Occupation Watch Bulletin, February 5, 2005

[G_j]

Occupation Watch Bulletin
www.occupationwatch.org
5 February 2005
By Marjorie Lasky

THE IRAQI ELECTIONS: WHAT DO THEY MEAN?

On Feb. 4, Borzou Daragahi in Baghdad reports, "Partial results from Sunday's election suggest that U.S.-backed Prime Minister Ayad Allawi's coalition is being roundly defeated by a list with the backing of Iraq's senior Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al- Sistani, diminishing Allawi's chances of retaining his post in the next government. Sharif Ali bin Hussein, head of the Constitutional Monarchy Party, likened the vote outcome to a 'Sistani tsunami' that would shake the nation. 'Americans are in for a shock,' he said, adding that one day they would realize, 'We've got 150,000 troops here protecting a country that's extremely friendly to Iran, and training their troops.'"

"U.S. 'In for a Shock' In Early Election Results, Shiite Cleric's Alliance Trouncing U.S. Favorite"
http://www.occupationwatch.org/article.php?id=9112

But, is this early result such shocking news? Didn't people throughout the world, including the United States, understand the significance of the Iraqi elections?

To counter the reports in the corporate media and offer analyses on the elections, Occupation Watch sent the following request to several individuals:

"We're writing on behalf of the International Occupation Watch Center with a request for a quick response from you regarding today's election in Iraq. With the blizzard of media stories that will be coming out right after the election (many of them worthless drivel or propaganda), we would like to organize and publish an article that helps people frame the election in the context of the real situation of the Iraqi people and the reality of the occupation."

Among the responses, Imad Khadduri, an Iraqi nuclear scientist based in Canada, writes about rigged elections:

"Why would we conclude anything other than a rigged election, from start to finish? 6o million ballot sheets were flown to Iraq days before the election. If all legitimate voters had participated, they would have needed about 15 million ballots. The Iraqi minister of the interior claims that 8 million participated. Why did they need more than 40 million ballot sheets?

"The people in the three Kurdish provinces had an extra piece of ballot, one with an Iraqi flag and a Kurdish flag, with a place to place your thumb stamp next to either flag. One would assume that this extra polling effort was done with the agreement of whoever is organizing the elections in order to measure the percentage of the people in these three provinces who would support Kurdish independence.

"Why did they not also offer the Iraqi people in all provinces a similar small piece of paper asking the voters whether they wish the occupiers to stay or to leave? That would have been a mandate for the incoming government as representatives of the will of the people. Its absence, in contrast to allowing the above Kurdish paper, is another manifestation of rigging.

"As for the legitimacy of this election, I believe this is the first time in modern times that 7500 candidates, scattered among 257 lists, with at least 6000 of them fearful to declare their names till election day, are offered to people living under armed occupation and a general state of infrastructure paralysis yet are asked to vote, simply to vindicate the morbid figment of George Bush's imagination on the legitimacy of this election."

Tahrir Swift of Arab Media Watch offers several thoughts:

"It is hardly surprising that most Iraqis would like to believe that their voice can have some sort of influence on the events on the ground after years of silence. The real danger comes if they come to realize that the elections made little difference.

"Two things one should be aware of: When the Americans or their stooges talk about withdrawal, they do not mean eradicating the American presence in Iraq.

"Some candidates seem to have promised the Iraqis the earth in a situation that is not totally under their control. The proof as they say is in the pudding!

"The other matter is 25 Iraqi towns and cities that boycotted the elections were ignored by the media.

"There were calls within Iraq for a reconciliation conference after Fallujah, that was rejected by Allawi, the media is not asking why?

"Has Negroponte ceased to be Iraq's real ruler?

"The acid test for the elected government is to stop the privatizations (order 39) and reject the Americans long term military presence.

"For whose benefit is the big hype in the British and American media on the 'elections' celebrations' in Iraq?"

Munir Chalabi of Iraqi Democrats Against Occupation queries:

"Will this be the turning point election? Despite the reservations we all had on the election, millions of enthusiastic Iraqis went to vote by their own free will to choose their future for the first time in their lives. Heavy voting covered the Kurdish and Shia areas. However, there were much lower numbers of voters and enthusiasm within the Sunni communities.

"So is this election going to be the turning point to end the occupation and start an inner Iraqi political process to establish a new democratic Iraq? The answer will depend first on whether or not the CIA and their puppet Allawi will decide to rig the results heavily in their favour. This will cause millions of Iraqis in the south and the centre who have mostly restrained themselves from taking up arms to now do so if the election was rigged.

"But if the US chooses to limit its interference in the election results as part of its new "Exit strategy" then the election could become a turning point to the winners, but not necessarily to the whole of the country.

"The two major winners seem to be the Sistani list, with the Kurdish list following. If the winners show that they have the wisdom and ability to bring together all sectors and religions in Iraq to widen the political process then this will unite all Iraqis in their struggle to end the occupation, stop the blood bath, and build a democratic future. Alternatively, if such a process does not take place then the division between different sectors of Iraqis will increase, resulting in more Iraqi blood being shed and the occupation continuing.

"The cause of such a large turn out was the heavy price paid during the 35 years of Saddam's ruthless repression, the failure of the occupation to improve the standard of living and end the occupation, and a rejection of terrorist organizations that killed thousands of innocent civilians and further destroyed the infrastructure.

"The election has shown that the majority of Iraqis believe that democratic methods are the way to solve the problems facing them and unite them to end the occupation."

Some Iraqis chose not to vote. In an open letter prior to the election, a group of Iraqis explained the significance of the elections and why they weren't voting: "Iraq is being denied free and fair elections, after enduring decades of Saddam's brutal dictatorship. The US and British occupation governments have engineered a process for reproducing the US-appointed Iraqi Interim Government, to prolong the occupation and incite sectarian and ethnic conflicts."

"Iraqis Boycott Election Fraud"
http://www.occupationwatch.org/article.php?id=9043

Hawra Karama reflects upon why she didn't vote. With a touch of irony, Karama recalls voting in previous one-question elections in which Iraqis were asked to approve Saddam Hussein as their leader. Karama then translates the meaning of the January 31 ballot into a series of questions that should have been but were not asked. These include:

"1. Do you prefer to be tortured by A) American soldiers or B) British soldiers; 2. When occupying soldiers stop you on the street, would you rather be strip-searched A) With blindfold or B) Without blindfold?"

Needless to say, Karama had the same reaction to marking the ballot as in the previous two elections; she left the polling place without voting.

"The Iraqi Ballot, Translated"
http://www.occupationwatch.org/article.php?id=9037

After the election, in contrast to "the blaring trumpets of corporate media hailing as a successful show of 'democracy,' Dahr Jamail maintains that Iraqis voted to end the occupation. Believing that "the National Assembly which will be formed soon will signal an end to the occupation...they expect the call for a withdrawing of foreign forces in their country to come sooner rather than later."

"What They're Not Telling You about the 'Election'"
http://www.occupationwatch.org/article.php?id=9053

Sabah Jawad agrees that Iraqis voted to end the occupation. In addition, Jawad denounces the elections as being anything but free and fair and argues, "If Iraq's elections had taken place anywhere else, they would have been denounced by the 'international community' as hopelessly flawed. If they had happened in Zimbabwe, they would have been cited by the White House as a reason for 'regime change' and possible invasion." Jawad's rationale:

"o took place under a state of emergency. The usual practice in authoritarian regimes is to lift a state of emergency during an election in order to give the appearance of normality and free choice. In occupied Iraq, the opposite happened.

oThe election commission was appointed by the US and remains secret.

oThe identity of most of the candidates themselves was also kept hidden.

oOccupation forces and Iraqi police have been pictured putting up posters for the party list of Iyad Allawi, the pro-occupation puppet "interim prime minister".

oThe international observers sent to monitor the vote in fact didn't set foot in the country and "observed" from Amman in Jordan.

oThen there is the small matter of the brutal repression of people by the occupation. Over 300,000 people were driven from their homes in the city of Fallujah alone."

"The vast majority of Iraqis want the US to get out"
http://www.occupationwatch.org/article.php?id=9110

Juan Cole also maintains that the elections "were deeply flawed as a democratic process." However, Cole among other analysts recognized, even before the publication of any electoral results, that the elections "represent a political earthquake in Iraq and in the Middle East. The old Shiite seminary city of Najaf, south of Baghdad, appears poised to emerge as Iraq's second capital. For the first time in the Arab Middle East, a Shiite majority has come to power."

Were Americans not listening?

"The Shiite Earthquake"
http://www.occupationwatch.org/article.php?id=9058

Clearly, Noam Chomsky was listening and speaking. In an excerpt from a presentation made prior to the election, Chomsky hypothesizes that as a result of the much-anticipated Shi'ite victory, feelings in the Shi'ite regions of Saudi Arabia might be stirred up and "you might find what in Washington must be the ultimate nightmare-a Shiite region which controls most of the world's oil and is independent."

"The Future of Iraq and U.S. Occupation"
http://www.occupationwatch.org/article.php?id=9071

However, Chomsky's vision of a Shi'ite region controlling the world's oil contradicts an earlier article by Antonia Juhasz in which she posits that the election might very well lead to American investors and companies obtaining large "chunks of Iraq's national oil company." In Juhasz's analysis, the current Iraqi Finance Minister Abdel Mahdi, who ran for election on the ticket of the leading Shi'ite party, has proposed "to privatize Iraq's oil and put it into American corporate hands."

"Of Oil and Elections"
http://www.occupationwatch.org/article.php?id=9111

Robert Fisk sees the elections as a "Triumph and Tragedy for Iraq." The triumph--"the sight of those thousands of Shi'ites, the women mostly in black hejab covering, the men in leather jackets or long robes, the children toddling beside them, that took the breath away."

The tragedy--the absence of Sunnis at the polls; " without that vital minority component, who will believe in the new parliament or the constitution it is supposed to produce or the next government it is supposed to create?"

"Triumph and Tragedy for Iraq"
http://www.occupationwatch.org/article.php?id=9033

James Carroll thinks about the election in Iraq while reflecting on the previous week's train wreck in California where a man drove his Jeep Cherokee onto the railroad tracks. Leaving his SUV, the man watches while an onrushing train "crashed into his SUV, derailed, jackknifed, and hit another train. Railroad cars crumbled. Eleven people were killed and nearly 200 were injured, some gravely. The deranged man was arrested." First reports claimed the man was suicidal, leading Carroll to speculate, "Whatever troubles had made him suicidal in the first place paled in comparison to the trouble he had now." For Carroll,
"Iraq is a train wreck."

"Train Wreck of an Election"
http://www.occupationwatch.org/article.php?id=9044

Aside from the positive factor of Shi'ites turning out en masse, Phyllis Bennis argues that Iraqis generally will not benefit from the election because:

oThe millions of Iraqis who came out for the elections were voting their hopes for an end to violence and occupation, and a better life; their hopes are not likely to be met.

oGeorge Bush will be the major victor in this election, using it to claim legitimacy for his occupation of Iraq.

oThe election, held under military occupation and not meeting international criteria, including those of the Carter Center, remains illegitimate; legitimacy is not determined by the number of people voting.

oEven the expected victory of Shi'a-led political parties is not likely to result in the new assembly calling for an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops.

oU.S. domination of Iraq 's economic, political and social life will continue through the military occupation and the continuing control of money, the legal system, and political patronage.

oThe U.S. has a long history of using elections held under conditions of war and occupation to legitimize its illegal wars."

"Reading the Iraqi Elections"
http://www.occupationwatch.org/article.php?id=9051

What is the real meaning of the elections? A "Shi'ite Tsunami"; a tragic loss of Sunni voices; a deeply flawed or corrupt process; a reflection of Iraqis' desire to rid their country of the US occupation; a reckoning over who controls Iraqi oil; or an imperialist exploitation of an occupied people--perhaps, all of these and more.

It well behooves us to recall a New York Times article of September 4, 1967. In that article, Peter Grose recounts that "United States officials were surprised and heartened today at the size of turnout in South
Vietnam's presidential election despite a Vietcong terrorist campaign to disrupt the voting." According to Grose, " A successful election has long been seen as the keystone in President Johnson's policy of encouraging the growth of constitutional processes in South Vietnam...The hope here is that the new government will be able to maneuver with a confidence and legitimacy long lacking in South Vietnamese politics. That hope could have been dashed either by a small turnout, indicating widespread scorn or a lack of interest in constitutional development, or by the Vietcong's disruption of the balloting."

"U.S. Encouraged by Vietnam Vote: Officials Cite 83% Turnout Despite VietCong Terror"
http://patachon.dailykos.com/story/2005/1/31/2335/87390

READ DAHR JAMAIL'S DISPATCHES FROM IRAQ:
http://dahrjamailiraq.com/weblog/

SIGN UP FOR OW'S EMAIL BULLETIN: To sign up for the Occupation Watch Center's weekly email bulletin, go to
http://www.occupationwatch.org/email.php

[G_j]

1. kick