Iraq will be on the verge of disaster if we do not see urgent action to reverse its fast-moving and bloody crises, which have been needlessly aggravated by the actions of its prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki.
Six years ago, I met Maliki in Baghdad on a Labour Friends of Iraq delegation to press the case for trade union rights. Maliki gave us warm words and organised a press conference to convey the same message. Nothing changed the cold reality.
This has been the wider experience of Sunnis, Kurds and many Shias as Maliki tactically swallowed his words to take and keep power but then reneged in favour of a strategic divide-and-rule policy on a sectarian and dictatorial basis.
This has marginalised many Sunnis, now less fearful of Isis than of Baghdad’s bombs. His punishing economic blockade of the Kurds – denied $6bn in revenues from the national coffers in the last six months – and blocking of vital Kurdish oil exports has alienated the most efficient part of Iraq. His support for Assad has allowed its civil war to spill over into Iraq. Isis was incubated in Syria and gained the momentum to overrun parts of Iraq.
As the prime minister and commander-in-chief, Maliki forced American troops to leave entirely in 2011. He cannot blame anyone else for his clear failure to protect Iraqis. That his supposedly strong army deserted without a shot being fired is testament to the pathetic inefficiency at the heart of Baghdad. He either cannot stay as prime minister or has to change entirely to unify Iraq against an existential threat.
First things first. The priority must be urgent assistance from the international community to help Kurdistan cope with a further wave of humanity crossing its borders to join hundreds of thousands of other refugees who see Kurdistan as sanctuary.
The other priority is to stop Isis from holding Mosul and taking further territory. The Kurdish security forces, known as the Peshmerga (those who face death) are the only effective state military force around for now. They will not run away but their priority must be protecting the Kurds and this now includes Kirkuk.
Many Iraqis now face life under Isis, a group so extreme that even al-Qaida disowned it. Many others have lost everything to live in refugee camps for possibly years, with a lost generation of young people denied a decent education.
This awful situation requires the greatest moral, political and diplomatic clarity. The Kurds now hold the key to saving Iraq from its own demons and external enemies. They are now the frontline and our allies. Second order disputes with the Kurds should be settled urgently in order to focus a unified effort on the humanitarian and security challenges.
It is a time of historic reckoning which could either disintegrate Iraq or reintegrate it on a more democratic and inclusive basis with or without Maliki whose warm words no longer tide things over.
———————————
Gary Kent is director of Labour Friends of Iraq and of the APPG on the Kurdistan region. He writes in a personal capacity
———————————
When the British and French carved up the Ottoman Empire they ignored the provincial boundaries which had existed in that region for hundreds of years. By centralising control, or trying to, and by favouring certain minorities over others they sowed the seeds of later conflict. Then we destabilised Iraq again by invading in 2003 and destroying as many existing structures as possible. Including a reasonably competent and loyal army, which would come in handy now. So we owe them. But we have nothing to offer. Sad, but at least it reminds Labour people not to trust Blairite interventionism, ever again.
On 30th May in his article “Here we go again”, Gary Kent was anxious to demonstrate how Western intervention in Iraq had given the Iraqis new opportunities. I challenged this pointing towards some of the measures of the great social catastrophe. Gary responded with “warm words” saying I should acknowledge the progress being made.
12 days later we are informed that there is an “awful situation” that “requires the greatest moral, political and diplomatic clarity”. None of which can be expected from those who apologise for the Western policy that created the disaster facing the Iraqi people.
“Western policy…created the disaster facing the Iraqi people.” Fine but which one? Here’s a list of some options: Sykes-Picot; forcing the Kurds into Iraq; treating them like dispensable pawns in the Cold War; selling them out in 1975; siding with Saddam against the Kurds and Iran; ignoring or denying Halabja; liberating Kuwait but leaving Saddam in power; failure to enforce UN resolutions for 12 years; saving the Kurds with the no-fly zone; seeking the disbandment of the Peshmerga in 2003 and forcing the Kurds to leave Kirkuk; botched occupation; the surge that helped avert full-scale civil war; premature withdrawal of US forces in 2011; failure to uphold and promote federalism; non-intervention in Syria which allowed Assad to strengthen his grip; failure to punish his use of chemical weapons; failure
to support moderate Syrian opposition.
Of recent vintage, I’d choose a few you’ve decided to exclude – invasion of Iraq; dissolution of Iraqi army; covert operations in Syria; promotion of the armed opposition in Syria, including ISIS; and refusal to engage in Geneva process without pre-conditions. All these have created the “awful” situation you’ve woken up to.
But you can’t help yourself can you? “The surge that helped avert full scale civil war” – is this meant to be ironic? As to the “premature withdrawal of US forces in 2011” – the Iraqi government refused to accept their continued presence. I assume you would have preferred a continuation of the “botched occupation”.
I know that Iraqi PM Maliki refused to allow some American troops to remain in Iraq: hardly the same as your distortion. We cannot know what difference a smaller force of American soldiers would have made but my own view is that Isis would either not have contemplated advance or would have been quickly rebuffed. As for the surge, it staved off what I called “full-scale civil war” although it clearly didn’t change the longer-term tensions between Sunnis, Shia and Kurds which have clearly been worsened by Maliki. We should now just agree to disagree on Iraq.
‘Iraq is emerging from its long nightmare of Saddam’s totalitarianism, Wars and privation.
An independent and seclar labour movement is a key part of civil society and can do much to promote the unity of working people (in Iraq), regardless of creed or gender.’
[Gary Kent, Director, Original Founding Statement LFIQ, October 2004).
Admirable words and intentions.
The United Nations [Henry Kissenger, Powell, Camp David attendees and all the rest have played major roles down the decades] has been involved in various problems in ME wars since 1947; wars have broken out in 1948,’56,’67, and sever problems exist to this day [“The UN & ME” History Learning Site.co.uk.2005.Web].
On what level can we, as Labour voters only, hope to help? given that we are not even in Govt?
Only asking, as I have deep admiration for the unions and their proposed aims, but as an ordinary man-in-the-street there is little I can do but pray that them in power know what they are doing –and I am a born-again atheist[!].