Conflicting Views

Taking stock of the situation in Iraq one year after the outbreak of war reveals conflicting appraisals of the progress that has been made there. No weapons of mass destruction have been found to date. Nor has there been a democratisation of Iraq and the Middle East. Peter Philipp comments

Taking stock of the situation in Iraq one year after the outbreak of war on 20 March 2003 reveals conflicting appraisals of the progress that has been made there. No weapons of mass destruction have been found to date. Nor has there been a democratisation of Iraq and the Middle East. Peter Philipp comments.

photo: AP — Iraqi Governing Council in Baghdad

If the year that has passed since the start of the war in Iraq has taught us anything, then it has taught us that hardly any of the reasons for going to war presented by Washington and London were legitimate.

There were obviously no weapons of mass destruction, no dangerous missiles, and - above all - no smoking gun that proved the link between Saddam Hussein’s regime and Osama Bin Laden’s al-Qaida.

Documents were forged and theories were paraded as the truth in order to justify going to war, even though it is obvious that at least the White House had made up its mind long before Hans Blix’s inspectors had finished looking for forbidden weapons and long before the UN had finished debating the pros and cons of waging such a war and discussing whether the war was legal or a breach of international law.

Most Iraqis feel their lives have improved since the war

One year on, such discussions are obsolete. Reality has changed in Iraq and it would seem more than academic to focus on the past now. However, the results of a supposedly representative survey conducted recently in Iraq remind us of this past.

According to these results, 48 per cent of those surveyed declared that it had been right to wage war, while only 43 per cent said it hadn’t. The majority is of the opinion that life is better now than it was before. The majority also considers it right that the Americans should stay until the situation has settled down.

As long as this survey was not conducted by the same people who wrote the dossiers spelling out the reasons for going to war, then these figures demonstrate that the way we have viewed developments in Iraq and the way these events have been presented to us over the past twelve months is often coloured by original stances on the war.

Those who were in favour of the war can see progress while those that opposed it think that everything has got worse and the situation more desperate.

The pessimists do not need to look long and hard to find evidence to back up their point: the daily attacks in Iraq and the growing number of American and international victims are undeniable proof of the correctness of their theories.

Lack of democratisation

However, the same people often use the lack of democratisation in Iraq - and, for that matter, in the entire Arab world - to underpin their point. As if decades of oppression could be swept away completely within the space of a few months. This process took no less than four years in post-war Germany. And that was after "only" twelve years of tyranny. Saddam, on the other hand, was in power for several decades.

However, first steps have been taken: a new constitution has been drafted and the Americans have promised to transfer power to the Iraqis in the summer and hold elections next year. Naturally, time will tell whether these promises will actually be translated into actions. However, it would appear to be unfounded and destructive to accuse Washington of doing nothing.

At the same time it would be naïve to assume that the USA intends to leave Iraq as quickly as possible. America sees Iraq as remaining an integral part of its Middle East strategy for the foreseeable future.

However, the United States is now looking for ways of ditching the image of the "occupying force", preferring to see itself remaining in Iraq as a so-called "protective force". However, the United States must also be a "protective force" in the event of responsibility for further developments in Iraq being transferred to the United Nations.

Following the massive attack on its headquarters in Baghdad, the UN will not assume any more responsibility in Iraq without the assurance of sufficient protection.

The winner of the Spanish elections must have been aware of this fact when he took the wholehearted, populist decision to withdraw Spain’s 1,300 soldiers from Iraq unless the UN assumes responsibility for the country. If the UN doesn’t do so, the occupying forces will be able to do without the Spaniards. But if it does, it is likely that Madrid will have to become even more involved.

Translation from German: Aingeal Flanagan