An imperial sleight of hand

The world has wondered how can the Americans transfer sovereignty in the given conditions -- even if sovereignty can actually be transferred. It is true that seemingly there have been transfers of sovereignty; in some cases legislation can be said to have effected transfer of sovereignty, as happened in India and Pakistan. But this is dubious.

Sovereignty can be transferred under just one condition: when the older sovereign begins to lose credibility and is challenged by an emergent sovereign -- whether peaceably or violently. That is the only comprehensible sovereignty transfer.

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

The process used to be generally bloody. But in the 20th Century, it's a superficially gentlemanly agreement with a colonial sovereign made over authority and power to successor states through a legal instrument. But facts underneath stayed invariable: an imperial power agreed to withdraw only when it saw others credibly organise themselves with an intention to take over. Even the British dominions gained their status after series of struggles. It was not the large heartedness of the British Crown that happily gave them that status; others were determined to have full self-government. Transfers of sovereignty have to be seen in this light.

Who has Iraqi sovereignty today? In terms of pre-18th Century theory of kings claiming sovereignty by divine right, it could be seized or taken if there was another king or general who was militarily stronger. In this case, effective power and authority over where Iraqi state used to prevail has been acquired by the victorious US Army; the latter, while retaining the bulk of this power and authority has chosen to invest certain pliable Iraqi individuals with the illusion of authority, power and sovereignty. So long as American Army stays in Iraq under the command and control of US President, the Allawi crowd will remain American creatures. There will be no transfer of sovereignty.

Moreover, there is the small matter of democratic theory. After both American and French Revolutions of 18th Century, it is hard to deny that sovereignty over Iraq belongs to the people of Iraq as an inalienable right. Ever heard of inalienable human rights? Americans may have acquired de facto control over Iraq. But that does not confer on them the right to claim sovereignty over Iraq -- to be bestowed on some American creatures at will. The real sovereigns of Iraq are struggling to throw out the American and Coalition Forces.

What has happened in Iraq is the destruction of a whole state. That an Iraqi state, with membership in the UN, exists is a legal fiction. The US occupies the country. A foreign army has set up committees, ministries and departments for its convenient governance. Just ask the question: Would the occupation armies of today be under the control, command and direction of the new 'sovereign' on July 1? Obviously not. Indeed no Iraqi shall have control over them. Some sovereignty, that!

Americans have taken good care of how things will run after June 30. They have set up commissions virtually for each important ministry or department. These comprise foreign consultants, mainly American. They will be paid by Iraqi Treasury, no doubt. But that Treasury itself will not be under Iraqi control. It will continue to be managed by experts appointed by Americans. In simpler words, Iraq will continue to be governed under American tutelage and dictation through various commissions and committees or other arrangement already in place. There is no chance of new Interim or Provisional government being able to make any decision against the 'advice' of the various commissions, committees and consultants. So what are we talking about? Which sovereignty is being transferred to whom?

Americans have made two major decisions: the first, and substantive one, is that its armies will continue to occupy Iraq indefinitely; no one thinks that Americans would be out after even 10 years. The second is to pretend that they have transferred sovereignty over Iraq and thus they are not answerable for their actions in Iraq. They want to go on exercising power and authority without any corresponding responsibility or liability to administer justly and lawfully. This is distilled imperialism: nothing will happen in Iraq unless the Americans concur. But they will not be responsible or answerable. It is legitimate to expect that all the decisions that would be made in Iraq would first ensure American interests and if any Iraqi interests can also be served by a given measure or step, it would be luck.

Too many questions arise: why did the Americans invade Iraq in March last year? True, Saddam was a horrible dictator. But so are all the other dictators, hundreds of them equally tyrannical. Why choose Saddam only? George W. Bush and Tony Blair made great play of Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq and Bush kept on saying for a long while that Saddam was in league with al-Qaeda and thus carried some responsibility for 9/11. All these pretensions have proved to be false. The question recurs: why did the Americans go into Iraq, leaving a few of old state structures intact? Why, indeed? A little thought is sure to make one fall in line with the commonly expressed opinions virtually everywhere. Three major reasons are being assigned for American actions.

The first is the American desire to control the supply of Iraqi oil: world's second largest reservoir. The second major consideration is seen as Israel; the destruction of the large, potentially rich and easily developable Arab state would enhance Israel's security manifold. Along the way the Palestinian issue will, one Sharon way or another, become a thing of the past. Thirdly, that would also help reshape Middle East according to American hearts' desire.

A permanent American garrison in the US-controlled Iraq would be a redoubt, making American power in the Persian Gulf region invincible. American control over Iraq's resources can enable the US to reshape Middle East. That would also enable American geo-strategists to masterfully execute a major thrust through Central Asia right up to Korean Peninsula, linking up with their Seventh Fleet prong covering Taiwan, Japan and South East Asia. That would, in the fullness of time, contain and encircle China, on the one hand, and enable Americans to play a strong role in Russia's fastnesses, on the other.

Central Asia is important for other reasons also. It too has oil and gas. The Americans are thick on the ground in and around Azerbaijan and have more or less softened up most of the Islamic Central Asian governments. While the grand imperial design of totally dominating Asia is the geo-strategic aim, it is also economically promising. At stake would be the control over the chief supply points of key raw material. Central Asian Republics are agog with new nationalisms. Their armies are equipped with antiquated Russian equipment. Under the growing American influence, modernisation of their armies and air forces would enrich American war industries for at least a generation.

Incidentally, the strategy includes taking South Asia along. American actions in Afghanistan have virtually yoked in both India and Pakistan. Pakistan is of course 100 per cent sold on America's War on Terror. It will remain faithful to America for as long as can be foreseen. Even the new government in India had initially indicated its intention to build on AB Vajpayee's closeness with America. Since the Congress depends upon Left support also and since Left will not abide by too close a relationship between India and America, some hasty corrections are being made in the Indian stance. But one thing remains certain: The basic military cooperation between India and America is not likely to be whittled down even if it does not grow as visualised. On the whole, the Americans have very little to worry about South Asia.

Finally, the rest of the world is aghast at the bold and far-reaching geo-political aims of America. It has treated European allies as second class friends to be utilised when needed or dropped if they do not cooperate. The UN too has been used in like manner. An initial shake down seems to have already taken place in which American superiority remains unquestioned and the Europeans and the UN are both struggling to find their own feet and regain some credibility. Insofar as Indian and Pakistani governments are concerned, they have started talking after several years. Do they have any idea of where they figure in the New Asia being remade by the US? The US aims are firm. As for election, John Kerry, Bush's rival, does not differ fundamentally from Mr. Bush on larger issues.

MB Naqvi is a leading columist in Pakistan.