Imperialism And Resistance

Usually I think it is a waste of time to cover any elections that is taking place under imperial occupation, even if such elections have popular participation, the resulting government will remain under the tutelage of the US, and will ultimately fail to implement anything meaningful for the occupied population. The US then uses such failure to bring forth candidates who promise their White House masters to move the occupied nation even deeper into the imperial abyss.

With regards to Iraq, the issue is far more complex than what some liberal and reactionary liberals are making things out to be, for them the banning of the Ba’athists is a sidelining of “secular Sunni and Shias” – perhaps this is so… however, this is also a very simplistic analyses, and does not take the nature of the Ba’ath party into consideration. It has become fashionable amongst western liberals to paint a picture that the Ba’ath party was just a big (mostly “Sunni”) membership club, that one had to join in order to get a job etc. Well the fact is that the vast majority of Shia’s and Sunnis were not Ba’ath party members, and the overwhelming majority of Shi’as would have never been allowed to join the Ba’athists, and would never ever have even applied for such membership. There was, and there is a class issue that is conveniently ignored, that much of this “secular Sunni” and a handful of “secular Shia” belonged to, and continue to belong to the upper liberal elite classes of Iraq. The war that the Ba’ath party waged against the vast majority of the people of Iraq was not merely sectarian, nor just a question of Saddam Hussein’s political and physical survival, rather it was a systemic attempt to eradicate cherished Islamic values. Islamic values cherished by the vast majority of Iraqis who lived in abject poverty, and who were considered by the Ba’aathists to be ignorant and superstitious and illiterate on account of their imaan.

US imperialism is not going to protect the Iraqis, and as the video below correctly points out, it is the US that wants a return of the Ba’athists (who will pledge an even greater level of allegiance to the occupiers) stoke an anti-Iran nationalism, that would benefit the Americans to further expand their empire. All the while making sure that no form of popular resistance takes root in Iraq. BUT “They plot and plan, and Allah too plans; and the best of planners is Allah” (Qur’an 8:30)

The word Ayatullah has become a pejorative descriptive word amongst the neo-con imperialist types, and some of their North American reactionary liberal allies. The neo-con attitude towards Islamic values and institutions is well documented and understood, the reactionary liberals create a slightly more complicated situation because of their attempt to keep up a veneer of respectability in their attacks on Islamic leadership. However, often the reactionary liberals are very clear about their attitudes, and like their neo-con compatriots, they too couch their attacks in terms of “freedom.”

A more obvious example of reactionary liberalism is that of, one, Asa’d Abu Khalil

From his blog:

Monday, December 07, 2009
Alcohol is now banned in Basrah
The people of Iraq has a long history of enjoying food and alcohol. Now, new rules apply. In the Ayatullah republic, the governorate of Basrah has banned alcohol. But to be fair: drinking water is still permitted. And for that, Kanan Makiya said: thank you, Mr. Bush.
Posted by As’ad at 7:28 AM

Sunday, December 06, 2009
This is the Ayatullah republic that the US constructed in Iraq
“Authorities have ordered the closure of all Baghdad nightclubs and dozens of shops selling alcohol, concerned the venues were undermining “public morals,” the city’s governor said on Sunday.”
Posted by As’ad at 9:18 AM

I don’t think I need to point out the obvious nonsense of the above statements, there is a history of how alcohol and drugs have been used by the imperialists to subdue populations that they are attempting to conquer, or keep under their control. If indeed Iraq does implement any Islam based laws, then that is NOT because the imperial US has created something, rather it is a result of the resistance of the people of Iraq.

Below is a recent Press TV documentary explaining the concept of Grand Ayatullah, and is a must viewing for those actually interested in understanding this remarkable scholarly tradition of Shi’a Islam.

Iraq remains under the US/Obama regime’s occupation, as such they have primary responsibility to provide security – but like just about all occupying regimes, the US has, instead, provided nothing less than terror to the Iraqi people. Hundreds of thousands, upwards of a million individual children, women, and men have been killed as a direct result of this occupation. The Obama regime has given empty promises about withdrawal, while little or nothing has changed policy wise. What has changed is that the liberal imperialists are now backing the Obama regime’s wars, since it is now their wars…

Ayatollah Khamenei the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution issued a message of condolence on the occasion of the tragic terrorist event which led to the martyrdom of the innocent pilgrims to the holy shrines in Iraq. The full text of the message is as follows:

In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful

The tragic terrorist event which led to the martyrdom of the innocent pilgrims to the holy shrines in Iraq filled with grief the hearts of those who seek prosperity and salvation in following the path of the Holy Prophet (s.w.a.) and his household – those whose hearts are brimful of love for the Prophet’s household. The disgraceful people who committed this appalling crime and who have the blood of these innocent pilgrims on their hands should know that they chose the satisfaction of devils over that of God’s saints. They should know that they are engulfed in the flames of God’s wrath. “And truly hell encompasses the disbelievers” [The Holy Quran, 9: 49].

The filthy hands and wicked minds which have spread such blind and uncontrollable terrorism in Iraq should know that they will also be engulfed in these flames, and their evil intentions will rebound on themselves, as was the case in some other Islamic countries.

The main suspects in this crime and similar other crimes are the American security forces who have occupied an Islamic country under the pretext of fighting terrorism in a tyrannical manner. They have massacred thousands of people, and have constantly increased insecurity in that country. The growth of the poisonous weeds of terrorism in Iraq will undoubtedly be put on America’s criminal record and the American and Israeli intelligence services are the main suspects.

We expect the Iraqi government to seriously oppose such crimes and to provide maximum security for the pilgrims to the holy shrines in Iraq.

Those who were killed in this event are the martyrs of Imam Hussein’s path and will hopefully be rewarded by Allah the Exalted. However, the hearts of their families are brimful of grief. I hereby extend my condolences to all those who were bereaved by this event, especially to the families of the martyrs. I pray to Allah the Exalted to aid the recovery of those who were injured in the event.

Free Muntather Al-Zaidi, the journalist who threw shoes at Bush!

Muntazir Az-Zaydi ‘ s sister:

“It is the farewell kiss, you dog, this is from the widows, the orphans, and those who were killed in iraq.” – (words of the brave Iraqi reporter who threw the shoes).

check out Facebook fan site Guy Who Threw his Shoes At Bush

and Muntazir Az-Zaydi

via Kayhan International

The selling of Iraq

By Hussein Shariatmadari

On Saturday, May 11, in an article entitled ‘Iraq on the Edge’ Kayhan predicted that the US will not be able to ignore the Iraqi people’s demand. It also referred to the draft SOFA deal as the US reaction such a failure. The article stated that selling Iraq to the US is the exact translation of the disgraceful SOFA, prepared by the Americans and initially agreed by Iraqi/US officials on March 17.

By referring to the international treaties and UN Charter regarding the rights of occupied countries, the article emphasized that if the security treaty is finalized, it would turn Iraq into a US garrison and colony in the Middle East – something like a new version of Israel but ‘Islamic’ and at the service of the hegemonic power.

As it turned out, the Iraqis and their religious leaders objected to the treaty, especially Grand Ayatollah Sistani. The Iraqi officials refused to sign it and recommended certain amendments. On November 18, and despite protests, the Iraqi cabinet approved the deal under the bogus name of “Security Agreement”. The draft treaty was sent to the Iraqi parliament for final approval on Wednesday, November 26.

The deal is still considered a defeat for the US even in its present form – as the Americans failed to get their original deal signed in the first place. At any rate, the amended treaty still means selling Iraq to the US and its colonial nature has remained intact.

Few points are worth mentioning about the amended security, though:

1-Article 12 of the treaty lays emphasis on the capitulation rights of US forces in Iraq. The article has been amended under Iraqi pressures. However, its Notes 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 impose capitulation with a different connotation, also known as “Word Game”.

Under Note 1, basic rights have been given to the Iraqi government to prosecute US soldiers during special operations for general offences and mistakes. But Note 4 states that the arrested soldiers will have to be handed over to the US officials within 24 hours! Article 5 also states that they will be prosecuted under the US law! In other words, Article 12 is same as capitulation – the very same colonial rule that led to the popular uprising in Iran under the leadership of the late Imam Khomeini in Khordad 15 and his subsequent arrest and exile.

2-Note 1 of Article 4 is about duties under which Iraqi government could seek help from the US forces for ensuring security, including fight against Al-Qaeda and other terrorist groups.

US assistance in the note has been imposed on Iraq. In other words, the Iraqis want the occupying US forces to remain on their soil! However, under Note 50 of 1969 Vienna Convention, the Iraqi government should be free to ask for help which is not the case here.

There is no legal definition for Iraq security and stability in the note, which means the Americans will be free to define it as they see fit. As it turns out, the US could easily attack other neighboring states under the pretext that they are a threat to Iraq’s security. Iraqi government will also be obliged to cooperate.

However, Note 1 of Article 4 cancels Article 28 and the Iraqi officials should stop assuming that their soil will not be used to strike their neighbors.

3-Article 7 states that US forces are allowed to keep their military warfare in approved areas – and whatever that is needed to implement the security treaty. Washington has cunningly inserted the colonial contents of the previous draft treaty in Article 7 of the amended one:

US can control the use and transfer of military equipment by Iraq and they have only guaranteed that these will not be kept near residential areas. The agreement has no executive guarantees as under the article the Iraqi government has no information about the numbers and the types of stored military equipment, and this has to be given to them by US forces. So they are not going to jointly supervise it. The concern is that the Iraqis could be misinformed or kept in the dark.

Also given the past performances of the US and its broken promises, the guarantee seems rather silly. The question is which international/legal body will be going to guarantee the US guarantee?!

4-Article 9 allows the US military vehicles, airplanes and ships use Iraq’s land, waters and airspace, and they will be issued permits every year. This puts the Iraqi land, airspace and waters under US control. Iraq has also been obliged to unilaterally grant the permits each year with no right to decline!
The article also states that the Iraqi government has the right to inspect these vehicles, ships and airplanes. But it also emphasizes that this will be the case only if it has intelligence information – agreed by both sides – on their contents and/or place of origin and destination. The question is who is supposed to give such sensitive information to the Iraqi government?!

5-A major concern which forced the Iraqi government to sign the new deal was Resolution 661 issued by the UN Security Council in 1990. Based on the resolution, the Iraqi government – under Saddam’s rule – falls under Paragraph 7 of UN Charter. The Iraqis are concerned that if they don’t sign the imposed treaty their government will remain subject to Paragraph 7; their country will be considered a threat to regional security and peace (subject of the paragraph); and they will have to continue to suffer the pressures caused by UN sanctions and restrictions!
Such a warning has been elegantly inserted in Article 25 of the new treaty that “the US will do all it can to support Iraq and bring it back to where it was before Resolution 661.” It is worth mentioning that:

A-The US has not accepted any commitment in this particular article and has only promised help!

B-The resolution could be suspended only by the UN Security Council and its members – and not the US.
Under the international law’s section of ‘State Succession’ and international disputes: “The rights of the past government cannot be transferred to the new one as the new government starts with clean hands and is not responsible for the transferred disputes of the previous one.”

Under 1983 Vienna Convention regarding state succession, financial debts of a previous government are transferred to its successor but penalties for criminal acts will remain with the former and are not transferrable. In any case, the Iraqi officials need not worry about Resolution 661 and Paragraph 7 of UN Charter.

6-Article 51 of 1969 Vienna Convention is about rights in international treaties. It states: “If a country signs a treaty with another country under duress and threat, that treaty will not be legally binding.” Article 49 and 50 of the Convention make similar arguments.

Iraq is under the US and British occupation and the occupiers are directly interfering in its internal affairs. Naturally, under the circumstances, the new security agreement reached between the American and Iraqi officials has no legal merits.

Based on news reports, the Iraqi people and their government are against the new security treaty. They are also under immense US pressures to sign it. That explains why they have put all their hopes on the Iraqi parliament to reject it.

7-The Iraqi people and their Shi’ite/Sunni religious leaders believe that the outrageous treaty is a paper to sell their country. In circumstances as such, their representatives at the parliament are unlikely to ratify it.

In short, the US knows that it cannot stay in Iraq forever. This is because if such a disgraceful treaty is imposed on Iraq, a new round of fierce resistance will certainly emerge – an uprising in which all Iraqis will play a part, with little or no consideration at all.

The Religious Authority H.E. Sayyed Muhammad Hussein Fadlullah saw that the statement of the chairman of the joint chief of staffs, Mike Mullen, in which he warned the Iraqis against grave consequences in case they do not sign the security treaty, represents a new proof that the Americans are not in the least concerned with the Iraqi sovereignty.

His Eminence called on the Iraqis of all races and sects to respond to such threats by strengthening the cohesion of their internal fronts, and insisting on the decisive stand that refuses any concession that hurts the country’s sovereignty, security unity and independence.

Following is the Sayyed’s statement:

The threat of the chairman of the joint chief of staff, that is accompanied by other American and non-American similar stands that try to pressurize the Iraqi people, representatives, state, parties and officials, reveals that the Americans are neither concerned with the future of Iraq nor with its sovereignty.

Such statements and stands ensure in a way that leaves no place for doubt that the occupation is trying to elongate its stay in Iraq and take hold of anything that could make it establish permanent military bases that represents a threat to Iraq’s sovereignty and independence as well as a continuous threat to the states of the region.

The Sayyed added: It is essential that the American occupying forces should hear decisive stands that ensure that their project in Iraq and the region has failed, since biting on certain development that will turn things upside down is a mirage.

Besides, the opportunity that could be a beginning of a solution should start from the admission of the Americans that they were wrong in their political and military approach to Iraq, and that they have to leave as soon as possible to enable the Iraqis to feel that they have become close to establishing the stability they are seeking.

We call on the Iraqi national components, as well as those who talk about the Resistance in their slogans, to unite and confront such threats with a decisive official and popular position, so that the Iraqis will be seen as a united and coherent people who are concerned with preserving its sovereignty independence and future of the coming generation. They should stop inciting all internal sensitivities and face the Takfiri mentality in addition to facing the occupation.

Al-Sadr’s message was addressed to the crowd as well as Iraqi lawmakers and read by his aide Sheik Abdul-Hadi al-Mohammadawi before a huge crowd of mostly young men waving Iraqi and green Shiite flags and chanting slogans including “no, no to the agreement” and “yes to Iraq.”

The Iraqi government has abandoned its duty before God and its people and referred the agreement to you knowing that ratifying it will stigmatize Iraq and its government for years to come,” he said.

“I am with every Sunni, Shiite or Christian who is opposed to the agreement … and I reject, condemn and renounce the presence of occupying forces and basis on our beloved land,”

“No, No, to America! No, No to the devil!” shouted crowds of men, women and children as they walked the three kilometre (two mile) route. Carrying Iraqi flags and banners of the Sadr movement, the demonstrators demanded an end to the US occupation. “Get out occupier! We demand an end to the occupation!” they shouted.

Karim Kadhim, a demonstrator from the holy city of Najaf, said “we are marching to reject the occupation. “Would America like to be occupied by any other country? Would America like its sons to be attacked? Why are they occupying our country?” he asked. “They have been lying for the past five years. They told us they are coming to free us and go. But they are still lying.”

Sadrist MP Nasser Al-Saadi said that more than one million people took part in the demonstrations

A leading Sadrist cleric at the rally, Hazim al-Arraji, said before its start: “This is the voice of the Iraqi people from all over Iraq: we need the invaders to leave our country, no one wants them to stay. ‘No invasion! Get out invaders!’ That will be our slogan.”