Thoughts from London

Bush whacked by double blow
Handing over power to an Iraqi interim government two days before schedule was yet another cosmetic gesture by an occupation administration already discredited at home and abroad.

When the American 'pro-consul' in Iraq, Paul Bremer, acting on behalf of the coalition that includes the UK, presented the transfer documents on June 28, it was not the grand moment that the western alliance hoped it would be. The short ceremony was conducted in the highly-protected "green zone", symbolising the splendid isolation of the occupiers from the Iraqi people, though not perhaps from their quisling administration.

The early hand over was not intended to appease the Iraqi people or the Arab street. Not even a naïve American administration could have believed that two days would be sufficient recompense for more than a year's death and destruction and the incarceration and torture of innocents in the name of fighting terrorism.

The sudden change in plan was yet another clumsy effort by the coalition's grandmasters-the US and UK- to make use of the NATO summit in Istanbul to win support from some of its members for men and material to strengthen security in Iraq.

As it happened, it was Afghanistan that became the main focus and whatever help NATO members promised for Iraq was rather vague and needed fleshing out later.

One interesting linguistic shift by the US and UK went unnoticed by the western media or was quickly swept under the carpet. Right through the campaign by the US and UK to show the world that power was to be transferred to an Iraqi administration President Bush and Prime Minister Blair constantly referred to the coalition handing back sovereignty to the Iraqis.

But since of late, and especially last week, they have spoken of handing over power to an interim Iraqi administration. What happened to sovereignty? So often Blair told parliament and the media how the coalition would soon return sovereignty to the Iraqi people. President Bush did the same when he told the American people and the world how the coalition did not wish to exercise power indefinitely in Iraq and how power would return to the Iraqis with help from the United Nations.

In fact there appeared to be differences between the transatlantic partners as to what exactly this return of sovereignty meant, how much sovereignty the interim administration would be able to exercise and where actual power resided.

While especially the United States sang hallelujahs to last week's hand over of power to a non-elected administration, still largely beholden to the invading coalition for security and indeed its survival, the word sovereignty had disappeared from the valedictory speeches that hailed this event.

Even if President Bush did not understand the doctrine of people's sovereignty and international law, his pet collaborator in the war on Iraq, Tony Blair, should have done so. Those who are heirs to the political tradition of Jacques Rousseau, John Stuart Mill and other political philosophers should surely know that sovereignty is vested in the people and it resides with them. So it is the case in Iraq.

All these months the Bush White House and the Blair government have been talking of handing over a sovereignty they had no right to and which they did not possess. It was always with the Iraqi people, though they may not have had power to exercise that sovereignty under Saddam Hussein or the coalition administration.

Apart from pursuing this charade in an attempt to justify the righteousness of their cause, both the Bush and Blair administrations have been acting in violation of the rule of law and fundamental freedoms that they hope to bring to the Middle East and the rest of the so-called uncivilised world.

The Bush administration has been holding American and foreign detainees conveniently called "enemy combatants", in Guantanamo Bay and other military facilities in the United States, Iraq and Afghanistan and some unnamed places.

The Blair government has in detention in the high security Belmarsh prison, persons who are held incommunicado, have never been charged or brought before the courts. All this in the name of fighting terrorism.

By describing them as enemy combatants, the Bush administration has sought to keep them outside the pale of the Geneva Convention and to deny the 600 or more detainees in Guantanamo Bay access to the American courts and fundamental human rights such as freedom from torture and inhumane treatment.

Yet last Monday the US Supreme Court dealt the Bush administration a severe blow that undermines the position adopted by the White House in respect of these detainees.

Unfortunately this important Supreme Court decision has not received due prominence in the Sri Lankan media. They have either failed to see the significance of the judicial decision or not viewed it in the light of all the criticism that had been levelled against the Bush administration for creating a legal limbo under which people are held without access to lawyers and the courts and in conditions that have revolted watchdog organisations.

It was not too long ago that I wrote about one of these cases that had attracted international attention particularly because it was an American citizen, arrested on US soil who had been denied access to lawyers.

Several hundred US legal academics and lawyers prepared a defence on his behalf and one of the six authorities cited in the defence brief was Sri Lankan lawyer and academic Dr Nihal Jayawickrama.

One vital decision last Monday by the US Supreme Court was that the 600 or more foreign terrorist suspects held for two years in Guantanamo Bay had a right to challenge their confinement through the US courts.

In an opinion written by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the Supreme Court held by 8-1 that constitutional due process rights demand that a citizen held in the US as an enemy combatant must be given "a meaningful opportunity'' to contest the detention before a neutral party.

"History and common sense teach us that an unchecked system of detention carries the potential to become a means for oppression and abuse of others," wrote Justice O'Connor.

If the highest US court rejected the Bush administration's attempts to deny justice to detainees and even American citizens, it suffered a double whammy when public opinion polls show the American people now turning against the decision to invade Iraq.

Today as many as 54% of those polled see the Iraqi invasion as a mistake while at the beginning of June it was only 41%. As much as 56% of Americans are dissatisfied with the Bush administration's handling of post-invasion Iraq.

For Bush, preparing for a second term in the White House, things are coming unstuck. It is no different in the UK where Blair too has lost the trust of the people. The irony is that they might still win the next elections.

Back to Columns