Bremer’s last trick

by John Q on June 8, 2004

Juan Cole is spot-on, as usual

The Guardian reports that US civil administrator Paul Bremer signed an order Monday banning Muqtada al-Sadr and his lieutenants from running for elective office for 3 years because of their membership in an illegal militia. Muqtada and his lieutenants rejected this decree and said that the CPA and the caretaker government had no right to make such decisions.
…

Bremer’s action in excluding the Sadrists from parliament is one final piece of stupidity to cap all the other moronic things he has done in Iraq. The whole beauty of parliamentary governance is that it can hope to draw off the energies of groups like the Sadrists. Look at how parliamentary bargaining moderated the Shiite AMAL party in Lebanon, which had a phase as a terrorist group in the 1980s but gradually outgrew it. AMAL is now a pillar of the Lebanese establishment and a big supporter of a separation of religion and state. The only hope for dealing with the Sadrists nonviolently was to entice them into civil politics, as well. Now that they have been excluded from the political process and made outlaws in the near to medium term, we may expect them to act like outlaws and to be spoilers in the new Iraq. (emphasis added)

I can only agree

{ 14 comments }

1

Anatoly Vorobey 06.09.04 at 12:57 am

Or look at that other much better known Lebanese party represented in the parliament – Hezbollah. Participation in parliamentary politics slowly forced it to completely abandon its terrorist ways as well. Isn’t that amazing?

2

dipnut 06.09.04 at 1:27 am

…hope for dealing with the Sadrists nonviolently…

I sincerely hoped we would deal with them violently.

…we may expect them to act like outlaws and to be spoilers in the new Iraq…

Hope springs eternal!

3

John Quiggin 06.09.04 at 1:31 am

I’m assuming the irony tags are on here, Anatoly. But if so, your need to insert “completely” undermines your point.

As far as I know, Hezbollah has abandoned the activities that most people would class as “terrorism” – kidnappings, car and truck bombings etc. This BBC Report supports this claim. Of course, it’s possible to say that anyone who engages in or endorses politically-motivated violence (including guerilla or conventional warfare) has not “completely” renounced terrorism, but that’s sufficient to include all political parties except those committed to pacifism.

4

Giles 06.09.04 at 1:39 am

The link you give includes this about Hezbollah

“has said publicly that it is ready to open a second front against Israel in support of the intifada. ”

So you’re absolutely bang on, give a terrorist organisation a bit of demcracy and it’ll never want go back to terrorism again.

Hope springs eternal!

5

Brett Bellmore 06.09.04 at 2:48 am

By this reasoning, shouldn’t we have allowed Timothy McVeigh to run for Congress, instead of executing him? Maybe it would have persuaded him not to bomb any more buildings…

The problem is, Sadr has already gone far down the path of violence, instead of peaceful political competition. And democracy isn’t a get out of jail card for murderers. The problem with this 3 year suspension is that it doesn’t seem to involve the trial and life sentence or execution Sadr’s actions have merited.

6

Lance Boyle 06.09.04 at 6:42 am

The mass media’s expressions of grief at the death of the first Stepford President is sort of like an alternate world, as though McVeigh had run for Congress, or the Presidency, instead of being executed.
Reagan’s body count was immensely greater than McVeigh’s, and the suffering he caused, if suffering can be measured in degrees, greater still.
–
Moqtada al-Sadr’s father was murdered by Saddam Hussein. I find it most curious this is never mentioned in the American press.

7

nick 06.09.04 at 7:31 am

By this reasoning, shouldn’t we have allowed Timothy McVeigh to run for Congress, instead of executing him? Maybe it would have persuaded him not to bomb any more buildings…

Silly comparison; but something not dissimilar worked for Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness. And David Ervine and Billy Hutchinson.

And democracy isn’t a get out of jail card for murderers. The problem with this 3 year suspension is that it doesn’t seem to involve the trial and life sentence or execution Sadr’s actions have merited.

Judge, jury and executioner? Getting ahead of yourself a bit there, aren’t you?

On a point of comparison, look at the expedited release of paramilitaries in Northern Ireland during the 1990s. Not perfect, by any stretch of the imagination (since many have resumed their activities as local mob bosses) but it was an essential part of ensuring that the mainstream paramilitary groups maintained their ceasefires, and has actually helped rehabilitate organisations such as the pro-agreement, working-class PUP, which previously used the UVF to give voice to their grievances.

But it’s easier to make facile comparisons than look at actual examples, isn’t it? McVeigh didn’t emerge out of circumstances anywhere near those in Iraq; the paramilitaries who now form part of the NI peace process actually did, to the extent that they considered themselves on opposing sides of an occupation.

8

Ray 06.09.04 at 9:02 am

I thought the US was handing over ‘full sovereignty’ to Iraqis? Not only is this not the kind of ‘full sovereignty’ that allows you to decide which armies will be allowed inside your borders, and what they can do, it isn’t the kind of ‘full sovereignty’ that lets you decide who can run for election.

9

cj 06.09.04 at 9:24 am

You remind me of nothing so much as little boys casting about in the cloakroom.

Of course we didn’t hand over sovereignty to anyone who doesn’t realize how much they need us.

Grow up a bit, would you?

10

bull 06.09.04 at 11:16 am

“Now that they have been excluded from the political process and made outlaws in the near to medium term, we may expect them to act like outlaws and to be spoilers in the new Iraq.”

“Now … we may expect them to act like outlaws”? What’s that supposed to mean? That they haven’t been outlaws? That they are going to get worse? That anythng they do now will be stupid W’s fault?

Is Cole capable of rational thought?

11

John Quiggin 06.09.04 at 11:40 am

cj, you might enjoy 12

pepi 06.09.04 at 11:47 am

I don’t know enough about the situation in Iraq to judge, but I wouldn’t be that quick in dismissing it as stupid thing to do.

I don’t think there’s much in common with how it worked for Sinn Fein and the IRA. Other governemnts, other countries, have taken different routes. See Spain and the Batasuna, which perhaps was even more questionable because that wasn’t about preventing but closing down a party, and nevermind that the allegations of terrorist support might have been questionable in themselves. Besides, there’s a lot of difference between any kind of relations Sinn Fein had to the IRA, and Batasuna to ETA, and a militia and its relations to… itself.

And while we’re at it with comparisons… Germany and Italy still have laws banning any reformation of nazi and fascist parties. Ok that’s a totally different context, totally different era, whatever. But especially after a dictatorship is brought down, and you still have a lot of extremists around and a risk of civil war, you have to juggle the practical gamble of trying not to drive extremists more to the extremes, and sticking to principles about what should never be allowed to run for elections – and that does include actively violent paramilitary groups.

I think Juan Cole’s point would be a lot more valid if it was about a political party that has some degree of extremist views, to try and prevent them from being translated into action (and even then it would be a gamble). Not with a group that’s already engaging in violence.

Then again, in Kosovo and other parts of former Yugoslavia many former militians were granted political – and military – legitimacy so… there appears to be no precise rule or standard. I may be optimistic against all evidence here, but I _tend to_ think if they banned Muqtada it’s because in this case the risk of allowing a group like into the political arena was too high, outweighing the potential for it to be controlled politically.

13

nick 06.10.04 at 3:03 am

I think Juan Cole’s point would be a lot more valid if it was about a political party that has some degree of extremist views, to try and prevent them from being translated into action (and even then it would be a gamble). Not with a group that’s already engaging in violence.

Again, it may be a tenuous comparison, but my gut tells me that there’s more in common between the slumdwelling Shi’a of East Baghdad and the Protestants of East Belfast’s estates than you might think. The PUP wasn’t much of a political party in the 80s; it was a very thin front for the UVF. It only really emerged as a political player with the 1994 ceasefire.

And al-Sadr isn’t on the political margins — or at least Sistani doesn’t consider him so, and that’s probably what matters in Iraq right now.

14

pepi 06.10.04 at 8:07 am

nick: you’re probably right. Like I said, I honestly don’t have much of a clue. I can see the point Cole is making, but I do think he’s ignoring the cons of the strategy he advocates. I don’t know really. It’s also hard to argue on what course of action is best with extremists based on comparing the approaches to different groups in different countries, with different backgrounds, contexts, etc. It would be interesting to hear what Iraqis themselves think of this move.

Comments on this entry are closed.