The future of Iraq was a dominant theme of the Gulf Dialogue, both in its public sessions and in private discussions away from the conference hall.
While the fact of the US-led intervention may have ceased to be a topic of discussion for most delegates, events since the fall of Baghdad in April 2003 remained very much at the forefront of the minds of all delegates, including those from the US. There was a strong sense that much remained to be done to build a stable and secure Iraq in command of its own destiny, given that violence was still rife and that economic reconstruction and the rebuilding of institutions were both going more slowly than had been hoped. However, there were also glimmers of hope that the corner might be being turned in some respects. It was an oft-repeated complaint at the Dialogue that such positive signs were being ignored by the world’s media, which were daily handing propaganda victories to al-Qaeda-inspired groups and the Iraqi insurgency.
As the Gulf Dialogue was held, Iraq was preparing for parliamentary elections, which took place on 15 December. They appeared to be a step forward in that some 70% of the electorate, or 10.9 million people, voted – including a significant proportion of the Sunni community. Meanwhile, several cities and provinces continued to be plagued by violence and insecurity. Although intense efforts were under way to prepare Iraqi security forces to assume their full role, the US still had 140,000 troops in Iraq and its allies some 40,000. But many of the coalition governments with troops in Iraq were facing growing popular pressure to bring them home. President George W. Bush, under heavy political pressure because of perceived failures in Iraq, sought in a series of speeches to recast his Iraq strategy and to regain public support for it.
The importance of Iraqi outcomes for the world as a whole was underlined by Abdul Karim Al Anazi, Iraq’s Minister of State for National Security Affairs. He said Iraq stood on the ‘first frontier’ of a fight against terrorism that was a regional and global responsibility. ‘The region’s and the world’s security are now overlapping and inseparable.’ In Iraq, innocent citizens were at risk from random killings ‘which do not distinguish between an Arab and a Kurd, a Muslim and a non-Muslim, or a Shi’ite and a Sunni’.
Mr Al Anazi sought to summarise the situation in Iraq in six points:
• Terrorism had two sources, and the principal one consisted of remnants of the former regime. ‘They killed tens of thousands of people in prisons in the past and are killing today with the same enthusiasm.’ Alongside them, he said, were takfiris who regarded anyone with different views as an infidel whose life, property and honour were legitimate targets. ‘They have legitimised the killing of Muslims and non-Muslims, and have licensed themselves to take their property and honour.’
• Terrorist groups believed that they could best defend themselves and their organisations by becoming established in Iraq. They had found support from states through the ’intersection of regional and international ambitions’. They had found entry points into Iraq, bases and training grounds, and had received financial and logistical support.
• Terrorism would spread to other countries unless it was ’uprooted and its sources dealt with’. The recent explosions in Amman, Jordan, clearly showed this. ‘If we show complacency in destroying terrorists and dismantling their cells, those crimes will not be the last.’
• Terrorism was receiving moral support from some ‘newspapers, satellite channels, and other media outlets to the extent that these daily crimes are today described as acts of resistance.’
• In mosques, ’the word of God is supposed to reign supreme along with calls for benevolence, tolerance, virtue, fraternity, and cooperation in righteousness and piety.’ But mosques were becoming podiums for people who incited the young to kill in the name of jihad. ‘The holy doctrine of jihad is being desecrated by transforming the houses of God into recruiting centres for the murder of the sons of Iraq.’
• Remnants of the old regime were trying to recreate the political factionalism of the past, under which ‘vast sectors of the Iraqi people were marginalised and subjected to repression and killing’. But these attempts were ‘doomed to failure. Iraqis know they only have one choice: peaceful coexistence based on citizenship, justice, and equality.’
To fight terrorism, as well as drug trafficking and organised crime, new institutions were needed for regional and international security cooperation, Mr Al Anazi said. The establishment of a Middle Eastern database dealing with terrorism would be a step forward. Border controls would be important as well.
Dr John Reid, UK Secretary of State for Defence, said the problems of making progress in Iraq should be approached by foreigners with a degree of humility – and illustrated his point with a verse from the Irish folk ballad ‘Galway Bay’:
UK Secretary of State for Defence, said the problems of making progress in Iraq should be approached by foreigners with a degree of humility – and illustrated his point with a verse from the Irish folk ballad ‘Galway Bay’:
Well the strangers came and tried to teach us their way,
They blamed us just for being what we are,
But they might as well go chasing after moonbeams,
Or try to light a penny candle from a star.
The two years taken so far to bring Iraq’s communities to a constitution and democracy compared, Dr Reid said, with about 300 years to find a devolution settlement between England and Scotland, and ‘just over 800 years with the Irish, and we’re not quite finished there yet’.
Dr Reid set Iraq against the global context, and three aspects of it in particular: firstly, the accelerating pace of change and learning in the world made it more necessary than ever to share experience with others. ‘When we remember that we have been around on this planet for around 500,000 years, and yet half of all our knowledge has been gained in the last 50 years – half in the first 500,000 and half in the last 50 – we get an idea of the urgency of sharing learning and experience together because of that rate of change.’ Secondly, advances in telecommunications meant that ‘far distant lands are now ... in our homes every evening because of television, radio or the internet … Human disasters, diseases, war, death, and successes, are brought home to us every evening in a way that ensures that none of us can look away.’ The world was increasingly interdependent, and smaller. Thirdly, ‘the question of security is much more now than just a question of military hardware, or military defence’. These three factors, Dr Reid said, meant that ‘we require more wisdom that ever before, and more courage than ever before’.
On the question of courage, Dr Reid paid tribute to those who had lost their lives in Iraq, as well as those who had been killed around the world by terrorists. The struggle against terrorism, he said, ‘cannot be solved inside any country because the national is now mingling with the international in the threat which faces us.’ But as Napoleon had said: ‘The chief characteristic of an effective soldier is not courage, it is endurance.’ Courage, combined with endurance, marked not only the good soldier but also ‘the great peoples and the great nations of the world’, Dr Reid said. ’Endurance and sustained commitment in the face of adversity is needed, not only in Iraq, but by all of us to establish security and lasting stability.’
Force by itself, however, would not defeat terrorism. Also needed were aid, trade and development, as well as the political will to tackle injustice, exploitation and poverty. ‘Unless we understand that, we will not be successful.’ Dr Reid added: ‘Not all opponents should be lumped together, and certainly not all opponents should be lumped together under the heading of international terrorism. Just because someone does not agree with me, or you, does not mean that they are in the same camp as our most bitter enemy – the international terrorist.’ Iraq was a case in point. Political inclusion – ensuring the interests of minorities – would be one measure of success there. Though some people in Iraq were ’irreconcilable imported terrorists’, and some were elements of the previous fascist regime, ’many with whom we are engaged in debate, discussion or perhaps opposition actually hold grievances which derive from their own experience of economic or social deprivation’. Others, Dr Reid said, may feel let down by unfulfilled promises. ’If these groups are reconcilable with democracy they should form part of the focus for nation building.’ This wider community must be engaged as the world battles terrorism. The international community, he said, was putting aside past differences and ‘looking towards the future in a wider international partnership’. The momentum needed to be maintained – though only Muslims could address the misinterpretation of Islam.
Iraq needed help from its Arab neighbours to improve its governance capacity and economy. ’Now is the time for wider international partnership to step forward and take action to support the Iraqi people and their new government. And there is a very simple message. It is that by our common endeavour, by working together, we will achieve much more than we ever could separately, or the Iraqi people ever could on their own.’
Dr Reid, fresh from a visit to Iraq, agreed with Mr Al Anazi that the media did not report enough of the positive developments in Iraq. ‘The fact is that despite all of the efforts of the terrorists, we are beginning to make real progress in helping the Iraqi people themselves rebuild the security forces, and lay the foundations for the regeneration of Iraq’s social and economic infrastructure.’ There were also – with elections imminent – advances in democracy, though Dr Reid cautioned that ‘elections are not the end point. Democracy is a process that needs to be continual, needs to be experienced and needs to be learned.’ After decades of dictatorship, it would take time to establish the pillars of a democratic state and civil society.
In Iraq or elsewhere, people’s perception of the world was shaped by ’what they see when they open their eyes in the morning, or when they open their door of their own home onto their own streets’. Reconstruction, including the restoration of public services such as electricity, was delivering results but was a huge task, Dr Reid said. ‘Massive underinvestment over the past 35 years has left the system creaking, and incapable of delivering all that is needed – incapable of meeting the heightened expectations of the Iraqi people which occurred with the fall of the dictator.’ There had been improvements to water and sanitation systems; schools and hospitals had been constructed and rehabilitated, and staff trained. The economy was growing. ‘But of course it is slower than it ought to be because of the activity of the terrorists and people are telling us … that they need more jobs, a better life, better services, more electricity, some little comforts in a world which has been difficult and continues to be difficult.’
Dr Reid continued: ‘I say to everyone here, and to every government represented that now is the time the international community has to deliver on donor promises, including on debt relief. If we truly want Iraqi men, women and children to have a better life then we have an obligation upon us to make sure that we provide the resources to match the courage which they are showing.’
The most difficult area to address, he said, was the presence of multinational forces. They were in Iraq at the invitation of the government, and with the backing of UN Security Council Resolutions 1547 and 1637. ‘We have no ambition beyond wanting to see Iraq and the Iraqi people themselves become a stable, peaceful and democratic country.’ The main focus was to train the Iraqi security forces and ‘to give them the means to do the jobs themselves’. The UK would maintain a military presence ’if that is what is wished and wanted and needed by the Iraqi people and their elected representatives’. Iraq’s security forces had about 40 battalions capable of leading operations, whether independently or with coalition support, and now participated in more than 75% of operations.
Responsibility for security would increasingly be handed over to Iraqi civilian authorities. ‘This will mark a watershed and send a clear signal to the terrorists that their attacks are futile.’ The determination of Iraqis would ultimately defeat the will of the terrorists. It was important that the vast majority of Iraqis supported the efforts of their security forces. They must be capable, well trained, confident and well disciplined. ‘The security forces, like civil and democratic society, must be representative of the people. And [they] must work for the benefit of all Iraqis, irrespective of their background. In the future, there can be no room for separate militias in Iraq.’
A stable Iraq would be of benefit to all and would increase the chances of defeating terrorism. All nations, including those in the Gulf, needed to work for this goal. The more progress Iraq made, the more ‘frenetic’ the activities of the terrorists would become. But Iraqis, ’just ordinary human beings wanting a decent stable life’, would continue to make progress politically. ‘It is the Iraqi people that will ultimately defeat them, and that is why they deserve our support, our friendship, and sacrifice.’
Dr Reid said the region needed to come together, like the Iraqis, to promote peace and stability. Britain would do everything it could to help, both as a sovereign state and as a member of NATO, the UN and the European Union. ’But ultimately, everyone in this region will be the people who shape and determine your own future.’ There were encouraging signs of a more concerted approach, through the initiatives of the Arab League, the Organisation of Islamic States Conference, and the Gulf Dialogue itself. He hoped the Gulf Dialogue ‘will play its part in the new and ever more constructive response to the challenging security environment’.
Questions and answers
Both of these speeches carried forward one of the themes of the previous day: addressing violence and terrorism required going far beyond the realm of security. It was necessary to deal with the underlying causes. The delegates were noticeably struck by the speeches: Mr Al Anazi’s was termed ‘powerful and inspiring’, and another delegate found Dr Reid’s intervention ‘profound and mesmerising’. Ambassador Robert Hunter, Senior Advisor at the RAND Corporation and formerly US ambassador to NATO, expressed the wish that American leaders could articulate the rationale for engagement in Iraq as eloquently as had Dr Reid.
Delegates picked up several issues. Firstly, they addressed the various ways in which Iraq’s problems – and the challenge of dealing more broadly with extremist violence – could be addressed outside the military sphere. Several people looked for further elaboration on the relationships between Iraqi communities, and in particular on the treatment of minorities. After Dr Chipman had noted that ‘the continuing challenge in Iraq is not even primarily a military one, but a political one’, Dr Abdullah Al Shayji of Kuwait University asked Mr Al Anazi how the Iraqi government planned to deal with ‘a situation on the verge of explosion and collapse into a civil war’. He also drew attention to recent reports of detentions, and remarks attributed to Iyad Allawi, the former Prime Minister, comparing alleged mistreatment of detainees by Iraqi security forces with practices under Saddam Hussein.
Dr Reid gave a detailed response to these points. He acknowledged that by definition in a democracy, a minority cannot dominate. However, he said: ‘The strength of a democracy can be very often measured by the way in which a minority is treated.’ Under the democratic settlement in the UK, the English – by far the majority – allowed the Scots to have a parliament and run their own affairs, and to participate in the government of the UK itself. The legacy of injustice created by the former regime in Iraq would make it difficult. ‘People have to reach out the hand of friendship’, he said, noting that the Shi’a and Kurds had belatedly done so when giving the Sunni community representation on the constitutional commission.
gave a detailed response to these points. He acknowledged that by definition in a democracy, a minority cannot dominate. However, he said: ‘The strength of a democracy can be very often measured by the way in which a minority is treated.’ Under the democratic settlement in the UK, the English – by far the majority – allowed the Scots to have a parliament and run their own affairs, and to participate in the government of the UK itself. The legacy of injustice created by the former regime in Iraq would make it difficult. ‘People have to reach out the hand of friendship’, he said, noting that the Shi’a and Kurds had belatedly done so when giving the Sunni community representation on the constitutional commission.
It was also important to offer people the chance of a better life. Dr Reid said: ‘There are 200,000 young men of working age in the Euphrates valley without a job. If some of them have recourse to violence, it is not because they are fanatical extremists who are following Osama bin Laden. It may just be that they feel powerless, unemployed, alienated and excluded from the present system.’
And it was important to protect the human rights of all. On the allegations of mistreatment, Dr Reid strongly disputed a comment attributed to Iyad Allawi, the former Prime Minister, that things were as bad as they had been under Saddam Hussein. ‘It is true that there will be incidents of the misuse of prisoners, of mistreatment of people, and in that sense it is possible to say that some of these incidents are as bad as some of the incidents under Saddam Hussein. This is not to say that today things are the same as they were under Saddam Hussein’, Dr Reid said. Under Saddam, torture would have been covered up; now it was exposed. It had been systematic; now it would ‘increasingly become the exception’. People who committed such crimes would now be dismissed and prosecuted, instead of being promoted. The rooting out of such practices would be ‘an increasing signal to the minority in Iraq that they have the same rights as everyone else’.
The second theme of comments from the floor was the role of Iraq’s neighbours, including Iran. Jim Hoagland of The Washington Post asked what specific contributions the Arab League and regional states could make, particularly to security. There was particular concern – shown more clearly in the next session – about the role that Iran was playing. Dr Al Shayji asked Dr Reid to justify British allegations that Iranian technology had been found in some explosive devices in southern Iraq.
Dr Reid said regional countries had a vital role to play in providing moral support to Iraq in the ideological struggle, as well as social and economic assistance and collective security. They should ensure that there was no apprehension within Iraq that outside countries ‘will be exercising a malevolent or untoward interference in the Iraqi state itself’. If this was a clear reference to Iran, Dr Reid said he had never alleged that the Iranian government was responsible for Iranian technology finding its way into bombs in southern Iraq. ’I certainly hope this is not the case.’ But devices being used in southern Iraq were linked by evidence to Hizbullah and ‘Iranian derivatives’. Dr Reid said: ‘I think it is the job of all the neighbours of Iraq to assist the democracy and development of Iraq, not to intervene in it in a way which undermines the Iraqis or the multinational forces assisting them.’
said regional countries had a vital role to play in providing moral support to Iraq in the ideological struggle, as well as social and economic assistance and collective security. They should ensure that there was no apprehension within Iraq that outside countries ‘will be exercising a malevolent or untoward interference in the Iraqi state itself’. If this was a clear reference to Iran, Dr Reid said he had never alleged that the Iranian government was responsible for Iranian technology finding its way into bombs in southern Iraq. ’I certainly hope this is not the case.’ But devices being used in southern Iraq were linked by evidence to Hizbullah and ‘Iranian derivatives’. Dr Reid said: ‘I think it is the job of all the neighbours of Iraq to assist the democracy and development of Iraq, not to intervene in it in a way which undermines the Iraqis or the multinational forces assisting them.’
The third theme of the discussion period concerned the role of the media. Dr Saif Al Asaly of Sana’a University said while it was true that there was bias, ‘the government of Iraq as well as governments of the coalition forces should bear part of the responsibility’. Their public relations were not effective: media facilities had been threatened and attacked ‘in order to shut them up’. Instead, the Iraqi government and coalition forces should have provided correct information and entered into a serious debate with the media. Dr Al Asaly asked whether there was now a better plan to deal with the media.
Mr Al Anazi responded at length on the media issue. He pointed out the rapid growth of free print and broadcasting media since the fall of Saddam Hussein. ’There are now hundreds of newspapers and satellite channels in Iraq run by political groups, parties and individuals of all factions and affiliations’, he said. ’The door is wide open for all Arab and international satellite channels to freely monitor events and shed light upon them.’ The government and its officials could be criticised without penalty. Mr Al Anazi insisted that the Iraqi government provided enough information to the media.
responded at length on the media issue. He pointed out the rapid growth of free print and broadcasting media since the fall of Saddam Hussein. ’There are now hundreds of newspapers and satellite channels in Iraq run by political groups, parties and individuals of all factions and affiliations’, he said. ’The door is wide open for all Arab and international satellite channels to freely monitor events and shed light upon them.’ The government and its officials could be criticised without penalty. Mr Al Anazi insisted that the Iraqi government provided enough information to the media.
However, some newspapers, under the influence of ‘forces or groups or governments’, were interested in incitement. For example, a few days earlier there had been a news item about the ‘fall of Al-Ramadi’ to the ‘resistance’. In fact, young people, working with terrorists, had come out on to the streets with guns for less than an hour. ’When terrorism is described as resistance, and when youngsters are instigated to kill the innocent, then the role of media has become dangerously inciting.’ If the media encouraged terrorism, Iraq would become ‘a hotbed for terrorists’. Outside Iraq, there were Imams in mosques inciting young people to commit terrorist acts and to fight the ‘infidels’ in Iraq. ‘There are newspapers, articles, magazines that regard this as heroism and its perpetrator as a hero.’ Mr Al Anazi said Arab newspapers and satellite channels ’openly describe terrorism as resistance’. Controls were needed. On Dr Al Shayji’s suggestion that Iraq was sliding towards civil war, Mr Al Anazi said Iraqis ‘are living an unprecedented level of cooperation and fraternity. But the media focuses on some points and ignores others.’
The political process in Iraq was moving ahead, Mr Al Anazi said. The Cairo Conference had been a good step forward towards Arab cooperation. He set Mr Allawi’s reported comments against the background of the electoral campaign. The government supported human rights and had set up committees to investigate the allegations. However, errors would be made given Iraq’s legacy of repression and bloodshed. Some policemen might revert to their old habits, but mistakes would be dealt with firmly.
The final theme of discussion – and perhaps the most potent from a strategic perspective – was the nature of the struggle against terror in which the world was engaged. This emerged from the eloquence of Dr Reid’s exposition and the perceived absence of effective American expression of the various aspects of the mission on which the United States was embarked. Dr Reid, in response, indicated that there had been a change in Washington’s approach and in its expression of its policy on Iraq. He urged the audience to read the speech given by President Bush on 30 November 2005 entitled ‘National Strategy for Victory in Iraq’. [The Bush speech can be found at http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/iraq/iraq_strategy_nov2005.html.] Dr Reid said: ‘Many of the nuances that people had been looking for – the recognition that there are different levels of violence, that there is a distinction between the international campaign against extremists and local specific reasons in Iraq itself and any other theatre – many of these are reflected in that speech.’ These may not have been evident in the past, Dr Reid said. ‘I hope that there is a commonality of approach emerging now.’
Responding to Ambassador Hunter’s question about how the Iraq mission fitted into a broader strategic perspective, Dr Reid said the international ideological debate was not between Islam and Christianity, or Islam and Judaism. ’I believe it’s between people who use indiscriminate terrorism – who, whether they believe it or not, are actually people who are practising evil – and the rest of the civilised world on the other side.’ History showed that terrorism was not intrinsic to one religion, creed or political outlook. But the biggest present problem was posed by those who used terrorism ‘for what they claim is the defence of Islam’. This was a debate about values that could only be entered by Muslims. ‘I am a bystander in the values battle, but many of the values that Muslims will be defending are exactly the values that I would subscribe to.’ But while this struggle was being conducted on a global scale, it could not simply be transposed on to Afghanistan or Iraq. The specific aspects of these countries were as important as ‘any global template’.
Dr Reid said: ‘It is the recognition of that degree of difference and sophistication and different levels of struggle that I think is important. And if we get that wrong, if we merely think everyone who opposes us, everyone who disagrees with us is part of some global war against us, then we will not solve this problem. If we think we can solve it by military means, without addressing the underlying political problems of poverty, exploitation, of perceived injustice, of the failure to remedy issues like the Middle East peace process … then we will not resolve it.’ 
