inside the glass house

US fights shy of democracy in Iraq
NEW YORK-- In military-occupied Iraq, the Bush administration is transgressing every known democratic virtue the United States has long cherished and preached to the rest of the world-- including free elections, a liberal press and rule of law.

The demand for general elections in Iraq has been shot down because of fears it will bring the majority Shiites into power resulting in an "Islamic fundamentalist" government anathema to the US. Playing for time, the Bush administration envisions a two-year political transition-- with a legislature chosen by provincial caucuses in June-- before full elections in 2005.

But the Shiites are demanding immediate elections to install a legitimate democracy in Iraq forcing the US to oppose the move and triggering massive demonstrations instigated by a powerful Shiite cleric Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani.

The political prognosis for Iraq seems grim: a country which eventually could be divided into ethnic Kurdish, Sunni and Shiite territories, and maybe, even three or more sovereign nation states.

The campaign for a free press in Baghdad has been thwarted because of fears it could be a vehicle to stoke nationalistic feelings against the military occupation of the country. And, worse still, Iraqis are being deprived of basic human rights-- guaranteed and cherished by Americans in their own country-- in the name of fighting terrorism and insurgency.

The mounting criticisms have been directed mostly against civilian killings, arbitrary arrests, house demolitions and detentions without trial. The Bush administration is increasingly following in the footsteps of one of the world's worst violators of civil and human rights: Israel.

The tactics adopted by US soldiers against suspected Iraqi civilians were best described last month by a Baghdad lawyer Malek Dohan al-Hassan. "All they do is put a bag on their heads, bind their hands behind them with plastic handcuffs and take them away. Families don't know where they go," he said.

The chorus of criticisms has also come from several human rights organisations, including Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. Last year, Human Rights Watch described some of the attacks by US troops on Iraqi civilians as "disproportionate" use of force meriting full compensation for victims.

And Amnesty International (AI) was outraged over photographs in a Norwegian newspaper showing Iraqis stripped naked and humiliated by US soldiers. "If these pictures are accurate, this is an appalling way to treat prisoners. Such degrading treatment is a clear violation of the responsibility of the occupying powers," AI said.

At a conference on human rights in Baghdad last June, AI said that hundreds of Iraqis held prisoners by US forces were denied the right to see families or lawyers or have a judge review their detentions. Last month Secretary-General Kofi Annan implicitly criticised the tactics of coalition forces when he said: "We need to act on the recognition that the mounting insecurity problem cannot be solved through military means alone. A political solution is required."

The situation has taken such a turn for the worse that the US-endorsed Iraqi Minister for Human Rights Abdel Baset Turki flew to Geneva in early January to lodge a personal complaint to the Acting UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Bertrand Ramcharan.

Turki specifically condemned human rights violations by US occupying forces in Iraq and wanted the High Commissioner to investigate the charges. But in what appears to be a cop-out, the UN says it cannot make an independent assessment of the charges because it has no personnel on the ground since all international staff have been withdrawn following the bombing of the UN compound in Baghdad last August.

The UN has refused to return to Iraq until the security situation improves in Iraq. But there is increasing pressure on the world body to relent. Francis Boyle, professor of international law at the University of Illinois College of War, explains that Iraqis fall into either one of two categories: Either they are prisoners of war within the meaning of the Third Geneva Convention of 1949, or else they are civilians and thus qualify as "protected persons" within the meaning of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949.

As such, they are entitled to all rights, benefits, privileges and obligations thereof. "But it does not appear that the US government, as the belligerent occupant, is paying strict attention to the Four Geneva Conventions of 1949, just as it has not done so in Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay," he said.

Back to Columns