Informed Comment

Thoughts on the Middle East, History, and Religion

Juan Cole is President of the Global Americana Institute

Saturday, December 10, 2005

Guest Editorial: Achcar on Sadr Initiative



"A PAN-IRAQI PACT ON MUQTADA AL-SADR'S INITIATIVE

Gilbert Achcar

December 9, 2005

As part of his effort to influence the political forces in Iraq prior to the forthcoming parliamentary election, at the end of November Muqtada al-Sadr had his supporters distribute the draft of a "Pact of Honor," and called on Iraqi parties to discuss and collectively adopt it at a conference to be organized before the election.

This conference was actually held on Thursday, December 8, in al-Kadhimiya (North of Baghdad). Despite extensive search, I found it only reported in a relatively short article in today's Al-Hayat and in dispatches from the National Iraqi News Agency (NINA). There is legitimate ground to suspect that this media blackout has political significance; indeed most initiatives by the Sadrist current are hardly reported by the dominant media, even when they consist of important mass demonstrations (like those organized yesterday in Southern Iraq against British troops).

In the case of the recent conference, the vast array of forces that were represented and that signed the "Pact of Honor" is in itself already worthy of attention. Aside from the Sadrists, chiefly represented by their MPs, those represented and who signed the document included: SCIRI, al-Daawa (al-Jaafari's personal representative even apologized in his name for his absence due to his traveling outside of Iraq), and the Iraqi Concord Front (the major Sunni electoral alliance in the forthcoming election), to name but the most prominent of a long list of organizations, along with several tribal chiefs, unions and other social associations, members of the De-Ba'athification Committee and a few government officials. Ahmad Chalabi -- who definitely deserves to be called "The Transformer" -- attended in person and signed the document in the name of his group. It seems that the Association of Muslim Scholars did not attend, as its name is not mentioned in any of the two sources.

According to the reports, the "Pact of Honor" that was adopted consists of 14 points, among which the following demands and agreements are the most important (the sentences in quotation marks are translated from the document as quoted in the reports):

• "withdrawal of the occupiers and setting of an objective timetable for their withdrawal from Iraq"; "elimination of all the consequences of their presence, including any bases for them in the country, while working seriously for the building of [Iraqi] security institutions and military forces within a defined schedule";

• suppression of the legal immunity of occupation troops, a demand coming with the condemnation of their practices against civilians and their breach of human rights;

• categorical rejection of the establishment of any relations with Israel;

• "resistance is a legitimate right of all peoples, but terrorism does not represent legitimate resistance"; "we condemn terrorism and acts of violence, killing, abducting and expulsion aimed at innocent citizens for sectarian reasons";

• "to activate the de-Ba'athification law and to consider that the Ba'ath party is a terrorist organization for all the tyranny it brought on the oppressed sons of Iraq, and to speed up the trial of overthrown president Saddam Hussein and the pillars of his regime";

• "to postpone the implementation of the disputed principle of federalism and to respect the people's opinion about it."

The conference established a committee that is responsible for following up the implementation of the resolutions and reporting on it after six months.

If anything, the conference was a testimony to the increasing importance of the Sadrist current. As for the actual implementation of its resolutions, it will greatly depend on the pressure that the same current will be able to exert after the forthcoming election, if the United Iraqi Alliance -- of which the Sadrists are a major pillar on a par with SCIRI -- succeeds in getting a commanding position in the next National Assembly."

3 Comments:

At 2:03 AM, Blogger Abhinav Aima said...

Back in the day when I was young and running wild among the Athenians, Al Gore picked Joe Lieberman as his running mate and I told my friend Guy that it was a terrible mistake... Why? Because Lieberman, I said, was a Republican when it came to foreign policy...

Now, with rumors of a Rumsfeld-Lieberman swap circulating, the Respooblican in the Democrat's disguise is finally showing his stripes, or spots, or whatever it is that right-wing hegemonic war mongerers show...

Meanwhile, the media is aiding the Democratic part-ay in splitting itself apart over Howard Dean's remarks that the Iraq situation may be unwinnable... The best analysis of the Dean position vis a vis the Bush crusade was presented a couple of days ago by Prof. Juan Cole:

"Dean's remarks will, predictably, be twisted so that he is depicted as urging isolationism and complete withdrawal ("surrender", the Right will call it.)

Let me just suggest to him and others who are pushing this sensible plan that we call it "Winning smart in Iraq" rather than "can't win." What can possibly be won is the avoidance of a hot civil war or a regional guerrilla war that plunges the world into economic crisis. Winning that is in the best interests of everyone, Iraqis and Americans alike."

Let me again suggest that the big bad Iraqi civil war that everyone is afraid of will be diffused by a reconciliation of the various ethnic, religious and tribal Iraqi militias... The U.S. presence in Iraq is making this reconciliation very difficult, but it may still be possible if one can get a powerful Saud involved to throw a lot of money at all parties concerned and have another Taif type retreat...

I mean, it worked for Lebanon where there were 16 different confessional groups with at least two militias each, not to even start counting the various Palestinian groups involved... The situation in Iraq is much less complex, but it is complex nevertheless...

In the midst of this American tragedy, the star of Muqtada al-Sadr keeps rising... The man dismissed last year by Bushiites as a thug and a criminal is gaining more and more political ground from the moderates and, as Prof. Cole points out today, he is on the forefront of a move to get various Iraqi groups to sign on to a common pan-Iraqi pact...

Two important facets of this pan-Iraqi pact:

1. "withdrawal of the occupiers and setting of an objective timetable for their withdrawal from Iraq"; "elimination of all the consequences of their presence, including any bases for them in the country, while working seriously for the building of [Iraqi] security institutions and military forces within a defined schedule";

2. categorical rejection of the establishment of any relations with Israel.

Hee hee... I mean, I know it is Schadenfreude but really, how can one stop from giggling when the neocons have to eat their manure-like magical mystery words while dragging their tales between their legs all the way home! Where is Wolfowitz-of-Arabia now? What happened Douglas Faith?

And to those who would say that it is wrong to be schadenfreuding when American soldiers are in harms way - I say, Go tell it to the Bushiites... Got tell it to your weenie Poli Science profs and your Neocon History buffoons...

I did not send your bubby to Baghdad, your friend to Fallujah or your nephew to Najaf. In fact, I distinctly remember yelling myself hoarse, trying to explain to those that the Athenians would have called idiots, trying to explain how Iraq was a death trap... But did anyone listen to me - Nooooooo...

Everyone wanted to listen to the messianic nitwits trying to dress up like Churchill and talk like Lincoln... Or was it the other way around?

Well, at least the big-ass corporations are making bundles of benjamins... I mean, they are literally making a killing over there... And, of course, they have the mercenaries to protect them by shooting down anyone who dares come close to them, anywhere...

What is fascinating is that some of these guys were running around on behalf of the Apartheid regime in South Africa - killing off the blacks and browns that the White supremacists had problems with in neighboring countries...

Now, by their own admission (check out www.aegisiraq.co.uk), the new government of South Africa threw them out, so they all headed to Iraq - the new best place for killing browns and blacks with no need to fear the law... They are above the law...

It must be really heartening to Dick Cheney, who was the frontrunner in Reagan's efforts to keep the Apartheid government in power, it must be real great for Dick to see these Apartheid-era death squads running free in Iraq...

In other newsworthy reads, try Justin Raimondo's Friday column on John McCain, and how he is increasingly sounding like Bush-Jolt - Twice the troops, Twice the bombings, but Zero torture!

Yeah, like we're really going to win the Iraqis over by stopping the torture but killing the entire town by dropping a couple of MOABs... I mean, has anyone here even heard of Fallujah? How many terrorists were made there after it was turned into a parking lot in November 2004? You don't get to Shake and Bake, and eat your cake as well!

And, a word of advice to all the John Rambos out there - You can not make it a desert and call it peace, mostly because it already is a bloody desert! You'll only end up making a mess of yourself.

 
At 9:44 PM, Blogger Hatchjaw said...

Could anyone please post the original article from al-Hayat about the Pact of Honor? Thanks

 
At 4:38 PM, Blogger danutrom said...

The real Da'awa Party was victim of two processes.
Back when it became a terrorist group in order to
demonstrate its Iraqi character to the Shi'ia of the
South of Iraq, it competed with with SCIRI, a creature
of Tehran. But over time, my Iraq sources (Shi'ia)
inform me, it suffered from both suppression by Saddam
and isolation by Iran. Tehran has SCIRI as its
creature to this day. By the time if the American
invasion, Da'awa, I am told, has become similar to a
dominated front party in a Communist movement. It
really served as the political and terror arm of of
SCIRI. The two are a name difference without reality.
Thus, competition between them was for some time now
only a ruse. Jaafari thus identifies himself as Da'awa
to express a distinction of convenience without a
difference. This is why the Sunnis cannot accept him
as Prime Minister, nor can the Americans, not can the
Iraqi nationalists Shi'ia. The support he received
from the Wall Street Journal:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007969

like the support it gave to Chalabi, only betrays its
neocon direction, editorially at least. Amb. Khalilzad
succeeded in getting Jaafare to step down. He did it
with the threat of US withdrawal of aid and security.
While the former is a life blood, the latter is a
security blanket to SCIRI and Tehran. It's time for
America to announce sequestration of its troops in
preparation for withdrawal. President Bush's plan to
do so this Summer may be too late. Iraq cannot afford
to allow Zarqawi's alQaeda to repeat what it did to
the Samarra Mosque. Only if we withdraw will the
Sunnis kill them.

Not very much considered, I realized after listening
to a famous academic expert speaking on Iraq, is the
fact that Saddam, upon realizing that he faced an
American attack, reached for reconciliation to Iran.
The Russians served as intermediaries. The scholar at
issue couldn't imagine that as possible. Yet, it seems
to be true. In fact, ongoing WashDC-Baghdad
negotiations to forestall an American invasion were
cut off when the US satellites spotted truck convoys
going EAST to Iran instead of WEST to Syria as
suspected, transporting Iraqi planes and military
hardware (see also Taryk Aziz's interrogation). The US
then broke off all the ongoing negotiations for regime
change and prepared an attack-- certainly not because
the Iraq-Iran rapprochement was going badly.

Saddam needed depth through some sort of resolution
with Iran. He also needed reconciliation with the
Shi'ia and Tehran could take care of that. Russia
mediated because so much oil as Iraq-Iran had, kept
out of Western hands would make them dependent on
Russia. As Putin was quoted: "I will make Russia
dominant of world politics [read that as West] through
energy.". But for the US and England, such a new
oil-rich alliance was unacceptable.

The point here is that if the US invasion interrupted
a Shi'ia-Sunni rapprochement of sorts on a Kurdish
model, interrupted by US invasion, then with US
withdrawal, the three sides could pick up where they
left off, this time sans Saddam.

Daniel E. Teodoru

 

Post a Comment

<< Home