of profits accrues to western oil giants.

From a US perspective, it does not matter who is the president of Iraq as long as the current arrangement is maintained. This is why it may be advantageous for the US to replace Maliki with another ‘manager’.

The consequences of neoliberalism in the Third World are well-known. Multinationals virtually own the economy, sharing part of it with a local elite that ensures the continuation of neoliberal policies. The crumbs that fall off their dinner table are then tossed to the population, which translates into the grievances of, for instance, the protestors in western Iraq.

Of course, there is nothing ‘Sunni’ about such grievances, which torment all ordinary Iraqis and have incited them regularly. This explains why several Shia leaders publicly supported the Sunni majority protests. The habitual response of the ruling elite, however, was to recast the protests as an existential threat to the Shia, to the detriment of inter-sectarian class-solidarity. The chances of a united anti-establishment movement, potentially threatening the current order Iraq, further declined.

In this context, the central government exaggerated the ‘terror’ threat, opting for an iron fist instead of genuine security measures. For example, before the elections, Fallujah was willing “to evict the jihadis if guaranteed it would not face regime attacks”. But the Prime Minister did not order his troops to retreat for he had “staked his re-election on an anti-terrorism campaign with a crude sectarian cast”, says ICG.

Apart from deepening sectarian divides, the above has rallied the Shia behind a status quo government, to the advantage of Maliki and his foreign backers, who, unsurprisingly, share his ‘terror is upon us’ discourse. Even members of the Sadrist movement, the most potent and popular anti-establishment force in the Shia community, are now volunteering to fight alongside government troops, unwittingly defending their own poverty.

Meanwhile, mainstream western media continue to reduce the crisis to ‘Arab-looking’ men wielding beards and Kalashnikovs and spreading terror in a sectarian quagmire. This orientalist frame conveniently obscures what lies behind the turmoil, rendering terror and sectarian violence a ‘natural’ phenomenon to the Arab world, entirely detached from western involvement. And so, while Iraqis, who are massacred by the thousands, are portrayed as sectarian fanatics, western military superpowers can plead innocent once again.

Ali Al-Jaberi is a journalist and political scientist. Former correspondent in the Middle East and lecturer in International Relations.

This article first appeared on openDemocracy 1 July 2014.

Newly installed President Poroshenko pledges to militarise Ukraine and crush rebellion in the east

By Mike Head

 

  US President Barack Obama meets with Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin at his dacha outside Moscow, Russia on 7 July 2009. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

With US Vice President Joseph Biden in the audience, Petro Poroshenko, a billionaire confectioner, was formally sworn in Saturday as president of Ukraine. Delivering a bellicose speech, he pledged to confront Russia, suppress the separatists in Ukraine’s east and fully militarise the country. At the same time, he alluded to his plans to impose brutal austerity measures on the Ukrainian working class.

Poroshenko began by paying homage to the fascistic forces that spearheaded his installation, via a US- and European Union-backed putsch in February followed by an election held May 25 amid a reign of terror and military violence in eastern Ukraine. He enthused over the “victorious revolution” by “Ukrainian patriots” and “warriors.”

While the Western media portrayed it as a powerful performance, the speech only underscored the fact that Poroshenko is nothing but a front man for German and particularly American imperialism, and is entirely dependent on them. Adopting a provocative stance toward Russia, he declared he would never accept Moscow’s annexation of Crimea and vowed to repudiate the Budapest Agreement that restricts the deployment of Western military forces within former Soviet states.

“Russia occupied Crimea, which was, is and will be Ukrainian soil,” Poroshenko insisted. Referring to a brief meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin during the D-Day commemoration in France, he said: “Yesterday, in the course of the meeting in Normandy, I told this to President Putin: Crimea is Ukraine soil. Period. There can be no compromise on the issues of Crimea, European choice and state structure.”

Fresh from talks in France with US President Barack Obama, Poroshenko rejected any negotiations with pro-Russian separatist forces in Ukraine’s east. He vowed instead to swiftly put an end to the resistance to February’s pro-Western, fascist-led coup in Kiev.

He depicted those holding control in dozens of eastern cities and towns as “bandits,” “criminals,” “terrorists” and “Russian mercenaries,” foreshadowing a renewed offensive by the Ukrainian military and allied right-wing militias.

Even as Poroshenko spoke, there was an assassination attempt on Denis Pushilin, a pro-Russian leader in Donetsk, resulting in the shooting death of an assistant, Maksym Petruhin. Photographs on Ukrainian news sites showed Petruhin, wearing a business suit, lying face down on a street alongside a parked car with at least seven bullet holes in the rear door panel.

“For peace to become lasting, we must get used to living in constant combat readiness,” the tycoon known as Ukraine’s “chocolate king” declared. “We have to keep the gunpowder dry. The army and its re-equipment by means of national military-industrial complex is our top priority… Our army must become a true elite of the Ukrainian community.”

Insisting that “great sacrifices” would have to be made by the Ukrainian population, Poroshenko stated: “Those who grudge money for the armed forces feed the foreign army… Our most reliable allies and the best guarantors of peace are our army, fleet, the National Guard and professional special forces.”

At a meeting with Poroshenko, Biden reiterated American support for his regime. “America’s with you,” Biden said. “That is not hyperbole.”

In conjunction with Biden’s visit, the White House announced $48 million in new aid to Ukraine, as well as $8 million for Moldova and $5 million for Georgia, both of which are also expected to sign agreements with the EU this month.

According to the White House statement, the aid would help the Ukrainian government “conduct key reforms, build law enforcement capacity, and strengthen national unity.” It specifically committed the US to supporting Ukraine’s “sovereignty and territorial integrity” and “economic development,” including “the reforms needed to make its IMF and World Bank programs.”

Poroshenko promised to move swiftly to an economic agreement with the EU from which Ukraine’s former government backed away last November, fearing the social unrest that would be triggered by the austerity dictates of the EU and the International Monetary Fund. “My pen is in my hands,” he said, pointing out that the EU association agreement was but the first step “towards fully-fledged membership of Ukraine in the European Union.”

The unelected interim government installed in February has already begun to implement the austerity measures demanded by the EU and IMF, including scrapping domestic energy subsidies and allowing the currency, the hryvnia, to depreciate about 30 percent against the US dollar. Average gas prices for Ukrainian households began rising by more than 50 percent in May, and heating prices are expected to climb by about 40 percent, starting in July.

Far harsher measures are still to come, including a freeze on public-sector wages, mass redundancies of government workers, the cancellation of scheduled pension increases and a range of social spending cuts.

The Wall Street Journal reported concerns about Poroshenko’s capacity to deliver. “It looks like people are ready to accept this decline in living standards,” Vitaliy Vavryshchuk, head of research at Kiev-based investment house SP Advisors, told the newspaper, but Ukrainians expected economic improvement. “Patience is not unlimited,” he warned.

For all the efforts of the Western powers and the compliant media to dress up Poroshenko as a popular and democratic figure, he is a particularly venal representative of the corrupt Ukrainian elites that enriched themselves by looting the assets of the former Soviet Union. He held senior cabinet posts under both the pro-Western government of President Viktor Yushchenko that followed the US- and EU-backed 2004 “Orange Revolution” and, after Yushchenko’s disgrace, the Moscow-aligned leadership of recently ousted President Viktor Yanukovych.

Having served as Yushchenko’s foreign minister and Yanukovych’s trade minister, Poroshenko is well-known in the Western corridors of power as a pliable instrument for promoting their interests.

Russian President Vladimir Putin who, like Poroshenko, represents the oligarchy that arose from the liquidation of the Soviet Union, is desperately trying to reach an accommodation with the Kiev regime and Washington. At a press conference, after meeting with Poroshenko for about 15 minutes in France, he declared: “I liked his attitude,” adding: “I cannot but welcome the position of Poroshenko on the necessity to end the bloodletting immediately in the east of Ukraine.”

There is every indication that Putin is prepared to give Poroshenko a free hand to crush the resistance in eastern Ukraine. The Wall Street Journal reported that for weeks, “Mr Putin has been sending back-channel messages to the West trying to distance the Kremlin from the actions of the rebels and suggesting it was prepared to support efforts to de-escalate violence in eastern Ukraine.”

Moscow returned its ambassador, Mikhail Zurabov, to Kiev to attend the inaugural festivities, and Russian news agencies reported that Putin had ordered tighter controls on the border to prevent people from crossing to fight against the regime in Kiev.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Francois Hollande reportedly arranged the French meeting between Putin and Poroshenko, seeking to facilitate a settlement. German and French imperialism, while fully backing the Kiev coup, have close economic and energy ties with Russia, as well as their own historic aspirations to dominate Ukraine and Russia. Washington, however, has made it clear that it intends to fully pursue its underlying agenda: to exploit the Ukrainian crisis in order to subjugate Russia and transform it into a US semi-colony.

This article first appeared on World Socialist Web Site (WSWS) on 9 June 2014, and was republished with permission.

De dubieuze rol van Duitsland in het Oekraïne-dossier

President Barack Obama and Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany listen to a question during a joint press conference in the East Room of the White House, June 7, 2011. (Official White House Photo by Lawrence Jackson)

Veel Duitse burgers zijn ongerust over de mate waarin hun land door de VS in de houdgreep wordt genomen. Individuele afwijzing van “het systeem” droeg bij aan de ineenstorting van de Sovjet-Unie en kan even doorslaggevend zijn bij de val van supermogendheid Amerika.

“De misconceptie bij de Amerikaanse leiders over het belang van Rusland in Oekraïne is onthutsend.” Dat was de boodschap van ons artikel “De onthutsende verblindheid van wereldmacht Amerika” van 3 maart 2014. Voor het eerst sinds het einde van de Koude Oorlog staat supermogendheid Amerika tegenover een wereldspeler die het niet zijn wil kan opleggen, zo schreven we. Maar intussen heeft rond het Amerikaanse optreden in de Zuid-Chinese Zee ook China in ongewoon duidelijke taal van zich laten horen: “Wij veroorzaken geen problemen. Maar we zijn niet bang voor problemen”. En recent tekenden China en Rusland een gigantisch gascontract en voorspelde Forbes magazine dat een alliantie tussen Rusland en China uitdraait op een regelrechte ramp voor het Westen.

Het Amerikaanse optreden tegen Rusland mag dan onthutsend zijn, wij in Europa mogen ons in het Oekraïne-dossier ook vragen stellen over de houding van Duitsland. De Duitse industrie verzet zich heftig tegen sancties tegen Rusland. En ook de gewone Duitsers zijn ongerust. Volgens een recente opiniepeiling maakt 72% van de Duitsers zich grote zorgen over een nieuwe Koude Oorlog, waarvan 20% zelfs zeer grote zorgen. 52% is tegen inkrimping van de economische betrekkingen met Rusland. Ruim een derde (35%) zegt dat Duitsland meer begrip moet hebben voor de Russische standpunten, en bijna twee derde (59%) dat Duitsland een bemiddelende rol moet spelen. 60% vindt dat Duitsland aan de kant van de Westelijke bondgenoten moet blijven staan, maar een belangrijke minderheid van 35% vindt van niet.

Sommige kritische Duitse burgers kruipen in de pen over de vijandige houding van hun land tegen Rusland, getuige een brief aan de Russische ambassade in Duitsland die werd gepubliceerd door collega-blogger The Saker, en waarvan hieronder een versie in het Nederlands volgt.

Geachte dames en heren,

Tegen de achtergrond van de steeds toenemende spanningen tussen Duitsland en Rusland wil ik mij verontschuldigen voor het gedrag van onze regering.

Al vanaf het begin kreeg ik een zeer slecht gevoel over de gebeurtenissen in Oekraïne. Ik heb zowel de Duitse als Amerikaanse nationaliteit, en schaam mij diep voor het buitenlands beleid van beide landen. Het is voor mij, net als voor veel Russische burgers, onbegrijpelijk dat Duitsland en de VS openlijk steun verlenen aan fascisten in Oekraïne, en dat onze politieke leiders zich daar niet van laten afhouden.

Het is mij ook een raadsel waarom men Rusland op het wereldtoneel steeds vaker poogt af te schilderen als de boosdoener. Dat roept bij mij het vermoeden op dat bepaalde kringen in “het Westen” een militair conflict met Rusland willen uitlokken, iets wat mij grote zorgen baart.

Ik kan alleen maar hopen dat het niet zo ver komt, omdat Duitsland zich met zekerheid in het centrum van de gebeurtenissen zal bevinden.

Ik hoop dat de mensen in Rusland weten dat de grote meerderheid van de Duitsers geen oorlog met Rusland wil, en dat veel burgers in toenemende mate ontgoocheld raken over het beleid van onze regering, de NAVO en de Verenigde Staten. De verontwaardiging groeit. Het optreden van onze bondskanselier maakt nog maar weer eens duidelijk hoezeer de Verenigde Staten bij ons de toon zetten.

Zoals u zich zult kunnen voorstellen doet het mij pijn om dit naar voren te brengen, want ik ben geboren in de VS en heb dus een band met dat land en de mensen daar. Maar vrede en begrip tussen de volkeren is voor mij belangrijker dan blind patriottisme en nationalisme.

En het is duidelijk dat Duitsland stabiele en positieve betrekkingen met Rusland nodig heeft. Of dat de Amerikaanse machthebbers duidelijk wordt waag ik te betwijfelen. Ik twijfel aan het gezond verstand van menig Amerikaanse functionaris.

De afgelopen dagen ben ik zeer actief geweest op de sociale netwerken, en ook op de website van onze Duitse minister van Buitenlandse Zaken, maar daar werd ik spijtig genoeg geweerd, net als veel anderen die kritiek naar voren brengen. Onze politieke leiders in Duitsland lijken zich sterk te hebben vervreemd van de mening van het volk, en dat geldt ook voor de media.

Wat we zien is de kwalijkste propaganda sinds lang, en dat doet mij denken aan de tijd vóór de Tweede Wereldoorlog. Ik hoop dat de spanningen weer afnemen in plaats van verder verscherpen. En ik hoop dat president Poetin zich beheerst blijft opstellen. Het optreden van Merkel en Obama kan ik alleen maar als krankzinnig omschrijven.

Mag ik u vragen deze brief door te sturen naar de juiste betrokkenen. Dank bij voorbaat.

Met vriendelijke groeten,

Leveren dit soort brieven wat op? Daar mag men zeker van zijn. Zo’n brief wordt gelezen door een Russische diplomaat, en die kan in deze tijden van rabiate russofobie zeker morele steun gebruiken. Russische diplomaten weten heel goed dat achter één persoon die in de pen kruipt honderd anderen staan die er net zo over denken. Maar het belangrijkste is dat de briefschrijver zich heeft kunnen ontdoen van passieve collaboratie, van stilzwijgende medeplichtigheid aan hetgeen er in zijn of haar naam gebeurt. Het is die individuele afwijzing van “het systeem” die bijdroeg aan de ineenstorting van de Sovjet-Unie en even doorslaggevend kan zijn bij de val van het AngloZionistische Imperium.