Election, Occupation, Farce

by Danilo Mandic

With unprecedented levels of violence, the U.S. is administering an “election” in Iraq with a flood of media worship to accompany it. This “grand moment in Iraqi history” is treated as the ultimate test for whether the U.S.’s democratizing mission was successful and, in the words of an AP news analysis, for whether Bush is “a lame duck.” Typically, few have pointed out that the most elementary conditions for a free and fair election are conspicuously absent.

The Washington Post announced that U.S. journalists were “staging their own Iraq invasion” as the corporate media judges it to be best to forget one’s “frustration” with the chaos and violence. Many fail to heed the advice and would prefer food, electricity and kerosene over an election that invites an escalating civil war (Anthony Shadid, Post). Fear of voting is widespread in most areas of the country – “hot areas,” as Kasim Daoud, Iraq’s minister of state for national security, calls them. He blames “the naughty boys” (Syria and Iran) for the escalating violence and regrets to have to admit that considerable areas (including Southern Baghdad) are beyond the control of coalition forces. Constant curfews have been declared, cell phone services cut, driving restricted, all borders sealed and movement between provinces forbidden. Voters were finally told who the 7000 candidates on the ballot are 70 ample hours before Election Day. Many of the candidates remain anonymous for fear of assassination.

Insecurity is not the primary problem; occupation is. Bush assures us that he has “heard the voices of the people that [sic] presumably will be in a position [sic] of responsibility after these elections” and that, furthermore, he will “absolutely” pull out of Iraq if the new government fails to “understand [the] need for coalition troops.” The president remains confident, however, that the government will ask for no such thing, and that those 14 permanent U.S. military bases are not being established in vain. Although many candidates, such as those of the Loyalty to Najaf ticket, are explicitly standing for an “end to occupation,” they are only the tip of the iceberg. The coalition predicted to win the election has dropped the demand for American withdrawal in the face of American military power in the country. After all, what candidate would in his or her right mind explicitly oppose the American occupation, as his voters wish him to, with 170,000+ armed American troops around him? Human Rights Watch recently found that practices of systematic torture have been passed down from the American military to the American-trained Iraqi police and intelligence forces. Meanwhile, the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs, the International Republican Institute, the International Foundation for Election Systems and other U.S. organizations offering “political training” dominate the scene.

Yet not even American military control over Iraq is the most important factor that reduces the election to a distasteful joke. Regardless of the election’s outcome, American economic control of Iraq is in outright contradiction to Iraqi independence. Foreign Policy in Focus (FPIF) scholar Antonia Juhasz reminds us that, election or no election, “the Bush administration is going to control the largest pot of money available in Iraq [and] the rules governing Iraq's economy. Both the money and the rules will, in turn, be overseen by U.S.-appointed auditors and inspector generals who sit in every Iraqi ministry with five-year terms and sweeping authority over contracts and regulations.” Juhasz adds that U.S. support seems to be conditioned on willingness to privatize Iraq’s oil industry into American corporate hands.

Less interested in these issues, the U.S. corporate media is expressing great apprehension over the possibility that the 60% Shiite majority might overwhelm the election, given a predicted Sunni boycott. The Christian Science Monitor points out why the apprehension is justified: an Iraq governed by Shiite leaders is likely - against the wishes of America’s allies Saudi Arabia and Jordan – to attract Iran’s friendship. What is worse, U.S. favorite Iliyad Allawi’s position is being threatened by the al-Sistani-backed ‘169 list,’ which apparently has no intention of embracing Allawi policies nor their ‘U.S. stooge’ image. Nevertheless, former CIA asset Allawi is not giving up: he recently handed out $100 bills to journalists at a press conference and gave unexpected raises to teachers, students, and retired soldiers. “Bribery” is being mentioned among Iraqi observers, but most doubt his ability to buy enough Iraqi votes, let alone their respect. Nevertheless, Allawi’s victory is not crucial, as the Project on Defense Alternatives points out. “America’s enduring influence in Iraq,” their report explains, rests not only on American military presence and economic dominance, but also on “More than 40,000 US civilian government personnel and contract employees operating throughout Iraqi government and public institutions at every level.” Therefore, all potentially independent initiatives by the elected government of Iraq are easily preventable.

These conditions, which exclude the possibility of meaningful choice for the Iraqis, should not be surprising. In January 2004, roughly 100,000 people voiced their desire for free and direct elections in the streets of Baghdad, in the face of considerable risks. Bush dismissed the demands, believing that the protestors’ refusal to recognize the Pentagon-appointed interim government was unacceptable. Later, the U.S. planned for a complex caucus system to ensure American selection over the Iraqi government. The idea was only abandoned after tremendous public pressure and lobbying for direct elections by al-Sistani and others. The intention has never been to allow a free and fair election, and it is not the intention now.

Privatization of the oil industry, on the other hand, has been an intention and priority since day one of the occupation, if not earlier. Iraq’s undersecretary of oil, Ahmad Al-Shamaa, told Bloomberg News that the current, unelected cabinet may approve contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars to private, foreign-owned corporations. Agreements may include deals worth a combined $450 million for development of the massive Suba-Luhais and Hamrin oil fields, intended to add about 100,000 barrels each to Iraq’s daily petroleum output. The New Standard staff reveals that the interim government is rushing to hand these contracts out before the elected assembly assumes authority. Notice that, when elections might have thwarted privatization of the oil industry (when they were “too early”), they were forbidden because of their “prematurity.” Now that they have been arranged, the U.S. is doing everything possible to maximize corporate control of Iraq’s oil – to minimize the potential “damage” of the elections.

The antiwar movement - having recovered from the pepper spray at the counterinaugural - made an important point: the real elections have already happened. All credible polls since June of 2003 have been indicating that an overwhelming and growing majority of Iraqis want “complete and immediate” American withdrawal as soon as humanly possible. International law wants the same thing, but Bush’s respect for it is as poor as his respect for Iraqi life.

It remains to be seen to what extent the absurd notion that Iraqis deserve to control Iraq’s natural resources is going to be suppressed.

Danilo may be reached via e-mail at dmandic@princeton.edu