An Immoral War thrust upon Iraqi People (Part III)

- Ajoy Roy

What is wrong with Iraq and wherein lies Iraq's fault ?

Dear Readers, in my last two previous postings I tried to depict why I called the present US led aggression on Iraq as an Immoral War thrust upon innocent people of Iraq. In this article I want to show where lays the fault(s) of Iraq and wrong(s) Iraqi President Saddam Hosain committed against its own people and the world as a whole.

Here are some facts that have used against Iraq and its autocratic regime of President Saddam Hosain.

Iraq's uncalled for aggression against Iran

• Iraq's or for that matter Saddam's most heinous crime was to commit an aggression against Iran in 1980. To be precise, the war broke out on September 22, 1980, when President Saddam's crack troops launched a full-scale invasion of Iran. Iran was then under the fundamentalist regime of Ayatollah Khomeini, only recently came to power through bloody Irani-band Islamic revolution. The regime was then internationally isolated. The secularist world looked upon Iran with great suspicion. Denial of Freedom of movement of women, negation of right of women, observance of Purdah system (i.e. covering of whole body with cloth), discrimination between different religious sects i.e. between Shias and non-Shias became the rule of the country. A new kind of Majlish-based democratic system infested with religious doctrines was introduced almost completely unintelligible to liberal democrats enriched with western concept. Taking advantage of existing international isolation of Iran, President Saddam hoped for a lightning victory. But Saddam?s dream remained unfulfilled despite Iraq's initial success. The Iranian people, even under theocratic regime, rallied and, using their numerical superiority in population, if not in striking power, were able to halt the Iraqi aggression and push the invaders out by mid- 1982. In fact by the end of May, 1982 Iran had recaptured nearly all its territory and Iraq was looking for a way out. The Iranians then went to offensive whose troops crossed over to Iraqi territory on the other side of the Shatt al Arab. The attempts on the part of the Islamic Organizations like the Islamic Conference and the Gulf Cooperation Council to mediate a settlement failed. Even Iraq's offer to withdraw its remaining forces from Iran and to cease-fire was rejected by Islamic clergy led regime of Iran. The militant mullahs had seen their power to grow during the war; though the Shah had originally been dethroned by a wide spectrum of political forces, the crusade against Iraq had enabled the right wing clerics to mobilize the population in their favour, thus curbing effectiveness of the power of the domestic opponents, more particularly of secularists. Khomeini decided to go on with the war, declaring that Iran would not stop fighting until Saddam was overthrown Iraqi war-guilt assigned, and reparations paid. However Iraq with a significant advantage in heavy weaponry successfully throttled a decisive Iranian breakthrough. Then followed an indecisive war between the two countries for long six years. Finally, Iran?s all-powerful virtual monarch Ayatollah Khomeini was forced, with initiative of the then UN secretary general, to accept the US drafted Security Council resolution (598), as Iranian anti-war sentiment growing widespread. Iraq although indicated earlier that it had accepted Security Council Resolution 598, made some dilly dally till August, but under international pressure also accepted the ceasefire. In one ward the result of Iraq-Iran war of eight years might be termed as non-exciting draw. What were the casualties? While there is no one definitive estimate, several have been made with nearly all placing the figure well over 100,000 (on each side), many more wounded & disabled, and millions were made refugees. According to US State department estimate the war had created 2 millions refugees, not to speak of immense economic sufferings to citizens of both countries and malnutrition to millions of children and women. From economic point of view both countries incurred a tremendous loss of oil revenues. But even then after the Gulf war both regimes continued reign of terror including killing over their political dissidents and opponents, and smaller nationals like Kurds in Iraq and secularists, especially leftists in Iran. But in the measure of severity and cruelty the Iraqi regime by far outweighed the Iranian rulers.

Cause of Iraq-Iran war

I am not going to trace out the cause(s) of Gulf war here. Suffice to say that the root lies in :

• History
• Culture and religion
• Claim of Suzerainty over straits of Shat al Arab.
• Economy

History of Conflict

While the causes of the war between Iraq and Iran may be numerous and varied as summarily enunciated above, the immediate or the principal cause was access to. and control of, Shat al Arab waterway. It may be mentioned here that Control of the waterway and its use as a border have been a source of contention between various states in the region, more particularly Iraq and Iran since The Peace Treaty of 1639. The peace treaty agreed upon by the Persians and the Ottoman Empires is rather ambiguous in a sense it failed to resolve the irritating conflict even to this day. Iraq was at that time under the Turkish Ottoman Empire.

Right to have access to waterways of Shat al Arab, the only way to outside world through sea is a vital importance for Iraq, being a land locked country, for its economy and sea trade. Hostility between Turks and Persians again broke out in the 1800s, which eventually brought another peace treaty known as in history The Second Erzerum Treaty of 1847. But problem continued as the treaty failed to demarcate areas on both sides of Shat al Arab between Iraq and the Persia. The Turks occupying Iraq continued to claim the entire area on both sides of the river belonging to them. The treaty itself had built in weakness as it ?suffered from a central weakness : it remained largely nebulous in its working and was unclear about the course of the border in the Shatt al Arab region, thus leaving unresolved the question of territorial responsibility for the eastern bank of the river.? (See article The Historical Antecedents of the Shatt al Arab Dispute-by Peter Hunseler, in The Iran-Iraq War: An Historical, Economic and Political Analysis, ed. M. S. El Azhary, St Martin?s Press, New York, 1984). This led to another understandings between the contesting parties named as The Constantinople Protocol of 1913 establishing a ?Commission? with a responsibility to mark the border. But before the Commission could complete its task the World War I began jeopardizing the mission. The end of War saw a major change in political entities in mid-east. The Turkish Empire collapsed and Iraq emerged as a new independent political entity. This was the first time that the dispute was placed in an Iran-Iraq context. A fresh treaty between Iraq and Iran in 1937 with a commission to determine the border around Shat al Arab region in 1938 was signed. But little progress was made. In 1950, Iraqi monarchy was dethroned by a bloody military revolution. The pact was shelved. Sporadic arm clash continued between two countries. However by 1969 the situation changed in favour of Iran militarily under the Shahs. On the other hand Iraq came under the ruling of Ba?th party who were domestically tied up to consolidate its power base in Iraq. It has also been alleged that Iran supported at that time the Kurdish uprising in the northern region of Iraq and almost brought the two countries to the verge of open warfare. This was however successfully averted through yet another treaty The Algiers Agreement of March 1975, which was forced on the Iraqi?s due to their inferior military position. According to the treaty the border between Iraq and Iran in the region of Shat al Arab would be the mid stream of the Shat al Arab River. Later on Iraq under President Saddam rejected the treaty claiming entire area of both sides of the Shat al Arab. This set the stage for conflict that would erupt in 1980. While Iraq wanted access, in regards to navigation rights, to full width of the river as it crucial to its sea trade & exports, the Iranians preferred a delineation along the thalweg (mid-river) principle.

Economic factors

The river Shat al Arab plays an important role in the economic life of both the countries, but this is more so to Iraq. It is needless to say that for the Iraqis unhindered or full usage of the waterway and the small stretch of Iraqi territory debouching on the Gulf is seen, in economic and security terms as vital. This is because as pointed out earlier the Shat and the small stretch of land is Iraq?s only outlet to the Persian Gulf and thus the shipping lanes needed to export its primary resource, oil. The Shat al Arab itself is an irritant cause of conflict for various reasons. Firstly, it allows for agricultural production in an area with a dry and humid climate. The waterway provides a means of transportation for moving agricultural and other products both within the country and to ports for export. The later one is strategically most vital to Iraq, a land-locked country.

Social Causes

Other secondary causes of Iraq-Iran war were deep rooted in History, culture, language, ethnicity and other social factors. All these elements we may put together as Social origin. I will trace this origin from history of the two nations very briefly.

Modern Iran and its legacy

Modern Iran, especially under the Pahalvis, claimed to be the proud inheritor of ancient Persian Empire. The Iranian Shahs called themselves Aryameher meaning Aryan Sun. Bulk of the population of Iran ethnically belong to so called Indo-Aryan race and Persian Language is an important member of a great Indo-European language-family. Persian culture, literature, architecture and other finer aspects of life are much richer and sophisticated. Iranians feel proud of their ancient history, culture and tradition. The Saracens, torchbearer of Islam emanated from nomadic Bedouins of the Arab Peninsula, defeated them militarily but Persians never surrendered their cultural superiority, language and past history to the conquerors. Arabs defeated Persians militarily but accepted defeat culturally and linguistically. Let us remember here very briefly how Arabs overwhelmed the different non-Arab, non-Islamic countries including Persia one after another within a hundred year of demise of the Prophet Muhammad (Sm), the founder Islam. In March, 635 Damascus, in January 637 Jerusalem, in March 637 old Capital of Persian Empire Al Ma?daine fell. Entire Mesopotamia was conquered by 638 AD; Egypt became part of Arab Empire in 640-41; completion of conquer of Persian Empire took place between 642-43 AD during the caliphate of Omar (634 ? 644). At this time Persian Emperor was Yazdigard III, and epic hero Great Rustam led Persian Army. Rustam was defeated in a fierce but decisive battle Kadesia by the Arab army led by Sa?d bin Abi Waqqas. The Capital Ma?daine (Ctesiphon) fell in the hands of victorious Arabs. But as we said the Persians although accepted the military defeat they maintained the cultural superiority even they accepted Islam as their new religion. And Iran became the cradle of Shiaism, the main opponent of the more dogmatic sect called Sunni Sect. Let me give an example how Persians reacted when Islamic lunar calendar, Hijri was imposed on the conquered people in their civic life replacing the old Persian solar calendar, they resented it very much. They continued to observe Nowroze (New year) as per old solar calendar instead of Muharram, the Islamic first month. In the year 1074-75, the Persian Emperor Seljuk Sultan Jalaluddin Malek Shah asked the famous poet astronomer-mathematician Omar Khaium and seven other men of learning to reform the old Persian calendar in the light of the latest development in astronomy and introduced this new modified solar calendar replacing the Hizri. Old Persian months were revived replacing the Islamic names of the months. The new calendar was introduced 10^th of Ramadan in 471 Hizri (16^th March of 1079 AD). The Iranian Calendar became known as Tarikh i Jalali. This is just one example how Iranians rejected the Arabic military supremacy by their cultural superiority.

Rabindranath visited Iran back in 1932 and saw how Iran was imerging as a new modern state from its past under the leadership of the emperor Reza Shah Pahlvi and how a new educated middle class was growing up. Rabindranath was very much impressed to see how Iran had been trying to blend its glorious past with new moderninsm.

Iraq & its past tradition

On the other hand, Iraq a proud successor of Babylonian Empire, identify itself as Arab country with its majority people belong to Semitic race who speak Arabic. Who does not that Iraq the land of Tigris and Euphrates is one of the cradles of ancient human civilization. Babylonian civilization is as ancient as of Egypt and Indus valley civilization of India. In here developed the Cuneiform alphabet, predecessor of many alphabetic systems in middle east (proto Semitic) and Europe, rudimentary science, arithmetic, algebra and even little geometry. In expressing numbers they developed Sixty-based numbering system, which we still follow in expressing interval of time and unit of angle.

Iraqis also proudly claim to be inheritor of Abbasid Empire that lasted from 750-1258 AD, the most glorious period of Arab rule. The Abbasid rule more particularly under the Caliphate of Harun ar Rashid (786 ? 809 AD) gave the world a fine civilization enriched with science, mathematics, philosophy and astronomy. More significantly they restored the lost Greek contributions to Science and philosophy anew. The second Caliph of Abbasid dynasty, Al Mansur (754 ? 775), one of the most capable Caliphs of Abbasid, established a new city Baghdad as its capital. From pure defense and security point of view the farsighted Caliph shifted the capital from the old city Hashemia, being situated between Syria and Kufa exposed to the enemy of the newly established dynasty. The new city of Baghdad was build on the western bank of river Tigris, not very far from ancient city Babylon, located on the western bank of river Euphrates. Soon the city became famous for its beauty, estheticism, cultural sensuality and prominent international business and trade centre well connected with river system and road. Soon a new art and architecture style developed centering the construction and development of Baghdad. The city of Baghdad became known as Dar us Salam or Abode of Peace. During the period of Caliph Harun ar Rashid it became simply wonderful and its fame reached every corner of the then world- a city with no pair throughout the whole world is not just a paper-claim. Modern Iraqis surely can feel proud to inherit that old tradition. It may be recalled here that great Caliphs of Abbasid dynasty were followers of Sunni sect of Islam, more particularly Sunni Hanafi community. However the caliphs were liberal in regard to various sects of Islam prevailing at that time in Iraq. By and large the traditional Sunni dominance in administration of Iraq prevailed although rulers had changed. At the same time Iraqi people maintained their time honoured tradition of living together with peace and tranquility.

But rulers might, for their self interest, have or had engaged themselves using one community against another or setting on instrument of repression on national or religious community not belonging to the ruling sect. Iraqis are traditionally secular- they learnt from their past history how to live with different sects of Sunnis, with Shias, with native Christians, and with ethnic minorities like Kurds.

Culturally two populations, Iranians and Iraqis are miles apart. While tragic events of Karbala still inspire of common Iraqis, the Iranians draw inspiration from heroic epic story of Shorab and Rustom even today (pre Islamic heroes of Ferdousi?s Shahnama). To the Iranians Shanama of Ferdousi play the same role in Iranian life as Mahabhrata and Ramayana play in Indian life.

Religious & ethnic Spectrum

These differences are further highlighted when we look at the religion of the two nations. While both countries are Moslems, majority of population in both countries follow Shia variety of Islam, Iran is now governed by Shiah clergy; on the other hand although majority of Iraqi population follow Shiaism (~65%) but the country is governed by a dominant Sunni minority. We must remember also that the Iraqi ruling party, the Ba?th regime, is secular while the Iranian government is a fundamentalist one. To this we may add another factor- though Iranians are of Aryan stock, but population on both sides of Shat al Arab is mostly of Arab origin. This is one of that factor on the basis of which Iraq all along claimed that region on both sides of the river must belong to Iraq.

Apart from dominant Sunni minorities, Iraq has old traditional Christian minorities known as Nestorians and Monofizyte. Once Iraq had considerable number of Jewish population who had migrated to Israel. Kurds, constituting 19% of Iraqis, an important component of Iraqi people, are ethnic minority group in Iraq, mostly concentrated in northern Iraq.

So in the context of history, I consider the conflict between Iraq and Iran is a legacy of conflict between two cultures, the Persians and the Arabians- a conflict between two inheritors of ancient cultures and civilization. The Iraqi Arabs never forgot their cultural defeat at the hands of the proud Persians, on the other hand the Iranians, inheritor of old Persian Empire could ever digest their military defeat at the hands of the barbarous Saracens.