The speed with which the US is forfeiting the goodwill it had in Iraq is breathtaking. With the exception of the Kurds, most Iraqis opposed the invasion of their country, and once US troops had succeeded in toppling former president Saddam Hussein without massive casualties or tides of refugees the dominant emotion was relief. Public displays of gratitude were few, but there was widespread satisfaction that the dictator and his regime were gone.
A month later, the mood has changed. Iraqis are staggered that the efficiency of the US fighting machine was not matched by post-conflict competence worthy of a superpower.
Overriding everything is the issue of governance. Who is going to run Iraq, and will it be done for the benefit of Iraqis or of outside powers? Some reports suggest that Iraqis do not care who governs them, as long as someone competent ends the chaos soon. That is a false perception. American mismanagement in the first month of occupation has led an increasing number of Iraqis to distrust the whole US enterprise.
Even America's Iraqi friends are having second thoughts. Many Iraqi exiles who were recruited months ago by Washington's Future of Iraq project, to work in Baghdad ministries alongside American "advisers" after regime change, are hesitating to take up their posts.
The draft resolution on Iraq which the US put forward at the UN last Friday adds to the suspicions. It makes no mention of letting UN weapons inspectors back into Iraq. It threatens within four months to abolish the system of subsidized food rations on which 60 percent of Iraqis depended before the war, and which even more need now that the economy has collapsed. It awards the US almost total control over Iraq's oil revenues.
The US is trying to steamroller the resolution through the Security Council with the argument that sanctions must be lifted urgently to help the Iraqi people. Never mind that it was the US that insisted on maintaining sanctions long after the first Gulf war in spite of opposition from ordinary Iraqis. They pleaded in vain that they were the ones who suffered, while the regime's elite was untouched.
Lifting sanctions is important, but it is far more necessary to lift the occupation. Iraq is very different from the last three places where outside intervention led to regime change. In Kosovo and East Timor in 1999, foreign forces removed ethnically based colonial- style administrations. The UN then came in to help previously repressed people to form a new state virtually from scratch.
Afghanistan was a failed state that lost its central government and most of its professional class in 1992. It, too, needed UN help to rebuild when the Taliban were ousted.
Iraq, by contrast, has not ceased to be a powerful state with a highly developed intelligentsia and tens of thousands of trained technocrats. The fact that it was a political dictatorship for 30 years does not detract from the skill and educational level of its people. Nor does it mean that the large number of professionals who chose not to go into exile are necessarily criminals.
The notion that US advisers should sit in every Iraqi ministry is an insult. So, too, is the idea that Iraq needs any kind of foreign occupying power or "authority," as the US draft resolution euphemistically calls it. Once Iraq has an interim government, perhaps within the next month, the concept of supervision becomes unnecessary.
Political resistance to any US role is already strong, and the longer Washington overstays its welcome, the more likely it is that opponents of occupation will turn to arms.
Under international law, occupying powers are required to look after the humanitarian needs and civil rights of the populations they have conquered. After flouting international law with its invasion, the US resolution does at least recognize that obligation. But the greater obligation is to end the occupation. Instead of arguing over the powers which the US and its British ally seek, the security council should not grant them any powers at all.
The performance of US forces in the first month of their occupation has been too poor to justify their remaining a day longer.
There is also a pragmatic case for their withdrawal. Some of those who have started shooting at US troops are probably former Saddam loyalists. But they will soon be joined by patriotic Iraqis who have no love for the former dictator but find the presence of outsiders humiliating.
Iraqis need some help in recruiting and training more police, but replacing the US army with a UN peacekeeping force is not a solution.
Iraq is not at war with its neighbors, or at risk of it. Civil war is not imminent, and hasn't been for 50 years. The Kurdish leaders have shown great commitment to a united Iraq and are trying to secure a credible role in a central government. Everything points to the need to end the occupation now. Iraq should be allowed to govern itself.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing