Empire Notes

Many thought the manufactured moment in the State of the Union address when an Iraqi human rights activist embraced the mother of a U.S. soldier who died in Iraq was deeply moving. It was anything but. The Iraqi woman was brought in as a mascot for Team America, in its new mission to conquer the world and call it democracy.

For most commentators, the Iraq elections have played roughly the same role as Safia Taleb al-Suhail. A stunning triumph for Bush’s policy of democracy promotion. A wake-up call to the corrupt, autocratic Arab elites, including the ones heavily supported by the Bush administration. A step toward success in the war on terrorism. A stunning reaffirmation of America’s greatness.

The only way actual Iraqis figure in all this talk is condescending praise for their courage and their eagerness to vote.

The left has made some of the same mistake, in reverse. Most of its points are true: the election was not free and fair. The assault on Fallujah, sold as enabling the people there to vote, actually made it certain that Sunni Arabs not only in Fallujah but in parts of Baghdad were unable to vote. Parties and organizations that opposed the occupation never had access to the resources necessary in building a base of support. The infrastructure and level of monitoring were so poor that had any other country presided over these elections they would have been an international joke. Above all else, the occupiers have no intention of leaving.

Though true, this misses the fundamental point. Having elections in this way at this time were not the choice of the United States – and, in fact, the winners are not whom the United States would have chosen.

These elections are a vindication, not of George Bush’s nonexistent strategy of democracy-promotion, but of Ayatollah Sistani’s maneuvering. It started with his decision that the United States could not simply appoint the people who would write the constitution. Hamstrung by early bad decisions, negligence, brutality, and lack of any Iraqi base of support, the occupiers had to give in. Next, Sistani scotched Bremer’s plans to remain in charge indefinitely.

After that, Bremer’s plan to forgo elections in favor of a U.S.-dominated caucus system had to be abandoned after Sistani called for mass demonstrations about a year ago. 100,000 people demonstrated in Baghdad, demonstrations that U.S. forces were unable to deal with.

Then, Sistani forced the United States into some clear legal commitments. First, the Transitional Administrative Law, or interim constitution, passed in March set down very clearly the powers of the transitional government to be created by the elections. Second was U.N. Security Council resolution 1546, which set a firm deadline for the elections and clearly gave the transitional government the power, among other things, to have the occupying forces leave. In the case of 1546, although Sistani forced the turn toward the U.N. in the first place, it was the other countries on the Security Council that forced the United States to clarify these matters; the United States wanted no deadline for elections and wanted the resolution initially to make legal authority for the occupation permanent.

The TAL and 1546, taken together, give the transitional government the power to pass its own laws. The United States has been boxed into a situation where it won’t have a leg to stand on if the Iraqi government rebels. The elections, as manipulated as they were, were essential in pushing the United States into this corner.

Unfortunately, although the new Iraqi government has the legal power to call on U.S. forces to leave, it won’t do that. Since Iraq has been deliberately left unable to defend its borders, none of the prominent politicians who have emerged are likely to call for this. But it’s time for Iraqis and antiwar activists here to start, as Naomi Klein once said, holding Bush to his lie: the least a new Iraqi government should do is to start putting severe restrictions on the actions of U.S. forces, to start overturning Bremer’s illegal edicts, and to eliminate the police state policies of the Allawi government.

The overwhelming majority of Shi’a oppose the occupation. If their representatives don’t start doing something about it, there should be some accountability.