Mr. Kissinger's worries

In the run-up to the Iraqi election the Washington Post carried an article coauthored by former US Secretaries of State Henry A. Kissinger and George P. Shultz. The article entitled Results, Not Timetables, Matter in Iraq expressed certain worries over post-election situation in Iraq.

Mr. Kissenger's worries are summarized as following:

First, "A precipitate American withdrawal would be almost certain to cause a civil war that would dwarf Yugoslavia's".

Second, "Iraq is a society riven by centuries of religious and ethnic conflicts; it has little or no experience with representative institutions".

Third, the US has played the role of driving the election process in Iraq. However, the election date was actually set by the Shiite leader Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani. "So far the subtle Shiite leaders have been ambiguous about their goals" while the US does not have confidence in its ability to "forecast Shiite evolution or the prospects of a Shiite-dominated bloc extending to the Mediterranean".

As everyone knows, during the two wars the US waged in Iraq a significant geopolitical consideration was the questions of Iran and the Shiite. Iran has been America's old enemy and it is a country where the Shiite is in power. The Shiites make up about 60 percent of the population in Iraq. Mr. Bush Senior did not finish the work during the Gulf War. His main consideration was that if Saddam were overthrown the ruling Sunnis would lose power while the Shiites would grow unhindered and side with Iran. By then America would be sewing somebody else's trousseau with no benefit to itself and, instead of making a gain, would suffer a double loss.

Today's Iraqi situation has changed little. The US needs to stabilize the situation in Iraq. And because of its own value belief it was going to raise the "democracy" flag and hold elections. If elections are held and because the Shiites account for 60 percent of the population the United Iraqi Alliance backed by Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani may very well become the largest party in the National Assembly. The Shiite creed in Iraq and Iran is the same and the Shiites in the both countries share deep origins. If the Shiites dominate the politics in Iraq a so-called "Shiite crescent zone" may therefore be formed. The surrounding Sunnis-dominated Arab countries will begin to worry while the US who views Iran as an enemy will be even more worried.

In a word, the situation the US is facing in Iraq is extremely complicated. The Sunnis are now the main force opposing the US and fighting to death with it. The Shiites are sitting on the wall and watch. They are prepared to reap the fruits in due course. The Kurds strive to gain more autonomy. The three sects each have their own thinking. Moreover, viewed from a long-term perspective they are all opposed to foreign troops being permanently stationed in Iraq.

In terms of international relations theory Mr. Kissinger belongs to the pragmatism. Based on the America's national interest he advocates against putting all eggs in one basket, which may lead to the dominance of one sect, to leave certain room for regional autonomy. In other words he advocates the "divide-and-rule" tactic the British used in India. The US is doing exactly that in Iraq. For example, it tied the Shiites with the election and recruited Saddam's former army to suppress anti-US forces and so on. While the US is taking advantage of Iraq's original internal conflicts the various sects within Iraq are also making use of the US. This alliance, which is based on using each other for own ends, is very fragile, a fact manifested by the rise and fall of Chalabi.

Judging by President Bush's second inauguration speech its idealistic or ethical tone was rather strong. "Freedom" sounded quite high. The "democracy" process in Iraq may very well produce the geopolitical reality that the US is not willing to see - the US would face a dilemma: too much intervention, suppression and manipulation may bankrupt its tall talk about democracy, generate and intensify conflicts. Without intervention the result is the Shiites' inevitable dominance of the situation. That seems unacceptable to the US, which lists Iran as the next target of aggression. As a matter of fact, the US has little cultural influence in Iraq. Its military success in the war came, first, from its absolute advantage in might and, second, from buy-over with money. During the political reconstruction these two factors no longer have such large influence.

Iraq will test the US. It remains to be seen what actions the US is going to adopt, which has experienced the prisoner abuse scandal and is now bombasting about idealism.

This is a translation by People's Daily Online of an article by Huang Qing carried on the first page of People's Daily Overseas Edition on Feb. 7