Breaking News: Shiite Badr Brigade HQ in Baghdad Bombed
According to CNN, a huge bomb demolished the headquarters of the paramilitary Badr Brigade in Baghdad, the militia of the Shiite Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq. It killed one woman and injured 8 others. The building also housed some displaced families, but Western news services that reported this an an attack on a homeless shelter are misreading it.
This attack was a guerrilla strike at the Badr Corps, which Abdul Aziz al-Hakim is maneuvering into a permanent position in Iraqi state security. The American-appointed Interim Governing Council recently announced that a special "counter-terrorism" unit will be created that will draw for personnel on private militias like the Badr Corps.
Since the militias are overwhelmingly Shiite and Kurd, and the resistance is largely Sunni Arab, this was an announcement that the former were going to be used to hunt down the resisters among the latter. Presumably today's bombing is the Sunni Arab nationalist response to that threat.
The Badr Corps HQ in Baqubah was attacked by a mob of Sunni protesters on December 17 in the wake of Saddam's capture (see the Informed Comment entry for that day).
Friday, December 19, 2003
Thursday, December 18, 2003
Al-Hakim to ash-Sharq al-Awsat: Saddam must be Tried in Iraq
In an interview with the London daily ash-Sharq al-Awsat, Shiite leader Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, current president of the Interim Governing Council, insisted that Saddam must be tried in Iraq by a war crimes tribunal. Apparently there has been some sort of controversy in the Shiite community about the idea of having an essentially secular tribunal judge Saddam, rather than throwing the task to the Shiite jurists in Najaf. That is the only explanation I can come up with for al-Hakim's defensiveness on the issue. He said, that 'this tribunal does not need support from the [Shiite] religious leadership [Sistani], "and we have not heard of any special opinion [on his part] in regard to this subject. The Tribunal has the same character as the rest of the Iraqi institutions, and the religious leadership tries to stand with the rebuilding of Iraq and its just and outstanding institutions throughout Iraq. The religious leadership has no negative view of the tribunal."
Commenting on Sistani's call for direct elections, al-Hakim said that the IGC would attempt to honor the principle involved, which was that the voice of the people should be heard. He implied that there were other possible ways for Sistani's objectives to be attained than direct elections, and that the IGC would explore these options.
Sistani has in recent days exchanged letters with Paul Bremer, head of the Coalition Provisional Authority, about the issue of how elections will be conducted this spring.
Bremer is reportedly worried that the IGC is not moving toward those elections fast enough to meet the July 1 deadline for turn-over of sovereignty to a transitional government, and is requesting a doubling of CPA employees to 2,000. The State Department, however, does not have another 1,000 Middle East experts, and many of the ones it has are being vetoed by Undersecretary of Defense for Planning, Douglas Feith, on grounds of their lack of sympathy for Neoconservative philosophy.
In an interview with the London daily ash-Sharq al-Awsat, Shiite leader Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, current president of the Interim Governing Council, insisted that Saddam must be tried in Iraq by a war crimes tribunal. Apparently there has been some sort of controversy in the Shiite community about the idea of having an essentially secular tribunal judge Saddam, rather than throwing the task to the Shiite jurists in Najaf. That is the only explanation I can come up with for al-Hakim's defensiveness on the issue. He said, that 'this tribunal does not need support from the [Shiite] religious leadership [Sistani], "and we have not heard of any special opinion [on his part] in regard to this subject. The Tribunal has the same character as the rest of the Iraqi institutions, and the religious leadership tries to stand with the rebuilding of Iraq and its just and outstanding institutions throughout Iraq. The religious leadership has no negative view of the tribunal."
Commenting on Sistani's call for direct elections, al-Hakim said that the IGC would attempt to honor the principle involved, which was that the voice of the people should be heard. He implied that there were other possible ways for Sistani's objectives to be attained than direct elections, and that the IGC would explore these options.
Sistani has in recent days exchanged letters with Paul Bremer, head of the Coalition Provisional Authority, about the issue of how elections will be conducted this spring.
Bremer is reportedly worried that the IGC is not moving toward those elections fast enough to meet the July 1 deadline for turn-over of sovereignty to a transitional government, and is requesting a doubling of CPA employees to 2,000. The State Department, however, does not have another 1,000 Middle East experts, and many of the ones it has are being vetoed by Undersecretary of Defense for Planning, Douglas Feith, on grounds of their lack of sympathy for Neoconservative philosophy.
Kofi Annan May visit Iraq; Tells Sistani Direct Elections Impractical
Kofi Annan is seeking a Jan. 15 meeting with the countries involved in Iraq and with the Interim Governing Council, so as to determine what the UN role will be in that country. The UN was not mentioned in the November 15 agreement setting a timetable for the return of Iraqi sovereignty and eventual elections, and Annan is said to suspect that US civil administrator in Iraq, Paul Bremer, deliberately excluded the UN.
The London-based, Saudi-funded daily, al-Hayat, says he is thinking of visiting Iraq, and got some specific answers from Annan for Friday's edition, which I translate below:
'Al-Hayat asked him about his concerns over the ways in which the Occupation Authorities have exceeded or contravened international law, to which Annan had alluded in his report to the Security Council. He said that it is necessary for there to be discipline in "respecting fundamental international law. And on the practical side, there is a need to treat the citizens in a way that does not produce disgust or lead them to join the opposition. It is important that the interaction with them accord with international principles."
With regard to his request for a clarification of the UN's view of the occupation authority and the Interim Governing Council, he wants to know "What is desired of us from now until June 30th," the deadline for the announcment of a temporary government, and clarity about the expectations in the stage that comes after the formation of that government.
He said that the role of the United Nations was ignored in the first phase of the "Coalition," as well as by the Governing council, which led him to wonder "Was this an oversight or was there a purpose behind it?"
Replying to a question about the treatment of Saddam Hussein, Annan refered to the position of the Vatican, affirming that the scenes were "extremely disturbing to many," and said, "I can understand the reaction in the Arab world.""
This last passage referred to the feeling of many that the US release of the videotape of Saddam being medically examined was a violation of the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of p.o.w.'s, who ideally should not be exposed to public view or ridicule. The Vatican called for mercy for Saddam, in part on those grounds.
The LA Times (registration required) reported that Annan has also indirectly replied to the request by Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani for a UN assessment of whether direct elections were feasible, made last Saturday. The LA Times writes, 'Annan delivered his answer to Sistani on Tuesday, telling the Security Council that holding open elections by June 30 was not realistic. But he reassured the ayatollah that his interests would be addressed in elections later. "While there may not be time to organize free, fair and credible elections" for a provisional government, he said, "every segment of Iraqi society should feel represented in the nascent institutions of their country. None should feel excluded, pending the subsequent holding of free elections for a constituent assembly and parliament." '
Kofi Annan is seeking a Jan. 15 meeting with the countries involved in Iraq and with the Interim Governing Council, so as to determine what the UN role will be in that country. The UN was not mentioned in the November 15 agreement setting a timetable for the return of Iraqi sovereignty and eventual elections, and Annan is said to suspect that US civil administrator in Iraq, Paul Bremer, deliberately excluded the UN.
The London-based, Saudi-funded daily, al-Hayat, says he is thinking of visiting Iraq, and got some specific answers from Annan for Friday's edition, which I translate below:
'Al-Hayat asked him about his concerns over the ways in which the Occupation Authorities have exceeded or contravened international law, to which Annan had alluded in his report to the Security Council. He said that it is necessary for there to be discipline in "respecting fundamental international law. And on the practical side, there is a need to treat the citizens in a way that does not produce disgust or lead them to join the opposition. It is important that the interaction with them accord with international principles."
With regard to his request for a clarification of the UN's view of the occupation authority and the Interim Governing Council, he wants to know "What is desired of us from now until June 30th," the deadline for the announcment of a temporary government, and clarity about the expectations in the stage that comes after the formation of that government.
He said that the role of the United Nations was ignored in the first phase of the "Coalition," as well as by the Governing council, which led him to wonder "Was this an oversight or was there a purpose behind it?"
Replying to a question about the treatment of Saddam Hussein, Annan refered to the position of the Vatican, affirming that the scenes were "extremely disturbing to many," and said, "I can understand the reaction in the Arab world.""
This last passage referred to the feeling of many that the US release of the videotape of Saddam being medically examined was a violation of the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of p.o.w.'s, who ideally should not be exposed to public view or ridicule. The Vatican called for mercy for Saddam, in part on those grounds.
The LA Times (registration required) reported that Annan has also indirectly replied to the request by Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani for a UN assessment of whether direct elections were feasible, made last Saturday. The LA Times writes, 'Annan delivered his answer to Sistani on Tuesday, telling the Security Council that holding open elections by June 30 was not realistic. But he reassured the ayatollah that his interests would be addressed in elections later. "While there may not be time to organize free, fair and credible elections" for a provisional government, he said, "every segment of Iraqi society should feel represented in the nascent institutions of their country. None should feel excluded, pending the subsequent holding of free elections for a constituent assembly and parliament." '
Should Saddam be Executed or Exhibited in Stocks and Spit on? Shiites Debate
The Associated Press reports on the debate in the Shiite holy city of Karbala on what should be done with Saddam. Many residents of the city, which was brutally repressed during the 1990s, with thousands killed, want Saddam executed. AP says that Muqtada al-Sadr called for Dec. 13, the day of the capture of Saddam, to be “a day for national reconciliation and to rise up with a free, democratic, independent and unified Iraq. It is a shining dawn without Saddam.” But there are other opinions. One Karbala'i suggested Saddam be tortured for a year before being killed. AP reports that Cleric Jalal al-Hasnawi, who spent four years in prison and was tortured during Saddam’s rule, said: “What will make the Iraqi people happy is to see Saddam in a cage taken for tours in every province so that people can look at him and ask what they want to do with him.”
Ash-Sharq al-Awsat reports that many Kurds want Saddam tried in Halabja, the scene of his horrific 1988 gas attack on civilian townspeople, which killed 5000.
The Associated Press reports on the debate in the Shiite holy city of Karbala on what should be done with Saddam. Many residents of the city, which was brutally repressed during the 1990s, with thousands killed, want Saddam executed. AP says that Muqtada al-Sadr called for Dec. 13, the day of the capture of Saddam, to be “a day for national reconciliation and to rise up with a free, democratic, independent and unified Iraq. It is a shining dawn without Saddam.” But there are other opinions. One Karbala'i suggested Saddam be tortured for a year before being killed. AP reports that Cleric Jalal al-Hasnawi, who spent four years in prison and was tortured during Saddam’s rule, said: “What will make the Iraqi people happy is to see Saddam in a cage taken for tours in every province so that people can look at him and ask what they want to do with him.”
Ash-Sharq al-Awsat reports that many Kurds want Saddam tried in Halabja, the scene of his horrific 1988 gas attack on civilian townspeople, which killed 5000.
So this is Liberation?
One of the prime messages the Bush Public Relations team has attempted to project to the US public is that the War on Terror, and the War on Iraq, were good for women's rights in the Muslim world. Desperate for the votes of the "security moms" (soccer moms worried about al-Qaeda in the neighborhood), the Bush team constantly underlines its connections with Afghan and Iraqi female politicians.
The sad reality is farther from this extended political commercial than even the most hardened cynic could easily imagine. Women have been frozen out of significant political office in Afghanistan and have been silenced with death threats from hardline warlords when they have dared speak out. One of the women Bush brough to Washington from Kabul to showcase at his 2002 State of the Union address, Sima Samar, was later dropped from Karzai's cabinet at the insistence of the Islamists. Bush to my knowledge never publicly defended her. Adding insult to injury, the hyper-patriarchal hardliners then formally charged her with blasphemy because she did not want a conservative interpreatation of Islamic law as the law of the land in Afghanistan. (After she and her like had been intimidated in this way, the charges were dropped).
In Herat, warlord Ismail Khan's policies toward women differ only somewhat from those of the Taliban! By allying with the "Northern Alliance", the Bush administration put Islamists in charge of Kabul, only different Islamists from the Taliban. Most Tajik members of the alliance are Jami`at-i Islami, which is the Afghan Muslim Brotherhood, and the Hazaras are grouped in the pro-Iran Hizb-i Vahdat. As for the Pushtun areas, everyone knows that politicians with a Taliban mindset are still extremely powerful there and will come to power in any elections held next summer. It would be hard to prove that the de facto position of women in Afghanistan is all that much better now, though it is true that de jure the state does not ban schooling girls, and women can in theory work outside the home now. When Malalai Joya, a delegate to the constitutional convention now in session, became outspoken for women's rights and critical of the warlords this week, she was silenced and received death threats.
Likewise, in Iraq, the US invasion and occupation has certainly been a disaster for Iraqi women. Bush highlighted Aqila al-Hashimi, a former Iraqi Foreign Ministry official whom the Americans appointed to the Interim Governing Council. But she was assassinated in September in part because the Americans refused to supply her security. The remaining 3 women on the IGC all now attend with their heads covered; all are independents with no political base; and they get no hearing from the men. Religious Shiite and Sunni men on the IGC have blocked the appointment of a progressive female replacement for al-Hashimi.
Lauren Sandler's "So this is Liberation?" , which appeared recently in The Nation, is now available at alternet, and is very much worth reading as reportage on the actual challenges facing Iraqi women under US rule.
As with many issues I have brought up here, this one seems to me important to the forthcoming presidential campaign. The Democrats had about a 10% edge in women's votes, and if they are smart they will make Ismail Khan Bush's running mate when stumping in the suburbs, so as to keep and extend it.
One of the prime messages the Bush Public Relations team has attempted to project to the US public is that the War on Terror, and the War on Iraq, were good for women's rights in the Muslim world. Desperate for the votes of the "security moms" (soccer moms worried about al-Qaeda in the neighborhood), the Bush team constantly underlines its connections with Afghan and Iraqi female politicians.
The sad reality is farther from this extended political commercial than even the most hardened cynic could easily imagine. Women have been frozen out of significant political office in Afghanistan and have been silenced with death threats from hardline warlords when they have dared speak out. One of the women Bush brough to Washington from Kabul to showcase at his 2002 State of the Union address, Sima Samar, was later dropped from Karzai's cabinet at the insistence of the Islamists. Bush to my knowledge never publicly defended her. Adding insult to injury, the hyper-patriarchal hardliners then formally charged her with blasphemy because she did not want a conservative interpreatation of Islamic law as the law of the land in Afghanistan. (After she and her like had been intimidated in this way, the charges were dropped).
In Herat, warlord Ismail Khan's policies toward women differ only somewhat from those of the Taliban! By allying with the "Northern Alliance", the Bush administration put Islamists in charge of Kabul, only different Islamists from the Taliban. Most Tajik members of the alliance are Jami`at-i Islami, which is the Afghan Muslim Brotherhood, and the Hazaras are grouped in the pro-Iran Hizb-i Vahdat. As for the Pushtun areas, everyone knows that politicians with a Taliban mindset are still extremely powerful there and will come to power in any elections held next summer. It would be hard to prove that the de facto position of women in Afghanistan is all that much better now, though it is true that de jure the state does not ban schooling girls, and women can in theory work outside the home now. When Malalai Joya, a delegate to the constitutional convention now in session, became outspoken for women's rights and critical of the warlords this week, she was silenced and received death threats.
Likewise, in Iraq, the US invasion and occupation has certainly been a disaster for Iraqi women. Bush highlighted Aqila al-Hashimi, a former Iraqi Foreign Ministry official whom the Americans appointed to the Interim Governing Council. But she was assassinated in September in part because the Americans refused to supply her security. The remaining 3 women on the IGC all now attend with their heads covered; all are independents with no political base; and they get no hearing from the men. Religious Shiite and Sunni men on the IGC have blocked the appointment of a progressive female replacement for al-Hashimi.
Lauren Sandler's "So this is Liberation?" , which appeared recently in The Nation, is now available at alternet, and is very much worth reading as reportage on the actual challenges facing Iraqi women under US rule.
As with many issues I have brought up here, this one seems to me important to the forthcoming presidential campaign. The Democrats had about a 10% edge in women's votes, and if they are smart they will make Ismail Khan Bush's running mate when stumping in the suburbs, so as to keep and extend it.
Abdul Aziz al-Hakim Recognizes Justice of Reparations to Iran
Reuters reports that Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, the current president of the Interim Governing Council, has admitted that Iran has a just claim on Iraq for reparations for the Iraq-Iran War of 1980-1988, in which Saddam had ordered Iraqi armies to seize Iran's oil-rich Khuzistan province but was eventually pushed out.
Reuters reports that al-Hakim said, ' "According to the U.N., Iran deserves reparations. She must be satisfied," Abdelaziz al-Hakim told a news conference after meeting with British Prime Minister Tony Blair. "Whether we will pay or not is something which we need to discuss further," he added. '
Al-Hakim was given refuge in Iran when Saddam attempted to wipe out his clerical family, and so tends to tilt to Tehran. In my view his statement was unfortunate. Iraq cannot survive as a country if it is saddled with yet more debt and reparations. And, while it is true that Iraq was the aggressor in 1980, it is also true that Saddam began suing for peace in 1982 when his forces were pushed out of Iran, and that the damage done to both countries in 1982-1988 can in large part be laid to the door of Imam Ruhullah Khomeini, who had conceived a stubborn and sanguinary desire to take Baghdad.
Reuters reports that Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, the current president of the Interim Governing Council, has admitted that Iran has a just claim on Iraq for reparations for the Iraq-Iran War of 1980-1988, in which Saddam had ordered Iraqi armies to seize Iran's oil-rich Khuzistan province but was eventually pushed out.
Reuters reports that al-Hakim said, ' "According to the U.N., Iran deserves reparations. She must be satisfied," Abdelaziz al-Hakim told a news conference after meeting with British Prime Minister Tony Blair. "Whether we will pay or not is something which we need to discuss further," he added. '
Al-Hakim was given refuge in Iran when Saddam attempted to wipe out his clerical family, and so tends to tilt to Tehran. In my view his statement was unfortunate. Iraq cannot survive as a country if it is saddled with yet more debt and reparations. And, while it is true that Iraq was the aggressor in 1980, it is also true that Saddam began suing for peace in 1982 when his forces were pushed out of Iran, and that the damage done to both countries in 1982-1988 can in large part be laid to the door of Imam Ruhullah Khomeini, who had conceived a stubborn and sanguinary desire to take Baghdad.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
