Re: [A-List] Re: Iraq Debts Add Up to Trouble

["Henry C.K. Liu" <hliu@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Those who want to understand Iraq should read:

Iraq - Eastern Flank of the Arab World
by Christine Moss Helms
Brookings Institution.

The book was written in 1984.  It was recommended to me by a former
foreign minister of Iraq. So even though it is a US think tank study, it
is considered as reasonably accurate and fair.  Moreover it was written
during the Iraq-Iran War, when US demonization of Saddam had not began.

Here are some highlights:

The Iraqi Baathists, as distinct from other Arab nationalists had gone
one cautious step further by trying to rationalize the inclusion of
Kurds and by compounding "Iraqi nationalism".  Saddam described the Arab
revolution" as a qualitative transformation" that derived its values
from history and religion, but went on to say that "in order for the
Islamic revolution or any other revolution to be Islamic, it must be a
friend of the Arab revolution. Any contradiction between a revolution
which calls itself Islamic and the Arab revolution means that the
revolution is not Islamic.  On February 1980, Saddam made a significant
declaration of Pan-Arabism that came to be known as the 8-point Pan Arab
Charter, a call for all Arab states to reject the presence of any
foreign army and the use of armed forces against countries bordering the
Arab homeland except for self defense, to join as one Arab bloc in the
defense of any Arab state that is invaded, to affirm international laws
relating to the use of waters and airspace and land unless a state of
war exists, to commit themselves to nonalignment in international
conflicts and to establish constructive economic relations among themselves.

The ideology of the Baath Party is based on Unity (Arab), Freedom (from
foreign domination) and socialism.

Unity is tied to Pan Arabism.  Freedom includes domestic and internal
party democracy, but as a process under strong central ideological
control and tribal culture.  Freedom from foreign control includes a
large dose of economic nationalism.  The Baathist concept of socialism
has two complementary aspects - material and social.  Materially, it
refers to economic development through the allocation of Iraq's
resources to public service. The state assumes direct responsibility for
providing free health care, education, for developing communication and
transportation facilities, water purification, storage and land
reclamation, food production and housing. Truing clauses for
localization are mandated in all foreign contracts.  The second aspect
of socialism is social advancement, with the awareness that economic
development cannot be isolated from social factors, with a prime focus
on education.

The theme that government exists to serve the people is the ideological
foundation of the Baath Party, which answers the frequent question
whether socialism contradicts freedom with democracy by the following
explanation:  If there is no freedom of will, there can be no socialism.
 We want to develop a socialism to respond to the aspiration of the
people.  We do not take Marxism as the basis of socialism. We look to
our own needs - equality, justice, end of exploitation, and enough
guarantee to all people.  Our thought is whoever does more, eats more,
but there will never be a hungry person.

Now I strongly reject that such a government, however much it failed to
fulfill it ideological objectives, justifies any foreign invasion to
overthrow it. For the US left to constantly echo the State Department's
demonization of Saddam and the baath Party is both unconscionable, not
to mention alienating itself from the Arab world.

The luxurious plalces you see on TV is not a sign of cuorruption.  It is
a part of Aabic tribal culture.  A leader who does not have such
acoutements is consider a bad learder.  The reason there are so many
palaces is because of tribal rituals.  Democracy will fit into Arab
tribal culture like a glove of the fin of a fish.


Henry C.K. Liu


Gary Santos wrote:
> Mine,
>
> Point well taken that we should not take the scenes at face value. And, I
> can certainly appreciate the potential for instability given the various
> ethnic and religious divides especially with the history of the Kurds and
> the favors, I am sure, Saddam blessed on Baath party members and on those
> from Tikrit.
>
> But, correct me if I am wrong, I am under the impression that loyalty to
> Saddam was not based on ideological nor religious reasons. Loyalty was paid
> for and dissent suppressed with fear and terror. Such elements do not foster
> more Osamas. Moreover, how can one inspire a true resistance movement when
> he enters a war extolling sacrifice and suicide when he himself disappoints
> and surprises all by disappearing without showing any semblance of a fight
> he repeatedly promised? It would probably have been different if he drew his
> pistols, stood his ground and died with a bullet ridden body on
> international TV. I will have to expect that the Iraqi will choose the
> tentative peace that an Anglo-American stay has to offer.
>
> Anyway, I'm not here to argue. And, certainly the reality is far more
> complex than a few scenes of statues being taken down. The next few weeks
> will give a better picture. Much will depend on the clerics and the shieks
> with their diktats and, hopefully, not on merely on Arab pride.
>
> Thank you for the reply.
>
> Gary Santos
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Xxxx Xxxxxx" <xxxx.xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <a-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2003 10:40 PM
> Subject: Re: [A-List] Re: Iraq Debts Add Up to Trouble
>
>
>
> The Iraqi jubulation that you see on the news is only a small portion of
> reality. We don't really know what is going on in the rest of Iraq or
> whether Iraqis are welcoming U.S. troops (since they have no other choice,
> do they?)
>
> The Iraqis we see on TV are mostly Iraqi Kurds and Shiite Muslims, who were
> aldready opponents of Saddam's regime. So their jubileee was expected. But
> it is not clear whether these groups will be better off (or fully
> independent) with an Anglo-American plan, since there is no solid indication
> of it either.
>
> But time will show whether their aspirations will be satisfied. A couple of
> days ago, I read in the newspaper that the leader of the Shiite opposition
> was an Islamic extermist, who does not pose less danger than Saddam to U.S.
> interests. If this war turns into a civil war or religious uprising, it
> won't be less different than Afghanistan.
>
> However, one thing that is clear is that this Anglo-American aggression is a
> very unpopular war on Arab land. Imperialism is self-defeating in the long
> run. As Tariq Ali put recently, Arabs have felt the war as a "slap in the
> face" and hoped that the response would not be religous. .
>
> Plus, if the situation continues to deteriorate, we even may see more
> balanced analysis in news. Yesterday evening, on 60 minutes, a reporter was
> interviewing with an Iraqi in Basra. While being a no Saddam sympathizer,
> the man was saying that there was no food, no water, no order, nothing. He
> seemed pretty angry and asked "what are the Americans offering us?,
> reminding the situation was under control before.
>
> It is important not to take face value what you see in the media. There is
> much more complex reality behind those scenes.
>
> **************************************************
> Xxxx A. Xxxxxx
> Ph.D. Candidate, ABD
> Department of Political Science
> Nelson A. Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy
> University at Albany, S.U.N.Y.
> 135 Western Avenue, Milne Hall
> Albany, NY 12222
> xxxx.xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxx
> ***************************************************
> "Frequently the only possible answer is a critique of the
> question and the only solution is to negate the question."
> Grundrisse, "The Chapter on Money"
> ****************************************************
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gary Santos" <evs@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <a-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2003 9:32 AM
> Subject: Re: [A-List] Re: Iraq Debts Add Up to Trouble
>
>
>
> > Sabri,
> >
> > This is a earnest question. How does one reconcile the apparent Iraqi
> > jubilation that one sees on the news? I would expect that the US and
>
> Britain
>
> > are about to pump investment and development into Iraq if only to justify
> > the war. As an Iraqi, I would welcome this change (from a tyrannical
> > government). What is your point of view?
> >
> > Gary
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Sabri Oncu" <soncu@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > To: "ALIST" <a-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2003 6:46 PM
> > Subject: [A-List] Re: Iraq Debts Add Up to Trouble
> >
> >
> >
> > > So, Saddam should have been grateful to the
> > > Brits that he had as much oil as he did.
> > >
> > > Barkley Rosser
> >
> > Nobody in my part of the world is grateful to the Brits.
> >
> > And I assure you: we will never be grateful to the Yankees.
> >
> > We just want both the Brits and the Yankees out, never to come
> > back!
> >
> > Sabri