Posts
Recently I have noticed that there is a growing trend by many academics, Arabs as well as Iraqis, journalists and even bloggers interested in Iraqi political history, to paint a rosy picture of Iraq prior to the American invasion in 2003. It was a very good tactic, as on one hand, they denounce the whole political process endorsed by the Americans in Iraq and criticises the failure of subsequent Iraqi governments (which is right as things are moving from bad to worse in Iraq now), But on the other hand, these strategies work intentionally to “polish” Saddam and the Ba’ath dictatorship. In addition and through a process of “desensitization”, these people deny, or at least, try to lessen the impact of Saddam’s regime atrocities by comparing them to what is happening now. For example, when Abdul-Bari Attwan of Al-Quds Al-Arabi newspaper, was asked in an interview about the mass graves and Saddam’s Mukhabarat torture chambers, he purposefully answered the question by a comparison with what the Americans did in Abu Ghraib prison. These attempts are seriously dangerous as conclude that Iraqis do not deserve a decent, peaceful and prosperous life. Furthermore, it states that we always must be ruled by dictators otherwise we will end up with what we currently have under the American occupation. This issue is very complicated and has many aspects that needs to be addressed and discussed thoroughly but I am trying to highlight one fundamental problem that dominated the modern Iraq History: Sectarianism.
If you regularly follow popular Iraqi blogs (some are listed on my blog site) and the way they handle the “Sectarianism” issue in Iraqi society, you can admit that most of them try to persuade us that Sectarianism was not known to Iraqis until the Americans invaded Iraq. So it was a post 2003 phenomenon. Moreover, they insist that previous regimes that ruled Iraq from 1921 to 2003 was not sectarian-built and the Shia of Iraq in particular, were well represented in all parts of the government. Look at the following excerpts:
“The reality is, back then, the British did not use the divide and rule among the Moslem population so you never new who was a Shia and who was a Sunni”
“Iraqis at the time and later never considered themselves as Sunni or Shia but as Muslims. That was the reality”
“We, Iraqis, do not identify ourselves as Sunnis and Shias, not even as Moslems or Christians, not before the occupation anyway. When asked about our identity we would say: Iraqis. The 1970 Iraqi Constitution, which is still valid, as we do not recognize a constitution written by the occupier, states that Iraq consists of two main ethnic groups: Arabs and Kurds, in addition to Turkmen and other groups. We do not consider a sect or a religion is an identity”
“The Iraqi non-sectarian approach to Iran and Da'wa party and other similar parties was obvious from the fact that most of the Iraqi troops which fought Iran during the 8 years war, were Shias defending "not their faith" but their own country against Iran”
“The intifada which took part in the south during the crisis of the Kuwait war and after the withdrawal of the Iraqi army, while the state was at its weakest, was run by the Iranian guards and militias, the same which are conducting now the crimes of mass kidnapping, torturing, and killing.”
“All what we hear now is how the Shiites were excluded from the government jobs and the high ranks in the baath party and the Iraqi cabinets under the rule of baath party. We don’t hear about how the Sunnis suffered too, and the Turkumans and the Kurds and everyone”.
The above were extracts from correspondences by Iraqi academics (and one from another popular Iraqi blog) debating the issue of sectarianism with a British historian dealing specifically with modern Iraqi history since the 70s. It is obvious that they deny any sectarian elements in our history especially when it comes to the sensitive issue of Shia and Sunnis.
Now, let’s look at facts and stop hiding things under the carpet. We have to admit that sectarianism is deeply embedded in our society since the Othoman-Safavid wars era. It was intensified with the creation of modern Iraq in 1921 and it was the ONLY stable Iraqi political phenomenon that successive regimes, including the current government (except Abdul Kareem Qassim’s’ regime) agreed upon. BUT it was a political sectarianism manipulated by the state against its citizens and not obviously apparent (although present) on grass root levels. Covering the aspects of this issue from 1921 until now needs books to be written rather than a blog. However, there is a document dated 28th October 1965 proves that Sectarianism was a major issue for most Iraqis especially the Shias even before the Baath came to power in 1968.
The document was a letter written by the prominent Shia figure Mohammed Ridha Al-Shabibi to the Prime Minister Abdul-Rahman Al-Bazzaz, expressing his concerns about many problems looming in the political atmosphere at that time. Below is the complete text of the letter in Arabic:
If you regularly follow popular Iraqi blogs (some are listed on my blog site) and the way they handle the “Sectarianism” issue in Iraqi society, you can admit that most of them try to persuade us that Sectarianism was not known to Iraqis until the Americans invaded Iraq. So it was a post 2003 phenomenon. Moreover, they insist that previous regimes that ruled Iraq from 1921 to 2003 was not sectarian-built and the Shia of Iraq in particular, were well represented in all parts of the government. Look at the following excerpts:
“The reality is, back then, the British did not use the divide and rule among the Moslem population so you never new who was a Shia and who was a Sunni”
“Iraqis at the time and later never considered themselves as Sunni or Shia but as Muslims. That was the reality”
“We, Iraqis, do not identify ourselves as Sunnis and Shias, not even as Moslems or Christians, not before the occupation anyway. When asked about our identity we would say: Iraqis. The 1970 Iraqi Constitution, which is still valid, as we do not recognize a constitution written by the occupier, states that Iraq consists of two main ethnic groups: Arabs and Kurds, in addition to Turkmen and other groups. We do not consider a sect or a religion is an identity”
“The Iraqi non-sectarian approach to Iran and Da'wa party and other similar parties was obvious from the fact that most of the Iraqi troops which fought Iran during the 8 years war, were Shias defending "not their faith" but their own country against Iran”
“The intifada which took part in the south during the crisis of the Kuwait war and after the withdrawal of the Iraqi army, while the state was at its weakest, was run by the Iranian guards and militias, the same which are conducting now the crimes of mass kidnapping, torturing, and killing.”
“All what we hear now is how the Shiites were excluded from the government jobs and the high ranks in the baath party and the Iraqi cabinets under the rule of baath party. We don’t hear about how the Sunnis suffered too, and the Turkumans and the Kurds and everyone”.
The above were extracts from correspondences by Iraqi academics (and one from another popular Iraqi blog) debating the issue of sectarianism with a British historian dealing specifically with modern Iraqi history since the 70s. It is obvious that they deny any sectarian elements in our history especially when it comes to the sensitive issue of Shia and Sunnis.
Now, let’s look at facts and stop hiding things under the carpet. We have to admit that sectarianism is deeply embedded in our society since the Othoman-Safavid wars era. It was intensified with the creation of modern Iraq in 1921 and it was the ONLY stable Iraqi political phenomenon that successive regimes, including the current government (except Abdul Kareem Qassim’s’ regime) agreed upon. BUT it was a political sectarianism manipulated by the state against its citizens and not obviously apparent (although present) on grass root levels. Covering the aspects of this issue from 1921 until now needs books to be written rather than a blog. However, there is a document dated 28th October 1965 proves that Sectarianism was a major issue for most Iraqis especially the Shias even before the Baath came to power in 1968.
The document was a letter written by the prominent Shia figure Mohammed Ridha Al-Shabibi to the Prime Minister Abdul-Rahman Al-Bazzaz, expressing his concerns about many problems looming in the political atmosphere at that time. Below is the complete text of the letter in Arabic:
تحية طيبة.. وبعد، يسعدني أن أشير إلى محادثتنا التلفونية الموجزة غداة اضطلاعكم بأعباء المسؤولية وما تضمنته من التمنيات الطيبة لكم بالتوفيق، ويطيب لي كذلك أن اعزز ذلك الحديث بهذه المذكرة الموضحة لطائفة من القضايا والمشكلات الخطيرة التي تواجهها البلاد راجين ان يحالفكم التوفيق في درسها فقرة فقرة، تمهيداً للأخذ بمضامينها قدر الامكان، ومما شجع على تقديم هذه المذكرة في هذا الظرف بالذات ان رئاسة الحكومة يشغلها احد رجال القانون وتلك الخطوة حسنة، واحسن منها ان يكون المسؤول ذا سند شعبي متين وهو امر يساورنا الشك فيه الان.كان الشعور الوطني في العراق يتجلى بالغيرة الوطنية والحب العميق لأرض الاباء والاجداد وكان هذا الشعور الحافز الاول لصيانة وحدة البلاد، ولكن الاحداث والكوارث التي حلت بها نتيجة تصارع الاراء وتضارب الاهواء وتشجيع التفرقة عصفت بهذا الشعور النبيل واقصته الى ابعاد واعماق سحيقة، يخشى ان تتيح للاجنبي المتربص الفرصة للنيل من وحدتنا الوطنية المقدسة، ولم يعد خافياً على احد ان البلاد العراقية تجتازفي ظروفها الحالية مرحلة لا تحسد عليها من مراحل حياتها، وكيف تحسد على مراحل موسومة بكثرة مخاوفها ومشكلاتها، وما يتخللها من شكوك واحتمالات. وقد تسنى لي اخيراً ان اتصل بجمهرة من ابناء البلاد، وان المس مواقع الالم منهم والاحساس بما يخالجهم من سخط وتذمر، وفي وسعي بل ارى ان من واجبي ان اسجل ملخصاً مظاهر ذلك في الفقرات التالية:1- جاء على لسان السيد رئيس الوزراء في مؤتمره الصحفي قوله (ان الحكومة عازمة على اعادة الحياة الدستورية للبلاد واجراء انتخابات حرة وبهذا كما لا يخفى ستنتهي الفترة الانتقالية وتستقر الاوضاع في البلاد ويتمكن الشعب من ممارسة حقه القانوني في انتخاب من يراه صالحاً لادارة البلاد وتحمل مسؤولياتها الجسام).واننا نؤكد على ضرورة القيام عاجلاً بوضع اسس قانون الانتخابات العامة وعرضها على الشعب ليبين رأيه فيها حتى تتم الانتخابات المباشرة خلال فترتها المحددة في الدستور المؤقت، على ان يجري ذلك بإشراف سلطة معروفة بالحياد والاستقامة سلطة تضمن للجمهور حرية الصحافة والرأي والتعبير.2- تناول السيد رئيس الوزراء في مؤتمره الصحفي موضوع الوحدة العربية والاتحاد واجاب عن التساؤلات الكثيرة التي اثيرت حول تصريحاته. وفي رأينا انه مهما كانت اتجاهاتنا السياسية والاجتماعية في القضايا العربية، فان الوحدة الجغرافية ووحدة التاريخ والمصير قادرة في اي وقت على ان تخلق بيننا وحدة عمل، نواجه بها التحديات والمخاطر، ان الوحدة العربية في رأينا هدف يتم باستفتاء الشعب عليه، وان التضامن العربي وسيلة لحمايته.3- ما انفك حكم العراق في عصرنا هذا بالذات مشرباً بالاهواء والاغراض وان كانت تلك الاغراض مقنعة او مغلفة بالفاظ خلابة. ولم يكن الطعن في الحكم المذكور سهلاً، لأنه في ظاهره مستمد من مبادئ بنيت عليها القوانين المرعبة وقد اعتبرت الطائفية بموجب هذه القوانين جريمة تعاقب عليها.. ولكن العبرة ليست بالالفاظ المجردة والتشريعات المقنعة.. بل بالتطبيق السليم والادراك الصائب لروح تلك القوانين، ولم تكن التفرقة الطائفية مشكلة سافرة من مشاكل الحكم كما هي اليوم، ولم تكن مصدراً باعثاً على القلق المستحوذ على الشعب طالما استنكرت التفرقة وكافحتها وطالبت بالاقلاع عن هذا الاسلوب الممقوت، وطالما تنادى المخلصون باتباع نهج اخر تراعى فيه المساواة المطلقة التي اكدت عليها الشرائع السماوية والقوانين الوضعية.
الانتقاص من سياسة التفرقةومن الواضح ان الشعب العراقي انتفض اكثر من مرة على سياسة التفرقة النكراء، وعمل منذ ثورته الاولى عام 1920 على اقامة حكم وطني ديمقراطي يسهم باقامته وينعم في خيراته ابناء الشعب كافة لا يفرقهم عنصر او دين او مذهب.. وقد بارك الشعب ثورة الرابع عشر من تموز وعلق عليها امالاً كبيرة وتوقع المخلصون ان تستأصل جذور النعرات المفرقة باستئصال قواعد الاستعمار وركائزه. غير ان الاحداث الاخيرة برهنت مع بالغ الاسف على انبعاث روح التفرقة بشكل اشد واعنف من ذي قبل بكثير.ولا نذيع سراً اذا قلنا ان كثرة الشعب ساخطة جداً من جراء ذلك، وانها تعتبر كرامتها مهانة وحقوقها مهضومة، ولاسيما وقد وافق ذلك سوء اختيار بعض من يمثلونها في جهاز الحكم. واذا كان من الممكن ان تغض هذه الكثرة الشعبية نظرها عن بعض حقوقها في وظائف الدولة، وترك شبابها المثقف من حملة الشهادات العالية وغيرهم دون عمل، اذا كان من الممكن ايضاً ان تغض هذه الكثرة النظر عن التقصير المتعمد في انعاش مرافقها الثقافية والاقتصادية والاجتماعية، واذا كان من الجائز ان تغض نظرها عن مواقفها المشرفة في الجهاد والتضحية، فانه لا يسعها غض النظر عن التعريض بعروبتها واصالتها وكرامتها واخلاصها للوطن وللدولة التي اقامتها على جماجم شهدائها الابرار بذلك التعريض المثير الذي يلوح به بعض المسؤولين والصحف الاجيرة.هذا ومادامت الحكومة السابقة قد اعلنت عن التزامها الصراحة في القول وتصحيح الاوضاع المنحرفة، بادرنا تذكيرها بهذه الحقيقة، اذ ليست الدولة واجهزتها ووظائفها ومجالات العمل فيها وقفاً على طائفة دون اخرى انما توزع واجباتها حسب الكفاية، ولعل نظرة فاحصة الى الدواوين الكبيرة في الدولة ومن يشغلها تكفي دلالة على سياسة محاباة، خصوصاً وان كثيراً من المقربين محرومون غالباً من المؤهلات والكفايات والاخلاص.4- لاشك ان صيانة الوحدة الوطنية وحقن الدماء واعادة الطمأنينة والسلام الى ربوعنا في الشمال العزيز يتطلب منا درساً دقيقاً للقضية الكردية التي طال عليها الامد، ولما كان العرب والاكراد شركاء في هذا الوطن يتقاسمون غرمه وغنمه، فاننا نرى ان لاخواننا الاكراد حقاً في التمتع بحقوقهم المشروعة، وذلك عملاً بالادارة اللامركزية ضمن الوحدة العراقية، هذا الاساس الذي تقضي ضرورة الاخذ به اسلوباً للحكم في العراق من الناحية الادارية.5- تعرضت النقابات في العراق لمختلف اوجه الضغط السياسي الامر الذي حرفها عن خدمة منتسبيها في حدود صلاحياتها واغراضها المهنية. كما تحملت الفئات العاملة تبعات ذلك ففصل وسجن كثير منهم وحرمت عوائلهم من مصادر عيشها. لذلك وجب على الحكومة ان تعيد النظر في احكام قانون العمل، آخذة بنظر الاعتبار التي ظهرت لدى تطبيق القانون المذكور، وان تفسح المجال لقيام نقابات مهنية تراعي مصالح المنتسبين اليها رعاية حقة.6- لا نريد الدخول في جدل عن الاشتراكية من حيث كونها صالحة او غير صالحة للعراق، ولكننا نكتفي بالرجوع الى حقائق الاشياء، وبما حصل فعلاً من نتائج ليصدر الحكم مبنياً على الواقع دون الخيال، فعند تطبيق القرارات الاشتراكية في 14 تموز 1964 نلاحظ ان اوضاع العراق المالية والاقتصادية تزداد تخبطاً وارتباكاً، زيادة في البطالة وقلة في الانتج وتبذيراً في اموال الدولة وتهريباً لرؤوس الاموال الوطنية وعجزاً في الموازنة.لقد اشار السيد رئيس الوزراء الى طبيعة هذه الاشتراكية بقوله في مؤتمره الصحفي (ان هذه الاشتراكية لم تغير في الوضع الاقتصادي والاجتماعي في البلاد بقدر ما تحسنت احوال طبقة من الموظفين والمنتفعين على حساب الاخرين.اننا نؤمن بالديمقراطية الاقتصادية هي النظام الذي يلائم ظروفنا وحاجاتنا، واننا نؤمن بالعدالة الاجتماعية ونعتبر الفروق الاقتصادية البعدية في مجتمعنا خرقاً لقواعد هذه العدالة، فلهذا يمكن العمل على تقليل هذه الفروق عن طريق توزيع الضرائب وزيادة مكاسب الطبقة العاملة، ووضع خطة شاملة للتنمية الاقتصادية وزيادة الدخل العام.اننا نطالب الحكومة بتدارك ما أدت اليه تلك السياسة المرتجلة من بطالة وذلك بايجاد عمل للعاملين يكفل لهم مستوى من المعيشة يتلائم وكرامة الانسان. كما نطلب اعادة النظر في الاوضاع الاقتصادية مع تعيين مجالات القطاع العام والقطاع الخاص لكي ينصرف المواطنون الى مزاولة اعمالهم بحرية تامة واطمئان كامل.
القطاع الزراعيان القطاع الزراعي في العراق يمثل مصدراً اساسياً من مصادر الثروة العامة، ولقد ظهرت في قانون الاصلاح الزراعي اخطاء ادت الى تخلف الزراعة، لهذا نطلب اعادة النظر في اسس القانون المذكور وذلك في ضوء الاخطاء التي ظهرت في مرحلة التطبيق وندعو للعمل على تطوير شؤون الزراعة وحماية الانتاج وتحديد واجبات الزراع والعمل على تعويض المستوى على اراضيهم ومنهم اصحاب حق اللزمة، اذ اننا لا نقر مبدأ المصادرة مطلقاً.ونطالب بإعادة النظر في موضوع الضرائب خاصة ضريبة الدخل وضريبة الشركات والتعديلات التي جرت عليها اخيراً ونحث على دراسة علمية مبنية على التجارب التي مرت بها تلك القوانين لدى التطبيق ونطالب ابعادة النظر في القوانين الاخرى التي شرعت في ظروف مستعجلة فجاءت مخالفة لاحكام شريعتنا الاسلامية وغير ملاءمة لأوضاعنا وتقالدينا الاجتماعية ان الشريعة الاسلامية هي الاساس الراسخ الذي يقوم التشريع عليه وان اي قانون او انظام يتعارض معها يعتبر تحدياً لشعور الامة وعقيدتها الراسخة.7- لاتزال مفاوضات النفط بين الحكومة العراقية والشركات العاملة في العراق طي الكتمان ولم تعرف تفاصيلها بعد.ومع تقديرنا للجهود التي تبذل لاستخلاص حقوق العراق من الشركات الاجنبية، الا اننا نرى في القانون رقم 80 سنة 1963 وشركة النفط الوطنية مكسباً وطنياً يلزم الحفاظ عليه. لذلك نهيب بالسلطة ان تعرض نتيجة المفاوضات قبل الالتزام بها على ممثلي الشعب حيث تعود الحياة الدستورية الى البلاد ليقول الشعب كلمته فيها.8- كان الهدف الاساسي من تكوين الاتحاد الاشتراكي العربي في العراق ان يضم منتسبي النقابات ومختلف الفئات العاملة، غير ان هذه المنظمة لم يحالفها التوفيق على الرغم من اسناد السلطة لها مادياً ومعنوياً، ذلك لان الاهواء تنازعتها منذ البداية، يضاف الى ذلك انها قامت على مبدأ احتكار العمل السياسي وفكرة الحزب الواحد ولا نقر ذلك منهجاً للحكم في البلاد، ولهذا نطالب بأن تبادر الحكومة الى تعديل القانون الذي قامت بموجبه هذه المنظمة لتتمكن الفئات التي تستمد اراءها من صميم هذا البلد من ممارسة نشاطها السياسي.هذا ووفاء لأمتنا وقياماً بالواجب المفروض علينا وابراء لذمتنا بادرنا الى بيان اهم مشاكل الساعة التي تخالج افكار الجمهور مؤملين ان تعنوا بدراستها وبذلك الجهود في سبيل الوصول الى الحلول السليمة للمشاكل المذكورة كافة، وختاماً نبتهل الى الله العلي القدير ان يسدد خطانا جميعاً انه ولي التوفيق
.محمد رضا الشبيبي
As you can see, the letter is very detailed and discussed various important and sensitive problems which if you look at them even now, forty two years later, many of them are still lingering and unresolved. However; I underlined the points related to the issue of sectarianism as it is our main subject.
1. In the first highlighted sentence, Al-Shabibi clearly stated, contrary to the excerpts mentioned above, that sectarianism is a very obvious political problem at that time more than ever and it is a source of serious concerns to the majority of the people of Iraq. Whether you agree with him or not, this will not change the fact that this issue was a major concern at least for him.
2. In the second highlighted paragraph, he highlighted in details the grievances of the Shiaa population in Iraq (he did not mention the word “Shiaa” in his letter but you can simply realise that he was expressing their worries):
1.He pointed that the majority of the people were already very annoyed and angry because their rights were not preserved and they were “misrepresented” in the government.
2. leaving many of its highly educated young people unemployed, and
3. intentional neglect and underinvestment in its various cultural, economic and social establishments, and
4. Forgetting and ignoring its patriotic role in Iraqi history.
If these grievances were to be tolerated, Al-Shabibi then mentioned that the Shiaa of Iraq can not accept the accusations by some people in “responsible” positions and some newspaper of putting our “U’ruba” (Arabic origins and identity) and OUR LOYALTY TO OUR HOMELAND AND THE STATE under suspicion (this sentence verify that he was addressing the Shiaa of Iraq because Iraqi Sunni Arabs were never accused about their identity or considered as “of suspicious non-Arabic origins”).
Does this letter leave any doubts that “sectarianism” was an adopted policy by the Iraqi government at that time? Can we deny that the Sunni Arabs now are facing nearly the same problems that their Shiaa counterparts suffered from in the last decades? And if you look at the other issues highlighted in this letter, don’t you find them more or less similar to the highly controversial points in the new Iraqi constitution which gave an idea about how different sects in our society are deeply divided? And finally don’t you think that we desperately need someone like Abdul Kareem Qassim to teach those who are in the government how to build bridges between different Iraqis irrespective of their sects, religion or ethnicity? We have to stop lying on ourselves and face our miserable reality.
As you can see, the letter is very detailed and discussed various important and sensitive problems which if you look at them even now, forty two years later, many of them are still lingering and unresolved. However; I underlined the points related to the issue of sectarianism as it is our main subject.
1. In the first highlighted sentence, Al-Shabibi clearly stated, contrary to the excerpts mentioned above, that sectarianism is a very obvious political problem at that time more than ever and it is a source of serious concerns to the majority of the people of Iraq. Whether you agree with him or not, this will not change the fact that this issue was a major concern at least for him.
2. In the second highlighted paragraph, he highlighted in details the grievances of the Shiaa population in Iraq (he did not mention the word “Shiaa” in his letter but you can simply realise that he was expressing their worries):
1.He pointed that the majority of the people were already very annoyed and angry because their rights were not preserved and they were “misrepresented” in the government.
2. leaving many of its highly educated young people unemployed, and
3. intentional neglect and underinvestment in its various cultural, economic and social establishments, and
4. Forgetting and ignoring its patriotic role in Iraqi history.
If these grievances were to be tolerated, Al-Shabibi then mentioned that the Shiaa of Iraq can not accept the accusations by some people in “responsible” positions and some newspaper of putting our “U’ruba” (Arabic origins and identity) and OUR LOYALTY TO OUR HOMELAND AND THE STATE under suspicion (this sentence verify that he was addressing the Shiaa of Iraq because Iraqi Sunni Arabs were never accused about their identity or considered as “of suspicious non-Arabic origins”).
Does this letter leave any doubts that “sectarianism” was an adopted policy by the Iraqi government at that time? Can we deny that the Sunni Arabs now are facing nearly the same problems that their Shiaa counterparts suffered from in the last decades? And if you look at the other issues highlighted in this letter, don’t you find them more or less similar to the highly controversial points in the new Iraqi constitution which gave an idea about how different sects in our society are deeply divided? And finally don’t you think that we desperately need someone like Abdul Kareem Qassim to teach those who are in the government how to build bridges between different Iraqis irrespective of their sects, religion or ethnicity? We have to stop lying on ourselves and face our miserable reality.
* details about Mohamed Ridha Al-Shabibi can be found on this website:
3 comments:
(((these strategies work intentionally to “polish” Saddam and the Ba’ath dictatorship. In addition and through a process of “desensitization”, these people deny, or at least, try to lessen the impact of Saddam’s regime atrocities by comparing them to what is happening now))).
I doubt too much that there is an (intentional) intellectual trend to (polish) Saddam as if some sort of conspiracy to rob the Iraqi people from their (right) to be considered (victims) of Saddam´s regime.In fact the comparison only forces its way into one´s mind.It´s inevitable because if we suppose that the (tactic) you described is consciously active and functioning by those bloggers or intellectuals who use it then it´s only a response to the fact that the Shiaáts and Kurds in power today bombard us ,day and night, flood us,hour by hour, with blablabla about how Saddam was bad and how Saddam was a criminal etc.I have ,since long ,noticed that any Iraqi official who is (in) or any Iraqi intellectual who is (pro) the current (political process)when brought on a satellite channel to defend his/her case finds his much -sought- efter escape goat in cursing Saddam and reminding us of his misdeeds whenever cornered with criticism by his/her interviewer thinking that by that he/she would elude taking responsibility for what´s happening.It´s almnost like a joke now that whenever Al Maliki government(and its kurdish ally) are questined about the crimes that are happening in Iraq, its memebers ALWAYS end the list of excuses by balming it on (Al Saddamieen wa Al Takferieen )!!!.
You pointed out a (certain) tactic.Ok.Here is a couter-tactic !!
So where do we go from here ?....
Answer? Nowhere.
(((Can we deny that the Sunni Arabs now are facing nearly the same problems that their Shiaa counterparts suffered from in the last decades?))).
Yes,I agree.To a certain extent both sides did indeed mistreat each other.BUT the big difference is that uder the sunni power, Iraq was ONE (the kurdish question ,though badly handled, never reached the level that enables kurds to take kurdistan for themselves and not allowing other Iraqis to share it with them while the kurds themselves share the rest of Iraq with us.The mere thought kills me with anger!!).
Exiled Soul:
Once again I say it:
The Shiit people chose their shiít represantatives who then conspired with the americans and the kurds to write a constitution (you dig? constitutiuon !!) which is based on Sectariansim and it very naturally resulted in Iran taking over by having Safawis sitting in the parlimant deciding your and my (arab) families´ future.A future where the small fractions of the divided Iraq will fight each other to to the point of non-exsistance while the kurds declare their state and take Kirkuk while the oil is semi-freely pumped to the US.The future is so bright,I got to wear shades !
Hence the accusation that AL Shabibi didn´t like and the (polishing of Saddam) that you do not like !
Shiites are NOT entitled to rule and can not(and should not be left to ) build a state.The lesson was already historically understood.Already in the 60s.
Have a good day !
Dear Ramshackle,
((( doubt too much that there is an (intentional) intellectual trend to (polish) Saddam as if some sort of conspiracy to rob the Iraqi people from their (right) to be considered (victims) of Saddam´s regime)))
I am afraid, yes # they did that intentionally, look at the following excerpts from the same bloggers:
1. denying Saddam's mass graves and considering it as a LIE
"all other lies such as mass graves which only 3 of them were found with about 300 people whom nobody knows how they died and who killed them and when"
2. what do u say about these justifications for the deportation of Shiaa to Iran,
"On the other hand, expelling or jailing people of the same origin of that of your enemy at times of wars is not Saddam's invention. History tells us that USA did the same with Japanese Americans at the Pearl Harbor time, also in England, British of German origin were placed in an Island and some were put in jail during the WW"
" For your information, the people expelled out of the country were those whose origin was Iranian"
"Some of the Shi'is of Iraq decided to register as of Persian dependency so as to avoid serving in the army, as the Ottomans and Persians had agreed on special status for each others citizens. This way, those who registered as of Persian dependency were considered non-Iraqi citizens of another state (Persia) who were living in Iraq. Having preferred to serve Persia rather than the Ottoman Empire and pledge allegiance to Persia but not to Iraq in this way, they made a strategically wrong decision, for which their descendents paid a high price. Not all those who registered were of Persian origin, but some definitely were. So the decision to deport those people (inhuman and wrong as it was) had nothing to do with religion or sectarianism and everything to do with politics. Most of the Iraqi armed forced which fought Iran was Shi'i"
I am not defending the people who are now in the government and I have already mentioned that they are doing the same, but this is not an excuse to legitimise what Saddam's and the Ba'ath and previous regimes did.
Iraq was kept as one not because the Sunnis were in power. actually it was USA and the West who supported previous regimes against the Shiaa and the Kurds until 1991 (for the Kurds)when they were independent and Saddam has no power over them and 2003 ( for the Shiaa and the Kurds). bringing Sunnis back to Iraq will not keep Iraq as ONE as they did before.
I agree with you that the current constitution has many "time bombs" threatening the integrity of Iraq and it was written under a sectarian umbrella. even the voting for the constution clearly identified the deep rifts between, Shiaas, Sunnis and Kurds and it was merely a "revenge voting" process. the Shiaas and the Kurds voted for it just because they know that Sunnis will vote against it and vise versa. many claim that this constitution is illegitimate because it was written by the occupier. however; this does not mean that previous constitutionswere legitimate and represented the will of the iraqi people, as one of the bloggers mentioned that she considers 1970 constitution is still valid. and this exactly was my argument, why do we have to push ourselves to choose either the Americans or Saddam and the Ba'athists? don't we deserve any other decent option?
thanks
hooray, your writings on theater and writing much missed!
Post a Comment