💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › noam-chomsky-beyond-the-ballot.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 12:56:26. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
➡️ Next capture (2024-07-09)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Beyond the Ballot Author: Noam Chomsky Date: January 6, 2006 Language: en Topics: voting, Iraq, Elections Source: Retrieved on 1st October 2021 from https://www.khaleejtimes.com/editorials-columns/beyond-the-ballot Notes: Published in the Khaleej Times.
The US President Bush called last month’s Iraqi elections a “major
milestone in the march to democracy.” They are indeed a milestone — just
not the kind that Washington would welcome. Disregarding the standard
declarations of benign intent on the part of leaders, let’s review the
history. When Bush and Britain’s Prime Minister, Tony Blair, invaded
Iraq, the pretext, insistently repeated, was a “single question”: Will
Iraq eliminate its weapons of mass destruction?
Within a few months this “single question” was answered the wrong way.
Then, very quickly, the real reason for the invasion became Bush’s
“messianic mission” to bring democracy to Iraq and the Middle East. Even
apart from the timing, the democratisation bandwagon runs up against the
fact that the United States has tried, in every possible way, to prevent
elections in Iraq.
Last January’s elections came about because of mass nonviolent
resistance, for which the Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani became a symbol.
(The violent insurgency is another creature altogether from this popular
movement.) Few competent observers would disagree with the editors of
the Financial Times, who wrote last March that “the reason (the
elections) took place was the insistence of the Grand Ayatollah Ali
Sistani, who vetoed three schemes by the US-led occupation authorities
to shelve or dilute them.”
Elections, if taken seriously, mean you pay some attention to the will
of the population. The crucial question for an invading army is: “Do
they want us to be here?”
There is no lack of information about the answer. One important source
is a poll for the British Ministry of Defence this past August, carried
out by Iraqi university researchers and leaked to the British Press. It
found that 82 per cent are “strongly opposed” to the presence of
coalition troops and less than 1 per cent believe they are responsible
for any improvement in security.
Analysts of the Brookings Institution in Washington report that in
November, 80 per cent of Iraqis favoured “near-term US troop
withdrawal.” Other sources generally concur. So the coalition forces
should withdraw, as the population wants them to, instead of trying
desperately to set up a client regime with military forces that they can
control. But Bush and Blair still refuse to set a timetable for
withdrawal, limiting themselves to token withdrawals as their goals are
achieved.
There’s a good reason why the United States cannot tolerate a sovereign,
more or less democratic Iraq. The issue can scarcely be raised because
it conflicts with firmly established doctrine: We’re supposed to believe
that the United States would have invaded Iraq if it was an island in
the Indian Ocean and its main export was pickles, not petroleum.
As is obvious to anyone not committed to the party line, taking control
of Iraq will enormously strengthen US power over global energy
resources, a crucial lever of world control. Suppose that Iraq were to
become sovereign and democratic. Imagine the policies it would be likely
to pursue. The Shia population in the South, where much of Iraq’s oil
is, would have a predominant influence. They would prefer friendly
relations with Shia Iran.
The relations are already close. The Badr brigade, the militia that
mostly controls the south, was trained in Iran. The highly influential
clerics also have long-standing relations with Iran, including Sistani,
who grew up there. And the Shia-dominant interim government has already
begun to establish economic and possibly military relations with Iran.
Furthermore, right across the border in Saudi Arabia is a substantial,
bitter Shia population. Any move toward independence in Iraq is likely
to increase efforts to gain a degree of autonomy and justice there, too.
This also happens to be the region where most of Saudi Arabia’s oil is.
The outcome could be a loose Shia alliance comprising Iraq, Iran and the
major oil regions of Saudi Arabia, independent of Washington and
controlling large portions of the world’s oil reserves. It’s not
unlikely that an independent bloc of this kind might follow Iran’s lead
in developing major energy projects jointly with China and India.
Iran may give up on Western Europe, assuming that it will be unwilling
to act independently of the United States. China, however, can’t be
intimidated. That’s why the United States is so frightened by China.
China is already establishing relations with Iran — and even with Saudi
Arabia, both military and economic. There is an Asian energy security
grid, based on China and Russia, but probably bringing in India, Korea
and others. If Iran moves in that direction, it can become the lynchpin
of that power grid.
Such developments, including a sovereign Iraq and possibly even major
Saudi energy resources, would be the ultimate nightmare for Washington.
Also, a labour movement is forming in Iraq, a very important one.
Washington insists on keeping Saddam Hussein’s bitter anti-labour laws,
but the labour movement continues its organising work despite them.
Their activists are being killed. Nobody knows by whom, maybe by
insurgents, maybe by former Baathists, maybe by somebody else. But
they’re persisting. They constitute one of the major democratising
forces that have deep roots in Iraqi history, and that might revitalise,
also much to the horror of the occupying forces. One critical question
is how Westerners will react. Will we be on the side of the occupying
forces trying to prevent democracy and sovereignty? Or will we be on the
side of the Iraqi people?