Home > Baghdad

Baghdad

by Open-Publishing - Friday 18 June 2004
4 comments

Edito


by Naomi
Klein

In Baghdad, every encounter we had was a bit like going through customs.

"American?" was the inevitable first question.

"No, no, Canadian," our over-eager reply.

Sometimes our word wasn’t good enough and our interrogators wanted proof.

We’d pull out our passports for inspection.

On their faces, you could often see a cloud of rage pass over. Women would
sometimes let themselves smile. Kids would stop acting like mini-commandos
and run off and play.

Don’t get me wrong: Canadians aren’t loved in Iraq; we just aren’t, so far
as I could tell, actively loathed.

So it’s wrenching being back in Canada confronting the prospect of Stephen
Harper as our next prime minister. This is a man who so longed to join George
W. Bush’s coalition of the willing that he called former defence minister John
McCallum an "idiot" in the House of Commons, declaring we should be in Iraq
with the United States, "doing everything necessary to win." This is a man
who was so eager to "support the war effort" that he went on Fox and claimed
that "the silent majority of Canadians is strongly supportive" of the invasion,
defying the findings of every credible opinion poll.

If the Conservatives are given the chance to turn Canada into more of a card-carrying combatant in Mr. Bush’s disastrous war on terrorism than we are already, the little bit of grace I encountered in Iraq will quickly disappear. When I go back, showing my passport to the ad hoc inspectors could well have a very different effect.

I was in Iraq in April, at a pivotal moment when the United States decided to wage two pre-emptive wars within a pre-emptive war, one against the resistance in Fallujah, the other against Muqtada al-Sadr in Najaf and Sadr City. The LA Times estimates that 800 Iraqis have been killed in the past two months of U.S. attacks on Sadr City, almost as many as the 900 that than are estimated to have died in the siege on Fallujah.

As mosques were desecrated, prisoners tortured and children killed, I witnessed George Bush’s awesome enemy-manufacturing machine up close. Hatred of Americans soared, not just in Iraq but also in neighbouring countries.

The retaliation began immediately: a wave of kidnappings of foreigners, now so common they barely make the news. The change in mood was palpable.

Anti-Americanism was no longer a sentiment; it was an uncontrollable force of nature. Being Canadian didn’t let us off the hook; we were still part of an ugly invasion of foreign soldiers, contractors and journalists traipsing through the country and taking what wasn’t ours: lives, jobs, oil, stories, photographs. The kidnappers didn’t usually discriminate based on nationality.

But being Canadian, or more specifically, not being American, did sometimes open up a little window. It gave people who were suffering permission to glimpse the humanity behind our nationality. And the overwhelming majority of Iraqis I met — even, miraculously, those who had just lost children and spouses to U.S. weapons — were profoundly grateful for that reprieve, relieved not to have to hate. I, of course, was even more grateful, since being not-American kept me out of serious danger more than once.

It is a privilege not to be hated for your nationality, and we should not relinquish it lightly. George Bush has denied that privilege to his own people, and Stephen Harper would cavalierly strip it from Canadians by erasing what few small but important differences remain between Canadian and U.S. foreign policy. The danger posed by this act is not just about whether Canadians are safe when we travel to the Middle East. The hatred that Mr. Bush is manufacturing there, for the United States and its coalition partners, is already following the soldiers home.

I have felt that hatred in Iraq, and trust me: We don’t want to experience it here in Canada. Or don’t trust me, trust the citizens of Spain, who decided in their March elections that they are not willing to accept the blowback from George Bush’s wars, that they don’t want these multiplying enemies to be their enemies too. Or the citizens of the United Kingdom, who just battered Tony Blair’s Labour Party in last week’s local elections, furious at being dragged into a war that has made them less safe. Or the citizens of Australia, who are about to send the same message to John Howard. Or even the citizens of the United States, 55 per cent of whom now disapprove of Mr. Bush’s performance in Iraq, according to a recent Los Angles Times poll.

Yet just as the rest of the world is finally saying "no more," Canadians are poised to elect a party that is saying "me too."

The hawks in Washington like to paint Canada as a freeloader, mooching off their expensive military protection, the continent’s weak link on terrorism. The truth is that around the world, it is blind government complicity with U.S. foreign policy, precisely the kind of complicity advocated by Mr. Harper, that is putting civilians in the line of terror. It is the United States that is the weak link.

Before I went to Iraq, a seasoned war correspondent who had spent a year reporting from Baghdad gave me his best piece of security advice. "Stay away from Americans, they’re bad for your health." He wasn’t being anti-American (he’s an American citizen and supported the war); he was just being practical. In Iraq, that advice means you don’t want to ride in the U.S. convoys or embed with U.S. troops. You keep your distance and stay independent. At this perilous moment in history, the same principle applies at home: Canadian security depends on our ability to maintain meaningful sovereignty from the United States. Being inside the U.S. security fortress isn’t a missile shield, it’s a missile magnet.

As long as the United States continues to act as a global aggressor, the best way for us to stay healthy is to stay as far away as from Americans as possible.

With 8,890 kilometres of shared border, geographical distance is not an option. Fortunately, political distance still is. Let’s not surrender it.

17.06.2004
Bellaciao Collective

Forum posts

  • A nice piece and well-written too. I certainly hope that Naomi Klein, at some point, will be able to bridge the gap in her reasoning and advocate for a one-state solution for all the citizens, Jewish, Moslem and Christian who currently live in Israel and the occupied territories.

    I am also confident that when next she speaks on WBAI progressive radio in NYC, and calls attention to anti-Semtism that sometimes finds it’s way on to various IMC’s due to the open publishing nature of the media resource, she will also equally bring to light that sexist, homophobic, anti-arab/moslem prejudice as well as xenophobia have in the past plagued various IMC’s. There should be no hierarchy of victimhood. We on the left, progressives involved in peace and justice, should take offense equally at all hate speech. I think that message is communicated clearly by Bellacio and hope Naomi follows suit.

    Unfortunately, my own experience with one particular IMC was that my concerns regarding homophobia were not addressed sufficiently. How much better had Naomi on WBAI highlighted the prejudice in general rather than restricting her comments to how one particular group was affected, rather than the many who were similarly inconvenienced.

    In any case, I admire Naomi for travelling to Iraq during a very dangerous time, and advocating for sensible government for our neighbors to the north.

    I’m glad too that Naomi has found a home on the newer SF Bay IMC rather than the older, more established SF IMC. Every progressive should find the groups and IMC’s that are right for them.

    Vince
    TheConstitutionrules@hotmail.com

  • As despicable and deplorable as American foreign policy has consistently been for the past 25 years, one cannot overlook the complicity of Canada in same. The most recent coup d’etat in Haiti spearheaded by France and Canada collaborating quite openly with the U.S. is certainly not something Canadians should be proud of. What is notable about this whole affair in Haiti, where the worst murderers and thugs of Haiti’s past western-sponsored dictatorships have re-patrioted from their lairs in Dominica and the U.S. and now occupy positions of power not through elections but by the force of the bayonet of the aforementioned historically colonial troika, is that not a soul in Canada is openly objecting to it all. Where is the moral outrage and indignation among the onlookers of Canada over this blatantly outrageous and egregious usurpation on behalf of former death squad leaders?

    At the insistence of CARICOM, despite its usual obeisance to U.S. foreign policy in their region, the UN will be investigating the circumstances of the coup and the roles played by Canada et al. Perhaps as news of findings and revelations filter into the highly filtered North American press about the coup in Haiti, Canadians will finally sit up and take notice.

    • You know what pisses me off? It’s the way Europe, Canada, and in fact the majority of the world’s nations watch tragedy unfold in various parts of the world moaning and wailing that "Somebody should do something." and then when the United States, like Daddy reaching for his wallet takes action, they all scream "Imperialism" and "Oh, look how mean and cruel those barbaric Americans are." The fact that has been over looked here is that had the 1991 coalition and the member nations of the UN remained committed to the original resolutions imposed on Iraq and not jumped ship when things got a little difficult, none of the current nastiness would have happened. I do blame the 1st president Bush’s policies on Iraq somewhat because had he backed-up the Kurds in the north and the Shiite population in the south when the rose up at his urging, Sadam would have been history. Of course, the reason his administration took that hands-off policy is to avoid the very situation we have now, or worse, a bloody civil war between the three major cultural and religious divisions of Iraq. I hear Europeans and American liberals screaming that George W. Bush went to Iraq in a sudden fit of Imperial ambition and lied to the American people about his goals and his reasons for attacking. Let us look at the facts.

      First, this wasn’t some sudden and unjust idea that a Neo-Napoleon just thought of one morning. No, the fact is that for nearly twelve years the Ba’athists in Iraq under Hussein had been thumbing their noses at the internationa community and the United Nations. They had violated each and every one of the 14 resolutions levied against their country (all of which were unanomously passed and were hailed as the solution to Iraq’s attempt to control the Gulf) and their forces continued to fire daily on US and UK aircraft who were enforcing the No-Fly zones which were mandated by the United Nations. That’s right, the beloved UN, not the US established the No-Fly Zones to protect the populations in those areas from Sadam’s intentions to punish them for their disloyalty.

      Second, I keep hearing his opponents say that the President lied when he claimed a connection between Al Qaeda and Sadam. The fact is that there were many contacts which have been reported in the open press and in fact there was even a non-agression pact signed by both parties which included the intention to cooperate in WMD production. The threat there is that Al Qaeda was in a position to steal and otherwise accquire fissile and refinable nuclear materials and to deliver a finished device, and Iraq had the scientific facilities to turn them into a deliverable weapon. That was exactly what the President was trying to get across and yet the press and some hostile governments have been twisting this accusation into "Sadam is responsible for the 9/11 Trade Center attacks." The President never said any such thing.

      Third, President Bush gave ample warning and more than enough room for Hussein to finally comply completely with all of the UN resolutions. Even prominent leftists in the US said that it seemed clear that Hussein had a large stockpile of Chemical and Biological weapons and was persuing a nuclear device. Had Iraq allowed real and unrestricted access and assisted the inspectors in their duties, there would have been no war at all. Instead, Sadam continued to play the same game of "Weapons? What weapons?" when all of the time he knew we had the documentation from the UN Inspection team showing tons of these forbidden weapons. If he had indeed destroyed them all, it would have been a very simple matter to show the inspectors the paperwork, and the site of destruction. Instead, his coy and shifty manner got Hussein deposed and his sons killed, not to mention the fate of many of his soldiers and some innocent civilians in Iraq. It must be obvious to all but the most obstinent that those weapons did and probably still do exist somewhere. They will be found someday, I just pray that it isn’t in the US after some terrorist has used them on innocent Americans (or any other innocent people in the world for that matter).

      At any rate, how can you say that US foriegn policy is despicable and deplorable? The US takes action which should be the responsibility of all capable nations and is derided for it. The US has been the primary arbiter in the peace process between the Facistic Israelis and the terrorist Palestinians yet the world points an accusing finger at the US. And this in the light of the fact tha it was Europe who created the situation in the Middle-East in the first place by the League of Nations mandate system, the Sykes-Picot agreement, the Balfour declaration, the 1948 UN resolutions creating the "State of Israel" etc...

      Maybe since the US is so horrible, we should put the shovel in the hands of Europe (and any Canadians who want to participate), hand them the hip-boots and let them wade in and clean up the cesspool they themselves created. Of course, all that would happen is high sounding words would be strung together resulting in more usless resolutions, nothing would ever be actually done, and the situation would only get worse.

      As Jack Nicholson said in A Few Good Men "...You want me on that wall. You need me on that wall."

      Now quit your bitching and give us a hand!

      dutchrub65@yahoo.com

    • Sorry, folks! The above tirade was meant for another commentary. Actually, though some of the same sentiments apply. This is more of the same. Hand-wringers standing around saying how awful it is that people are dying in Hati under a despotic ruler. US intervenes in an attempt to quell unrest (by the way, it worked) and now folks are crying and whining that we acted precipitously. Shame on you. Take action or shut the hell up!

      dutchrub65@yahoo.com