Coalition of the Wingnuts

Loathe as I am to give any more airtime to fringe-dwelling nutjobs, a critique of the recently-concluded World Tribunal On Iraq does provide an ideal springboard for discussion of the wider issues surrounding the war. Consider what follows both an indictment of extremist bottom-feeders and a statement of general attitude towards Iraq; that is, if you manage to survive all the way to the end.

Firstly, it's amusing to note the Tribunal's blinkered naivety in thinking that a series of ultra-far-left conventions - featuring not a single dissenting or counterbalancing point of view - will be accepted as hard, objective evidence by anyone outside of their closed circle; the phrase 'hermetically-sealed echo chamber' was never more apt. Indeed, they admit as much themselves:

• "The first [complaint] is that this tribunal is a Kangaroo Court. That it represents only one point of view. That it is a prosecution without a defense. That the verdict is a foregone conclusion... [that] the views of the U.S. government and the so-called Coalition of the Willing... have somehow gone unrepresented... If in the era of the multinational corporate media and embedded journalism anybody can seriously hold this view, then we truly do live in the Age of Irony, in an age when satire has become meaningless because real life is more satirical than satire can ever be."

Of course, this implies that the media has been blindly toeing the party line of the US and UK governments throughout, which is - to say the least - rather far removed from reality. The fact that the media at large has a decidedly anti-war slant, but doesn't generally accuse the US of being the sole purveyor of evil in the world, apparently gives it the status of de-facto collaborator. And if your objection is to the media, why not invite some pro-Coalition members of the Iraqi public or government to speak? Because it would disrupt the perfect ideological unanimity you've tried so hard to preserve? It's not for lack of them; according to a poll in Almidhar (Iraqi newspaper) in mid-April, 82% of Baghdadis want the Coalition to stay for the foreseeable future, and the government has repeatedly stated as much. Are the views of the Iraqi public, once again, only valid as long as they're agreeing with you?

The above quote, by the way, was taken from Arundhati Roy's opening speech at the Istanbul session. This is the same person who, immediately after 9/11, delivered an epic rant about - among other things - America's "marauding multinationals who are taking over the air we breathe, the ground we stand on, the water we drink, the thoughts we think [!!!]", and who last year (before any of the WTI conferences) said that "the Iraqi resistance is fighting on the frontlines of the battle against Empire. And therefore that battle is our battle." Not to suggest that she went into the WTI with a foregone conclusion in mind, or anything.

Anyway, let's have a look at the Tribunal's evidence and conclusions. All these are drawn from the Declaration of the Jury of Conscience, although some of them have been expanded with quotes from the individual sessions.

• "the use of massive, disproportionate and indiscriminate force which has produced, according to reliable scientific studies, at least one hundred thousand victims, most of whom killed by bombings."

No, it hasn't. The Lancet report, on which this claim (replicated innumerable times throughout the WTI literature) is based, stated nothing of the sort. The figure for deaths arising from the war was estimated at 33,000, killed by both the Coalition and insurgency; subsequent investigations have revised this downwards. This particular fiction, which has become an article of faith in the usual circles (check out the new 'V For Vendetta' trailer for an especially gratuitous example), is taken from the report's figure for total deaths - which includes rises in natural death, criminal violence, and accidents. Unless the WTI is crediting the US military with the ability to alter the laws of probability, then, its statistics are somewhat awry. Quoting the 100,000 figure in this manner is a dead giveaway that you haven't actually read the report - the media simply saw a large number with the words "scientific study" next to it, wet their collective pants, and began parroting it in a rather egregious display of sensationalism (sycophantic lackeys of BushBlairCo that they are).

Note that I've only pointed out how the WTI is blatantly lying about (or is possibly unaware of) the content of the Lancet report; this is without even mentioning the fact that said contents - despite being a praiseworthy first attempt to ascertain civilian casualty statistics - are rather hotly contested. The results were obtained by subtracting postwar estimates from prewar estimates, meaning that they were subject to inaccuracies in both. The surveyed post-war period was four months longer than the pre-war period. The figures were based on interviews conducted in thirty-three randomly-selected clusters, an approach which could easily lead to inflated figures in certain areas. Death certificates were only requested in 78 of 988 households, and only 63 of them could produce one; certificates were not sought in areas where the interviewers feared that such requests might result in violence. Eighteen of 33 sampled clusters reported no deaths whatsoever. The nationwide figures were derived from 30 households in each of 14 of the remaining sites (excluding Fallujah), in which a total of only 89 deaths were reported; as Wikipedia notes, extrapolation from such miniscule figures renders the report's "statistical strength [quite] weak". Additionally, the WTI carefully chose not to mention the following excerpt:

"Despite widespread Iraqi casualties, household interview data do not show evidence of widespread wrongdoing on the part of individual soldiers on the ground. To the contrary, only three of 61 incidents (5%) [including Fallujah] involved coalition soldiers (all reported to be American by the respondents) killing Iraqis with small arms fire. In one of the three cases, the 56-year-old man killed might have been a combatant. In a second case, a 72-year-old man was shot at a checkpoint. In the third, an armed guard was mistaken for a combatantand shot during a skirmish. In the latter two cases, American soldiers apologised to the families of the decedents for the killings, indicating a clear understanding of the adverse consequences of their use of force."

Rather dispels the notion of US forces as barbarous, indiscriminate Muslim-killing yokels, doesn't it?

Regardless, having established that the WTI is not so much interested in The Truth as it is in proselytic misinformation, let's take a look at some of their other "findings".

• "In February 2003, weeks before an illegal war was initiated against Iraq, millions of people protested in the streets of the world. That call went unheeded."

So, if we are to take note of the millions of people across the world who protested the war, shouldn't we contrast that against the billions who didn't? Or, as Johann Hari notes, the fact that opinion polls conducted after the fall of Saddam's regime indicate that such protests ran contrary to the wishes of the Iraqi public?

"A month after the war ended, [when] asked the question 'Did you think it was right to invade?' 62% of Iraqis said yes, 24% said no. For that poll to be wrong it would have had to have had a 12% margin of error. That has never happened in the history of polling... a majority of Iraqis were saying 'better this invasion than what we faced otherwise.' They would not have been marching with you. They would have been marching for the invasion."

As demonstrations of public support go, I'd imagine that the views of the Iraqis should be given primacy over those of the anti-war movement, at least concerning international policy towards their nation's regime. Apparently, the WTI knows what the Iraqis want and need better than they do themselves.

• "Committing a crime against peace by violating the will of the global anti-war movement. In an unprecedented display of public conscience millions of people across the world stood in opposition to the imminent attack on Iraq. The attack rendered them effectively voiceless. This amounts to a declaration by the US government and its allies to millions of people that their voices can be ignored, suppressed and silenced with complete impunity."

Well, there it is in a nutshell. What can I say to that kind of arrogant self-delusion? Note how the US is portrayed as a fascist autocracy for failing to immediately comply with the demands of a minority, who were marching in defence of an actual totalitarian regime which would have ended any such protests rather definitively and very permanently. To paraphrase Berman:

"I always figured that a keen awareness of extreme oppression was the deepest trait of a left-wing heart. Mass graves, three hundred thousand missing Iraqis, a population crushed by thirty-five years of Baathist boots stomping on their faces - that is what fascism means! ... [And this is] indistinguishable from that? Indistinguishable from fascism? From a politics of slaughter? Leftism is supposed to be a reality principle. Leftism is supposed to embody an ability to take in the big picture. The traitor to the left is you, my friend."

And why is it that we can't wage a "War on Terror" because it's a noun, but we can have a "Crime against Peace"?

And once again, I reiterate: the Iraqi people demonstrably did not want these protests. YOU were marching to silence THEM.

• "We recommend that people around the world resist and reject any effort by any of their governments to provide material, logistical, or moral support to the occupation of Iraq."

Marvellous. We're not even allowed to support the effort in principle, such is the degree of compliance required by the WTI. Who's trying to "take over the thoughts we think" again, Ms Roy?

• "Saddam Hussein’s crimes against his people are not the focus of this Tribunal. We believe it is up to the Iraqi people to investigate these crimes in an independent and free trial."

Ah, the irony! Demanding a fair trial while engaged in the most patent of fake trials. Of course, the fact that Saddam will be standing any kind of trial is due entirely to the invasion to which the "Jury of Conscience" so strenuously objects. This is precisely the kind of infuriating cognitive dissonance which allows people to say "oh, it's marvellous that those brave Iraqis came out to vote, even though they've been invaded!" Because one has happened completely independent of the other. Spontaneously. In a vacuum.

• "to contrast this aggression, the Iraqi people have created a resistance movement which has taken various forms and which can claim legitimacy on the basis of the relevant provisions in the Charter of the United Nations and in international law."

Note the phrasing: "contrast" this aggression. Because the insurgency's tactics don't at all resemble aggression, of course. While I agree that there IS a rather stark contrast between the Coalition forces and the insurgency, I doubt the WTI are talking about the same thing. Indeed, aside from its odious moral implications, the assertion is simply wrong on even the most basic factual level; in order to be recognised as a legitimate force under international law, the insurgents would (at minimum) have to start wearing uniforms, stop using crowds as cover, and cease their deliberate targeting of civilians. It would appear that the WTI is observing one form of law for the US, and an entirely different one for the "resistance"; they might wish to have a look at UNSC Resolution 1546, which specifically states the following:

"[The UN] Decides that the multinational force shall have the authority to take all necessary measures to contribute to the maintenance of security and stability in Iraq in accordance with... the Iraqi request for the continued presence of the multinational force... so that... the United Nations can fulfil its role in assisting the Iraqi people... and the Iraqi people can implement freely and without intimidation the timetable and program for the political process and benefit from reconstruction and rehabilitation activities."

This comes after UNSC Resolution 1511, which granted the Coalition and the CPA responsibility for the administration of the country until a representative Iraqi government was formed, and also authorised them to "take all necessary measures to contribute to the maintenance of security and stability in Iraq". Unless the WTI now regards the UN to be illegitimate, the Coalition's temporary occupation and counter-insurgency operations are legal under international law.

Put simply, the insurgency is composed of three factions: the Ba'athists, who want to return the country to the dictatorship it was, the jihadists, who want to impose a fundamentalist Islamic state and are rabidly opposed to the "vile lie" of democracy, and the Sunni nationalists, many of whom lean towards one or the other of their co-factions and all of whom are fighting against the democratically-elected government. Which of these is the legitimate one, exactly?

And once again, the Iraqi public are rather out of step with the WTI; in the December/January issue of Alsabaah, an Iraqi newspaper, 87.7% of 4974 surveyed Baghdadis said they supported military action against the insurgency. Or, since the WTI seems to place extreme importance on public demonstrations, perhaps they'd care to check out the first of many planned Marches Against Terror which over one thousand citizens, together with political leaders and Iraqi army and police officers, held last month in Qayarrah? Note that this links to a blog, since the story didn't appear anywhere in the "rabidly pro-war" corporate media.

• "It is the occupation and its brutality that has provoked a strong armed resistance and certain acts of desperation. By the principles embodied in the UN Charter and in international law, the popular national resistance to the occupation is legitimate and justified. It deserves the support of people everywhere who care for justice and freedom."

"Certain acts of desperation". An impressively evasive, if morally repugnant, euphemism. First of all, it's worth noting that the chicken-and-egg game the WTI are playing here is ludicrous - if there was no insurgency, there would have been no violent civilian deaths (except from criminal violence) since the regime fell, period. Secondly, what certain commentators fail to understand is that suicide bombing is NOT an act of desperation - it is considered by jihadists to be the fulfilment of their service to Allah, the noblest end to which they can aspire. All of which is borne out by the fact that the suicide contingent is almost exclusively non-Iraqi; in other words, they are actively coming into the country seeking to become martyrs. The notion that it is an act of desperation is due only to a fundamental inability to comprehend how someone could think in this manner. Which, while perhaps reassuring, simply doesn't deal with the reality of the sentiments expressed - and more importantly, actions taken - by these groups.

And again, I'm not sure in what twisted bizarro world any justice- or freedom-loving person would align himself with the insurgency, given that they are openly contemptuous of any form of liberty; opposing military intervention in Iraq is one thing, but actively supporting those who would turn the country back into a human-rights wasteland is entirely another. Is people's hatred of America so great that seeing them fail is more important than seeing the Iraqis succeed? Why, yes it is!

• "the establishment of a government not recognized by the Iraqi people and which is kept in power only through the military presence of the occupying powers, thus violating the Iraqi people's right to self-determination."

Hilariously, this conference took place in February - a month after the elections. One can only assume that they had already decided to level this charge, reality be damned. They're most likely referring to the Provisional Authority and the Interim Governing Council, apparently ignoring their inherently provisional nature and the fact that their sole purpose was to act as a temporary administration while ballots were arranged. Or, come to that, the fact that 85% of polled Iraqis felt safer once the CPA was in place; as usual, the views of the Iraqi people are irrelevant to those who have already decided what's best for them. In any case, given that the democratically-elected government has requested that the US forces remain in Iraq, isn't the WTI's "legitimate resistance movement" fighting against the "self-determined" wishes of the populace? No?

As for the status of the CPA/IGC under international law, I refer again to UNSC Resolution 1511, which states:

"[The UN] reaffirms... the temporary nature of the exercise by the Coalition Provisional Authority... of the specific responsibilities, authorities, and obligations under applicable international law... which will cease when an internationally recognized, representative government established by the people of Iraq is sworn in and assumes the responsibilities of the Authority... [The UN] Determines that the Governing Council and its ministers are the principal bodies of the Iraqi interim administration, which... embodies the sovereignty of the State of Iraq during the transitional period until an internationally recognized, representative government is established and assumes the responsibilities of the Authority."

Of course, one might be inclined to point out that Iraq had a permanent "government unrecognised by the people" which was "kept in power only through military presence" for thiry years, and would have continued in similar fashion indefinitely had it not been for the invasion. Curiously, it provoked no such wide-ranging series of international conventions; the WTI apparently has a very specific aversion to administrations formed during the transition to representative government, but exhibit no such distaste for the dictatorships which necessitated them in the first place. Hmmm.

• "Any law or institution created under the aegis of occupation is devoid of both legal and moral authority. The recently concluded election, the Constituent Assembly, the current government, and the drafting committee for the Constitution are therefore all illegitimate."

How convenient for the WTI; so many of their other objections would fall apart if this weren't the case. So, to recap: the Coalition sets up a temporary, provisional government, and the WTI says it's been imposed on the Iraqis, negating their right to self-determination. They hold democratic elections, the public turns out in unexpectedly high numbers, their duly-elected government begins the difficult task of drawing up a constitution and building their civil and security structures, and yet the WTI summarily dismisses all of it as "illegitimate". Why, exactly? Do they have specific, irrefutable evidence that the elections were invalid? They don't appear to, since this "aegis of occupation" argument is the most concrete indictment they can offer. Do they have evidence that the Coalition is dictating the terms of the constitution? It's unlikely, given the very public arguments over the degree of enshrinement afforded to Islam, the limited women's rights, and the explicit prohibition on dual Iraqi-Israeli citizenship (a pragmatically sensible, if philosophically undesirable move). Or is the WTI just blindly objecting to the possibility that progress is being made?

Of course, this is nonsense from even a straightforward logistical point of view; if the Coalition can't set up a provisional government, and they can't hold elections to form a permanent government, how exactly are they supposed to withdraw "at once", as the WTI demands? To whom, exactly, would they cede power? And once more, due to the UN resolutions I cited earlier - which not only authorise, but explicitly require these institutions to be established - the WTI's claim of illegitimacy is rendered null and void.

• "The imposition of severe inhumane economic sanctions on 6 August 1990, the establishment of no-fly zones in the Northern and Southern parts of Iraq, and the concomitant bombing of the country were all aimed at degrading and weakening Iraq’s human and material resources and capacities in order to facilitate its subsequent invasion and occupation."

*sigh* There's little that can be said about such wingnuttery and conspiracy theorism. It's rather a long-winded approach, since they could simply have wiped out Saddam in 1990 when they had the willing military support of much of the Iraqi populace as well as a strong international backing. Given that the US was under a completely different administration for most of the sanctions' lifetime, and the fact that Bush had explicitly committed to an essentially isolationist foreign policy before 9/11, you'd be forgiven for regarding this as rather unhinged and manifestly a-historical ranting. But then again, since certain primary WTI contributors believe that Zarqawi is an invention of the Coalition and imply that the US forces are intentionally deploying DU so as to maximise radiation poisoning among the civilian population, it's hardly the worst they could have come up with.

• "The occupation has intentionally exacerbated ethnic, sectarian and religious divisions in Iraqi society, with the aim of undermining Iraq’s identity and integrity as a nation. This is in keeping with the familiar imperial policy of divide and rule."

See above re: conspiracy theorism. How precisely the establishment of a representative democratic assembly "exacerbates" the sectarian divisions of a dictatorial regime that forcibly suppressed the ethnic majority and gassed the smallest minority isn't elucidated. Ah, but I forgot - the government is an illegitimate contrivance of the occupation. It really is a very convenient position to take, if you want to introduce a slew of other spurious accusations.

Curiously for such a brutal, feckless colonial power, the US have even begun negotiations with representatives of the Sunni insurgency in an effort to convince them that the political route is preferable; this coincides with increasing Sunni participation in government after their boycott of the January election, and a growing intent to contest the (no doubt illegitimate) December ballots. One might ask how this reflects upon the US's "imperial policy of divide and rule", since they appear to be shooting themselves in the foot on both counts.

• "Actively creating conditions under which the status of Iraqi women has seriously been degraded... Women’s freedom of movement has severely been limited, restricting their access to the public sphere, to education, livelihood, political and social engagement."

Of course, women's "freedom of movement" has only been limited insofar as the security situation makes it rather hazardous, which applies to everyone. The WTI might do well to turn their attention to the framers of the Iraqi constitution, who are arguing over whether Islam should be given the status of official state religion, and what contribution sharia should have in dictating law. The women are rather vocal about it. In Najaf:

"We want to make clear that we're against any attempt to revive the notorious 137 personal affairs law which was born during the period of Abdul Aziz Al-Hakim when he was the head of the GC. We want a civil law to govern issues like marriage and inheritance and we also want to reactivate the related international treaties that Iraq had already signed and approved long time ago and even the existing civil law that we support needs to be modified and improved in a way that matches the needs and rights of Iraqi women and we insist that Islam must not be the only source of legislation."

And in Baghdad:

"Reports that Iraq's draft constitution could give Islamic law a powerful role in society have sparked strong reactions by Christian and women's groups, who fear the move will greatly curb religious and women's rights. Last week, dozens of women gathered at a busy intersection in Baghdad, handing out flyers to passing motorists and pedestrians and waving banners that read, "We want to be equal to everybody. We refuse to be second-class citizens."

Clearly these protestors just caught the Coalition on a bad day, otherwise they'd have been around to infringe upon their freedoms (such as the ones that allow them to protest in the first place, which is no doubt a rather new experience for them). These women are protesting against the reinstatement of Resolution 137, which the IGC (at the time under Al-Hakim, a religious leader) attempted to implement before the interim TAL constitution was signed, and which basically placed many aspects of marriage and property division under the auspices of sharia law. Paul Bremer, the American CPA Administrator, promptly rejected Resolution 137 on the basis of its anti-women's-rights nature, and the US Congress passed their own resolution calling for the provision to be dropped in favour of explicit equal rights for women and freedom of religion. And the TAL constitution, at the behest of the CPA, madates that 25% of all decision-making bodies be composed of females. Separately from all of this, the US launched two multi-million dollar initiatives in 2004 - the Iraqi Women's Democracy Initiative and the US-Iraq Women's Network - designed specifically to support and promote women's participation in rebuilding Iraq. With all that, it can hardly be said that the Coalition isn't doing its part to empower the female demographic, both economically and politically.

• "We recognise that the judgment of the World Tribunal on Iraq is not binding in international law. However, our ambitions far surpass that. The World Tribunal on Iraq places its faith in the consciences of millions of people across the world who do not wish to stand by and watch while the people of Iraq are being slaughtered, subjugated, and humiliated."

Again, I'll simply note the abject, despicable hypocrisy of making a claim like that when they honestly could not have given less of a shit about Saddam's actual three-decade reign of slaughter, subjugation and humiliation. And their ambitions "far surpass" international law?

• "a major motive for the war was to control and dominate the Middle East and its vast reserves of oil as a part of the US drive for global hegemony."

Percentage of US oil imports derived from Iraq: approximately 6%. Percentage imported from Mexico: ~12%. Canada: ~16%. Percentage of US oil consumption derived from imports: ~50%. Thus, the percentage of total US oil consumption supplied by Iraq is around 3-4%. Iraq has simply never been more than a negligible source of oil for America. Contrary to popular wisdom, it also has only the fourth largest proven reserves, behind Saudi Arabia by a factor of 2.3, Canada (including oil sands) and Iran, and is only marginally ahead of Kuwait; if nonconventional oil sources are taken into account, then South America comes out ahead of them all.

In any case, is it even necessary to point out that, with a democratic government in place, the Iraqi people will benefit far more from their oil than they ever would under Saddam or his heirs? In fact, the current draft of the new Iraqi Constitution specifically stipulates that 90% of oil revenues will be assigned to the central government, with the remaining 10% retained by the originating province for investment in infrastructural and social programmes. And, if America is so desperate to establish an oil monopoly and so willing to employ force to do so, it begs the question - why didn't they do it in 1990, when Saddam was already at their mercy, when sections of the Iraqi populace were willing to join in the effort, and when the international community was behind them? Indeed, by choosing not to do so, the US essentially forfeited six years of Iraqi oil, as can be seen from the rather lonely-looking row of zeros in the table above. The fact that it didn't do them any harm illustrates exactly how unimportant Iraqi oil is to them.

Added to which, the CPA's Order 39 (designed to facilitate foreign investment in Iraq, and to which the WTI also devotes some ranting) explicitly forbids direct or indirect foreign ownership of Iraq's natural resources and real estate. One would assume that this, in conjunction with all the above, should rather mute the cries of the "No Blood For Oil!" crowd.

• "We recommend the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of the Coalition forces from Iraq."

As I pointed out earlier, this does not reflect the wishes of the Iraqi public, as expressed both in opinion polls and through the statements of their elected government. Moreover, it would leave the nation without its primary means of security enforcement, as well as severely undermining their ability to train additional forces; in the current climate, withdrawal would be tantamount to a death sentence for Iraq. The sad fact of the matter is that these pragmatic considerations are of no interest to the WTI, since they're only concerned with the perceived philosophical implications of a US occupation.

• "Engaging in policies to wage permanent war on sovereign nations... Ethnic and religious hostilities are being fueled in different parts of the world. The US occupation of Iraq has further emboldened the Israeli occupation in Palestine and increased the repression of the Palestinian people."

By declaring a ceasefire and pulling out of Gaza? Well, it's unorthodox, I'll give them that.

And that, dear reader, is only a small sample of the rational and evenhanded analysis which awaits you in the WTI archives. While this kind of moral and intellectual idiocy is cause enough to lose one's faith in humanity, I do take some solace in the fact that - aside from such bastions of common sense as Indymedia - the entire endeavour has received precisely the amount of media coverage it warrants.