Who Benefits from the Carnage in Iraq?

Workers' Daily Internet Edition: Article Index :

Who Benefits from the Carnage in Iraq?

Who is behind the Shiite killings?

Iraq, the Aftermath – Prospects for Peace and Security

Statement on the Situation in Haiti

As many as 140 people were killed on March 2, taking part in a religious festival in Iraq. It was a terrible carnage, and Britain and the US seemed quick to condemn the heinous crime as an attempt, as Tony Blair said, to "set the different religious communities in Iraq against each other … to cause the maximum amount of dissent, and division and hatred".

This is set against the alleged "progress" in Iraq, the "new constitution" and a "new way forward for Iraq".

Where has been this "new way forward"? Has it been seen in the concrete reality in Iraq, outside the Anglo-US propaganda? The picture that Tony Blair is painting is one where this "new way forward" is being created by Britain and the US trying to "help" the Iraqi people "rebuild their country, make it a stable and democratic, free and prosperous country". On the other hand this assistance is being thwarted by a "highly active group of terrorists". This is then painted in the apocalyptic terms of the "struggle between good and evil".

In other words, does not the Blair picture not need this struggle between "good and evil" to explain the opposition of the Iraqi people to the occupation of their country? If the occupiers cannot succeed in building Iraq according to their image and blueprint, let a civil war be unleashed. Is this not the lesson that can be drawn? Who benefits from the carnage in Iraq? Not the Iraqi people who are struggling to regain the independence of their country.

BY ROBERT FISK*

Odd, isn't it? There never has been a civil war in Iraq. I have never heard a single word of animosity between Sunnis and Shias in Iraq.

Al-Qa'ida has never uttered a threat against Shias – even though al-Qa'ida is a Sunni-only organisation. Yet for weeks, the American occupation authorities have been warning us about civil war, have even produced a letter said to have been written by an al-Qa'ida operative, advocating a Sunni-Shia conflict. Normally sane journalists have enthusiastically taken up this theme. Civil war.

Somehow I don't believe it. No, I don't believe the Americans were behind yesterday's carnage despite the screams of accusation by the Iraqi survivors yesterday. But I do worry about the Iraqi exile groups who think that their own actions might produce what the Americans want: a fear of civil war so intense that Iraqis will go along with any plan the United States produces for Mesopotamia.

I think of the French OAS in Algeria in 1962, setting off bombs among France's Muslim Algerian community. I recall the desperate efforts of the French authorities to set Algerian Muslim against Algerian Muslim which led to half a million dead souls.

And I'm afraid I also think of Ireland and the bombings in Dublin and Monaghan in 1974, which, as the years go by, appear to have an ever closer link, via Protestant "loyalist" paramilitaries, to elements of British military security.

But the bombs in Karbala and Baghdad were clearly co-ordinated. The same brain worked behind them. Was it a Sunni brain? When the occupation authorities' spokesman suggested yesterday that it was the work of al-Qa'ida, he must have known what he was saying: that al-Qa'ida is a Sunni movement, that the victims were Shias.

It's not that I believe al-Qa'ida incapable of such a bloodbath. But I ask myself why the Americans are rubbing this Sunni-Shia thing so hard. Let's turn the glass round the other way. If a violent Sunni movement wished to evict the Americans from Iraq – and there is indeed a resistance movement fighting very cruelly to do just that – why would it want to turn the Shia population of Iraq, 60 per cent of Iraqis, against them? The last thing such a resistance would want is to have the majority of Iraqis against it.

So what about al-Qa'ida? Repeatedly, the Americans have told us that the suicide bombers were "foreigners". And so they may be. But can we have some identities, nationalities? The US Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, has talked of the hundreds of "foreign" fighters crossing Saudi Arabia's "porous" borders.

The US press have dutifully repeated this. The Iraqi police keep announcing that they have found the bombers' passports, so can we have the numbers?

We are entering a dark and sinister period of Iraqi history. But an occupation authority which should regard civil war as the last prospect it ever wants to contemplate, keeps shouting "civil war" in our ears and I worry about that. Especially when the bombs make it real. 

* March 3, 2004 The Independent. The author is a British journalist.

A day of debate and discussion to mark the first anniversary of war. An opportunity to network with parliamentarians, trade unionists, Iraqi democrats, academics, experts, and anti-war activists.

Hosted by Alice Mahon MP with special guest Scott Ritter, former UN arms inspector.
Other speakers in alphabetical order include: Justin Alexander, Jubilee Iraq, Anas Altikriti, President Muslim Association of Britain, Keith Bennett, former editor Asian Times, Jeremy Corbyn MP, Louise Christian, lawyer for Guantanamo Bay detainees, Kate Hudson, Chair CND, Sabah Jawad, Iraqi Democrats Against Occupation, Jean Lambert MEP, Mark Littman QC, Vijay Mehta, Action for UN Renewal, Andrew Murray, Chair Stop the War Coalition, Dr Glen Rangwala, Dr John Sloboda, co-founder Iraq Body Count, Keith Sonnet, Deputy General Secretary Unison, Ruth Winters, President Fire Brigades Union.

Organised by Iraq Liaison.
Sponsors include: CND, Muslim Association of Britain, Stop the War Coalition. The Greens in the European Parliament, Fire Brigades Union, NATFHE the college lecturers union, National Union of Journalists, RMT the railworkers union, Unison, Institute for Law and Peace, Action for UN Renewal, Iraqi Democrats Against Occupation.

Registration £8 waged individuals, £4 unwaged individuals, £20 per organisation delegate.
More details from: committee@no-war-on-iraq.org.uk

We are herewith reprinting the full March 3 statement of Caricom on the situation in Haiti for your information.

CARICOM Heads of Government met on 2 and 3 March 2004 in Kingston, Jamaica, in an emergency session to consider the situation in Haiti.

The Heads of Government expressed dismay and alarm over the events leading to the departure from office by President Aristide and the ongoing political upheaval and violence in Haiti. They called for the immediate return to democratic rule and respect for the Constitution of Haiti.

The Heads recalled that the CARICOM Prior Action Plan had been developed with the full involvement of the United States, Canada, the OAS and the European Union and fully endorsed by the international community. This initiative was guided by the need to preserve the rule of law and predicated on the precepts of shared government, binding both President Aristide and the legitimate opposition to specific commitments which would lead to a peaceful resolution of the political impasse respectful of the constitution and promoting the democratic process.

Heads of Government were disappointed by the reluctance of the Security Council to take immediate action in response to appeals for assistance by the Government of Haiti.

On Sunday 29 February, the Security Council adopted Resolution 1529 endorsing the deployment of a Multinational Interim Force to Haiti. This was what CARICOM had sought in the first place, but the decision was taken in circumstances quite different to those conceived in the CARICOM Plan since it followed immediately the departure from office of President Aristide.

They expressed the view that the circumstances under which the President demitted office set a dangerous precedent for democratically elected governments everywhere as it promotes the unconstitutional removal of duly elected persons from office.

Reaffirming the fundamental tenets of governance within the Caribbean Community based on the Charter of Civil Society as well as the principles enshrined in the Quebec Declaration and the Inter-American Democratic Charter, Heads of Government stressed that these obligations must be used to determine the democratic nature of governance in Haiti. In this regard, no action should be taken to legitimize the rebel forces nor should they be included in any interim government. The Heads of Government also agreed that the issue of relations with the interim administration would be the subject of urgent review at the upcoming Inter-Sessional Meeting of the Conference.

Heads of Government were deeply perturbed at the contradictory reports surrounding the demission from office of the constitutionally elected President. These concerns were heightened by public assertions made by President Aristide that he had not demitted office voluntarily. Heads of Government called for an investigation under the auspices of the United Nations to clarify the circumstances leading to his relinquishing the Presidency.

When CARICOM agreed to admit Haiti as a member of the Community, it was based on its determination to end years of isolation and bring Haiti into the Caribbean family to which it belongs by geography, history and common ancestry. Heads of Government reiterated their commitment to the people of Haiti and their intention to remain constructively engaged in the efforts to create the conditions considered necessary for their long term safety, well-being and progress.

That commitment was most recently demonstrated in the initiative the Caribbean Community launched in January this year, with international support, to help resolve the long-standing impasse which has polarized the country.

In this regard they stressed that the Community would continue to support the political, economic and social development of its Member State. Accordingly, Heads of Government mandated the CARICOM Secretary-General to establish a Task Force to coordinate CARICOM’s assistance to Haiti in those areas where it has the capacity. In keeping with the UN Resolution 1529 Heads agreed to participation in the follow-on UN stabilisation force, in efforts to provide humanitarian assistance, the rebuilding of the economy and civil society, and the reconstitution of the democratic structures, processes and institutions of the country. In the prevailing circumstances Heads of Government do not envisage their participation in the Multinational Interim Force authorized by the UN Security Council.

Heads of Government reiterated the importance of a return to constitutional democracy and expressed the wish to see the quick restoration of peace and stability in Haiti and the earliest return to constitutional democracy by working with the people of Haiti in a sustained effort to rebuild democratic institutions. They underlined that any approach to returning Haiti to a state of normalcy must include an economic and social development plan.

Heads of Government welcomed the appointment of a Special Advisor to the United Nations Secretary General and committed themselves to working closely with him in these efforts. They stressed that creating the conditions for political stability, economic development and the institutional reconstruction of Haiti would requires a long-term commitment on the part of the international community, including the International Financial Institutions.

The Heads of Government continue to be concerned about the security situation in Haiti. They affirmed that the disarmament of illegally armed groups must be an urgent priority. There are continuing reports that the situation in Port-au-Prince is chaotic and, notwithstanding the presence of international military forces, respect for law and order is not in evidence. They deplored the loss of life, the destruction of private property and politically motivated attacks, including threats against members of the Government. They therefore called on the international forces to bring a stop to the lawlessness and reminded them of their legal obligation to do so.

Heads of Government deplored the present turmoil in Haiti leading to an outflow of Haitians, a situation which is placing strains on the resources of neighbouring states.

Heads of Government agreed to keep the evolving political situation under review with a view to determining further action in the interest of the Haitian people.

Kingston, Jamaica

3 March, 2004