THE aftermath of the war in Iraq did not, as we all know, present a scenario of America's choice and expectation. The US administration veritably aspired that troops of the coalition force would be welcomed with flowers by the Iraqis and held as saviours of their body and soul from the rule of a tyrant. No doubt they were made rid of the highly autocratic rule of Saddam Hussain, as the latter's ever-dwindling defence capabilities were no match to the massive force of the US-UK armada and the most devastating war machines ever witnessed by the world. Iraq fell, but the people of Iraq were not won. They wanted a liberator and freedom from the tyranny of a ruler so that they could rule their land themselves. Instead, they got foreigners whose design is unpredictable, if not ominous. People have become suspicious, unhappy and anti-liberator. They want the Americans leave their country and many already faced bullets to that end.

Under such a scenario the United States has no alternative than to resort to considering adoption of her contingency plans of action. The original vision on the political front of the victorious powers was, in short, to find an Iraq with people, who would not only welcome them but join hands in framing a government of the type of western democracy. The American presence in Iraq, it was claimed, would be confined to the period necessary to put the Iraqis on the right track of democracy and to teach them how to manage their oil and the economy. The stark reality following the end of the war, on the other hand, provided a picture, which made this task most difficult and time consuming.

The slogan of " Allahu Akbar" with which the marching American troops in the "newly-freed" land were greeted was not only highly significant but fraught with sinister implications for the Americans. Iraq has been ruled by the Baath party since the assassination of monarchy-toppler Abdul Karim Quassem in 1963. I was then a junior diplomat in Baghdad and, 20 years later, returned there as Bangladesh Ambassador in the beginning of the Saddam era. I, there-

fore, had some first hand knowledge about political evolution in the region. The Baath party was founded in 1943 in Damascus by Michel Aflaq, a Lebanese Christian. Its basic philosophy rested on the principles of socialism and secularism and it advocated pan-Arabism or creation of a single Arab socialist nation. In the Arab world where reigns of kings, Sultans and Shaikhs are rampant and divisive sects of Islam are noticeably pronounced, preaching of the gospel of any departure from hereditary rule and introduction of secularism is no mean task. The principal aim of the Baath party was simply to attain that goal. The party envisaged systematic and periodic training of its members and established a cadre of skilful and dedicated party workers. After the fall of Saddam, Syria is the only country harbouring the Baath party.

The US-UK invasion of Iraq brought in the fore, not so much any nostalgia for the monarchy, but the latent force of religious and ethnic divisiveness, which had hitherto been kept suppressed by the Baath regimes of Aref and Saddam. The governments, which were headed by Sunni Muslims, took pains to see the census of a majority of Shiite population in Iraq is never published. The lid of

the long suppressed force now burst out of the pot like a genie, whose nature and mood are yet to be discerned.

The slogan of Allahu Akbar, as referred to above, is symptomatic of what may be stored for the Iraqis or, at least, a major section of Iraq's population. The least America would like to see is the establishment of a theocratic state in a land freed from the tyranny of an autocratic ruler. It is not only a matter of

principle and distaste for America to support any state based on religion, except perhaps Israel, but the apprehension of such a regime in Iraq to be close, if not an associate, to the fundamentalist regime of the neighbouring Iran poses greater danger to America's interests. I had the opportunity of visiting Najaf, the base of the Shiite

clergy in Iraq, and know for certain the preponderant influence they exercise on the Shiite community. The reported issue of an edict by the chief clergy of Najaf to regard Americans as enemy only fuelled the fire already kindled among the majority Shiite population in Iraq. No amount of humanitarian assistance and distribution of sweets among children by the British and American troops appears unlikely to put out the burning flame easily and endear them to the locals.

The scenes in Baghdad and other cities, as one can witness now, are important pointers to the despair of the combined forces. The troops are seen patrolling the streets in full battle gear with fingers poised at triggers ready to act against snipe shooters. They do not look like saviours. They are still searching for pockets of resistance

and unseen enemy. The killing of 15 unarmed demonstrating civilians on Saddam's birthday added a new dimension to the archaic scenario already tarnished by so many untoward events. The demonstrations that followed those killings and further death of civilians in the hands of US soldiers as well as attack on American base portend great ills and negate the possibility of an immediate or even early settlement of the issues that cropped up following the war.

The United States from the very outset of its plan of toppling Saddam went into action to organise and settle the post-Saddam era of Iraq. To that end, American authorities started to negotiate with Iraqi exiles living abroad in order for them to decide upon how to go about with the formation of an interim government and establishment of a democratic regime in Iraq. As expected, there were strong and diverse opinions and groups as to who and how to accomplish the task. The ostensible American choice of Ahmed Chalabi, provided with a selfdesignated Free Iraqi Force, is yet to make any perceptible and positive impact on the Iraqi populace. It is not only due to Chalabi's past criminal records, but Iraqis appear averse to those, who had no direct contact with them for a long time. If the exiled faction becomes unacceptable to the people and the Shiite faction is ruled out as untrustworthy for the victors, there remains only the Sunnies inhabiting the central part of Iraq. Among them exist some renegate supporters of Saddam Hussain, thereby making the choice of truly democratic leaders further limited. The Kurds in the north are happy at the prospect of obtaining real autonomy in their regions, albeit under keen and constant vigilance of

their neighbours, especially Turkey.

The present American Administrator of Iraq, General J. Garner, has an arduous task to perform. He has to secure some degree of acceptability for himself and for his plans among the not-so-friendly Iraqis, and also have to work within the given framework of American interests and policy. The bone of contention now lies between USA and almost rest of the world community on the issue of who would act as the focal point of service in Iraq before a democratic setup is installed there. It may take as long as two years, indicated as such by the US administration itself. It may take even longer, who knows? But the world community in general advocates the principal role to be played by the UN on political, economic and humanitarian issues faced during the post-war era. Even America's staunchest ally, the United Kingdom, draws tune with the world community on this issue.

The coming days will witness intense and flurry of activities both at the United Nations and on the grounds in Iraq. The situation in Iraq is getting more complex and untenable for the Americans in the wake of growing anti-American sentiments there. American options will, therefore, depend upon these developments. Over and above, the combined forces are obliged to unearth evidence of Saddam's possessing weapons of mass destruction. Otherwise, America and UK would not be able to justify their invasion of Iraq and would be subject to severe criticism and even more as an international bully by flaunting world opinion, wilful violation of international law and establishing a dangerous precedent of forcible occupation of a small state by a big one. America though proved to be the leader of a uni-polar world, but in the process initiated the decline of its authority, prestige and also the democratic and moral values which made its people so proud for so long.

M.M.Rezaul Karim, a former Ambassador, is a member of BNP's Advisory Council.

***The combined forces are obliged to unearth evidence of Saddam's possessing weapons of mass destruction. Otherwise, America and UK would not be able to justify their invasion of Iraq and would be subject to severe criticism and even more as an international bully by flaunting world opinion, wilful violation of international law and establishing a dangerous precedent of forcible occupation of a small state by a big one.***