The lessons of local elections in Iraq

Abdul Ilah Albayaty,
February 2009

http://brusselstribunal.org/

US foreign policy experts suggested to the Bush administration that the only way to defend American interests in Iraq was by replacing current rejected figures of the political process with new figures that appear independent of the United States. We must recognise that Americans have partially succeeded in this by leaving Maliki without opposition, and obstacles, adopting slogans of the Iraqi resistance movement on the national unity of Iraq.

Maliki has proven to the Americans that he is, by his sectarian nature, more capable than Allawi in pursuing the interests of Iran/US: he saw no contradiction between WALYAT AL-FAQIH — the rule of clerics — that he long used as cover, and close cooperation with the United States. In not wearing the religious turban he can provide loyalty to Iran without creating competition with Al-Sistani and Khamenei, and can also touch the sectarian feelings of Iran while serving the interests of the United States. His signing of the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with the US is proof.

The United States and their advisers in Iraq — Americans, Israelis or Iraqis — are happy about this situation because what interests them is how to control Iraq after the failed policies of Bush. What matters most to them aren’t the persons, or the support of Iraqis, but world opinion, the image of America, and guaranteeing US imperial interests.

Two trends are involved in improving the image of the United States. The first presents the Iraqi resistance as a barbaric movement concerned only with blood, murder and persecution, and that has nothing to do with the liberation of Iraq. Al-Qaeda and its like and Zionist and imperialist propaganda serve this tendency. The second trend suggests that cooperation could be established between the US and the Iraqi people under occupation or semi-occupation. The most important participants in this trend are Allawi, the Communist Party, Kurdish leaders and the Shia and Sunni parties.

All political analysts know that the American project of cooperation between the US and Israel to encourage the dreams of imperial Iran to tear the region apart and realise the “New Middle East” has failed. One reason for this failure is the exaggeration of the abilities and ambitions of the Iranians and Kurds. These ambitions have not only awakened Iraqi patriotism, but also Iraqi national and Arab solidarity. This has emerged as evident in recent days during the local elections. Their results will not change much, especially since they were conducted under the brutal US occupation, with the US-drafted constitution that threatens the unity of Iraq and under the sectarian quota system, heinous in its composition and terms of reference. Iraq with these elections does not change and remains an occupied country. The only thing noteworthy of these elections is that they reflect the balance of forces and trends at the moment.

The Iraqi resistance boycotted the local elections. It has been very successful in the boycott, but at the same time it decided not to disrupt the elections to let the parties in the political process settle accounts between themselves and allow the forces that think they can somewhat improve the situation in some provinces through the elections perform their task. This tactic was a success:

- The Iraqi resistance has proven that it is not against the use of polls, but boycotts the elections because they take place under occupation and it is the occupation that controls the election results.
- The Iraqi resistance has proven that Iraqi patriots would win every election if they were free and fair, because patriotism is stronger than sectarianism and chauvinism. The proof is the adoption by the majority of candidates of the slogan of the resistance: “Sunni or Shia, we will not sell this country.”
- The Iraqi resistance has demonstrated that resistance is not only a military action but also the political mobilisation of the masses in the various forms of support for armed action and the process of the liberation of Iraq, including the movement of the defence of the rights of individuals or groups of the population, and participation in the popular political struggle in its various forms.

The vote for Al-Hadaba list in Mosul and for Al-Haboub in Karbala put an end to what remained of the attempted US-Israeli-Iranian project of promoting Sunni and Shia sectarianism, Kurdish chauvinism and the communist liberals’ complicity with them. For fear of the victory of the national movement, the pro-occupation movement wanted to reduce the value of this victory by saying that they are former Baathists. So be it. The Baathists, the Nasserists, leftists and Islamists are the best sons of Iraq if they are the defenders of Iraqi patriotism, anywhere they are.

The summary of the election is as follows: the US has managed to scrap their allies, which became cumbersome, for Maliki’s profit. Elections are cut to his measure. But the resistance with its wise tactic has proven that the national movement is the one that will decide the future of Iraq in order that the Iraqi people is sovereign on its territory and over its wealth. Will America recognise this obvious fact or will it continue to hide its head in the sand, leaving its army and its puppets mired in their crimes against Iraq?