Opinion - Editorials   

Iraq and neocolonialism

The regime of Nouri al-Maliki apparently has no qualms about plumbing new depths of ignominy. Instead of pushing as hard as it can to make the United States-led occupation forces withdraw from Iraq, it is currently engaged in efforts on two parallel tracks to ensure that they will stay on beyond December 31, 2008. On one track, it has initiated efforts to persuade the United Nations Security Council to extend the mandate granted to the occupation forces beyond the stipulat ed date. These efforts effectively nullify a declaration that a request to the same effect it made in December 2007 would be the last. On the other track, the dependant regime in Baghdad is negotiating with the U.S. administration the terms of a bilateral pact that any self-respecting government would have rejected out of hand. Washington wants Iraq to agree that it will continue to host a large number of foreign forces for an unspecified period; provide nearly 50 bases for them; grant immunity to soldiers for any illegalities they might commit when deployed; and, hand over complete control of its airspace. Mr. Maliki’s willingness to discuss these terms has stirred a rebellion even within the Shia community that is the mainstay of his government.

It is very likely that the Iraqi government will try to manoeuvre every which way until American voters elect a new President on November 3, 2008. The presumptive Democratic nominee, Barack Obama, has watered down his commitment to an immediate and complete withdrawal of troops. But he continues to believe that the domineering presence of foreign troops provokes the local population and at the same time provides the diverse Iraqi communities an excuse for not seeking reconciliation. Mr. Obama would like to trim the occupying army to a size at which it can ensure its own security and carry out a few specific tasks. The presumptive Republican nominee, John McCain, would like to maintain a large-scale deployment for the foreseeable future but appears to have recently recognised that such a policy would be unsustainable if the casualty rate were high. While the Democrat promises to move towards responsible internationalism, the Republican appears bent on an imperialist enterprise of dominating an oil-rich and strategically vital region. There is no doubt where Iraq’s national interests, and the democratic interests of its people, lie. Mr. Maliki professes to be a nationalist but his regime’s unprincipled manoeuvres, in the face of the most outrageous neocolonial demands pressed by the Bush administration, expose both the real character of the occupation of Iraq and the nature of the ‘democratic’ project that is supposed to be the agenda of the occupation forces.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Stories in this Section

Iraq and neocolonialism
More monetary tightening
Fertilising profit, sowing misery
Australia: a free-thinking ally of U.S.
Assessing the lawyers’ “long march”
Electoral system
War against state
Wanted, Burneys
Cooking with sun
Pathetic

Copyright © 2008, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu