On BBC radio this morning it has just been said that Jack
Straw (our Foreign Secretary) is in Baghdad this morning. When going he
said something to the effect that the plans of the CPA were going forward
OK
Wow! This is important. Firstly, his comment is ridiculous.
American-UK plans for Iraq have changed dramatically in the last two
weeks (when Bush finally realised that there was no more chance of
encouraging the development of the northern oilfields until a
'legitimate' government is in place in Iraq). But let's leave his comment
on one side.
Secondly, Straw hasn't gone to Baghdad to see Bremer, the US
"ambassador" to Iraq. Baghdad is far too dangerous a place to
go to (as Wolfowitz discovered!) and see such a relatively junior
man. Bremer could easily go to London. In my opinion (bearing in
mind the UK experience with the IRA in Northern Ireland), Straw has gone
there for secret negotiations with people who matter in Iraq who cannot
leave the place without being noticed. (In the Northern Ireland
situation, IRA people were sometimes flown to London secretly at night by
helicopter for negotiations and then returned to NI before anybody --
particularly the press -- could twig what was happening. This is
impossible in the case of Iraq.)
It is unlikely, however, that Straw will be meeting with the various
terrorist leaders (and certainly not with Saddam) because, probably, the
occupying forces will not know who most of them are at the present time.
I think Straw will be negotiating with, probably, the most important
person in Iraq, Grand Ayatollah Sustani, who has refused to talk through
to the Americans and will only convey anything he has to say through the
United Nations. He is the only sufficiently eminent leader that the Shia
Muslims have got now -- two others Ayatollahs having been assassinated
(probably by Sunni terrorists). So far, GA Sustani has been a moderating
influence, particularly in preventing outright warfare by some of his
more militant clerics who have already armed many thousands of Shias
(and, probably, could already defeat the American forces if they came out
of their bunkers).
The big dilemma that Bush has now is that he cannot bring any form of
democracy about (or any representative intermediate bodies) unless the
Shia have the predominant share of power. What Straw would dearly like to
know is that if an election were held and the Shias came to power, would
they be able to keep the peace (and also, of course, would they allow US
and UK oil corporation to negotiate development contracts in orthern
Iraq).
Straw is a wiley bird and has had to be an extraordinary verbal gymnast
so far in trying to justify Blair's decision to support Bush's invasion.
However, he has a "safe pair of hands" as they say, and he and
Sustani ought to get along well. (He has said just enough, in a couple of
asides in recent months, to let the intelligentsia in England know that
he thinks Blair's decision to support Bush was madness -- but without
being obviously disloyalk to Blair.) The point is: If genuine democratic
elections are planned, how can the Shias prevent an eruption from the
Sunnis and perhaps Saddam-led tribal terrorists? That's the big issue.
Have the Shias a sufficient number of competent people who can keep the
lid on -- and then lead Iraq along a secular path (as regards school
education and encouragement of professional skills in medicine and
science, etc) which Saddam, for all his nasty habits and faulty
judgements, was actually taking Iraq?
Keith Hudson
Keith Hudson, Bath, England,
<www.evolutionary-economics.org>
