America is the only state which is in possession of a global geopolitical code and everything that happens around the world interests it

InterPressNews sat down with professor of Tbilisi State University, Georgia’s former Ambassador to Israel and Armenia, Revaz Gachechiladze, to discuss the issue of Iraq’s hypothetical disintegration.

- For official Baghdad not very propitious developments have taken place in Iraq. The U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry has visited the country. The Arabian States believe the recent developments in Iraq to be a religious conflict. In the present state of play, when Sunni and Shiite Muslims have stood against each other, the leaders of Kurds have raised the issue of breaking away from Iraq and creating their own sovereign state. The Kurd’s desire to form their state is nothing new, however, after Hussein’s ouster, Iraq has found itself under the threat of disintegration; and this will only aggravate the situation in the Middle East. Baghdad has appealed to Washington for assistance. However, the WH has not paid any particular attention to their pleas for help. The actual fact is that Iraq is on the verge of disintegration. How would you assess the current goings-on in Iraq?

- If we want to evaluate the present developments in Iraq, first of all, we must look back across the years. As you know, Iraq was an alienable part of the Ottoman Empire for a long time. When in the beginning of 1920s, the League of Nations mandated Great Britain to take control of this territory, the Baghdad, Basra and Mosuli’s administration unities were incorporated into one state. And this complicated the process of forming a state of “Iraq’s identity.”

Until 1958, Iraq was ruled by the dynasty of Sunnis. The British counselors of the Monarch somehow managed to balance the situation there. In 1958, a monarchy was overthrown in Baghdad and it was instantly caught in the grips of revolution; in this period, each and every dictator was set up to Sunni officer. Out of these officers, Sadam Hussein managed to set up in the political arena of the country; and soon he started to rule the state with his iron fist. Sunnis represented the majority in Iraq’s military-political upper crust. However, under Hussein, the Government was also manned with Shiites and even Christians. At the same time, more than a half of the country’s population was Shiite Arabs and about a quarter of them were the Kurds. The political conditions in Iraq could not have been defined as just for the non-Sunni population as well as the Kurds in those days. As for Sadam Hussein, he really was a cruel dictator and a military offender. How can we typecast him otherwise, after remembering the aggression (that spilled into a grim and devastating war) which he piled against Iran. Likewise, his move to annex Kuwait in 1990 was by all odds condemnable. However, Iraq’s chased policy did not pose any kind of threat to the West. This policy did not foster Islamic fundamentalism; neither did it back up Al-Qaida. The terrorists did not converge on New-York’s world trade center to devastate it; the organizers of terrorist acts of September 11, 2001 were from Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

That is the reason why, the Western Countries move to invade Baghdad was illogical. Likewise the statement from President George Bush Junior regarding the vicious circle of Iraq, Iran and North Korea was also preposterous. Everyone knows that the Iraq of Sadam Hussein and Iran’s Shiite Government were each other’s foes.

After Sadam Hussein had been toppled down and the army of Iraq was disbanded, the country was thrown into a state of disarray.

Americans dissipated astronomical sums to restore Iraq; however, they failed to stifle the confrontation between the different sects that claimed the lives of an innumerable number of people. In the wake of this, a rift between Shiites and Sunnis, the Arabs and the Kurds, the Kurds and Turkmens has emerged here.

At this point, Iraq’s old Sunni elite that was replaced by the Shiites define themselves as oppressed and trampled. Nouri-Al-Maliki’s Government is being permanently blamed for persecuting Sunnis and supporting Shiites. The present state of affairs plays into the hands of the Sunni Muslims -- the participants of the Holy War. Among these battle-hardened warriors, there are the representatives of the North Caucasus and those of foreign countries. These small but motivated and valiant Mujahideens bested Iraq’s huge army and conquered a number of cities in a very short period of time. The only enemies they cannot fend off are the Kurds at this point.

Northern Iraq, which is populated with the Kurds is the calmest region here. Iraq’s Kurdistan is a partially independent region with its own Government and army. They don’t have their own diplomatic missions abroad though. And in my mind the recognition of their sovereignty will take time.

- As experts say, Iraq’s PM Al-Maliki will be forced to accept Washington’s conditions, however, only God knows whether or not Washington will succeed in talking the Kurd’s leaders round to drop their decision to secede from Iraq. Judging from statements from Russian experts, we can conclude that the fact that Iraq has become America’s excruciating headache elates Russia. Against this backdrop, we cannot rule out that Russia has also spurred the Kurds to take more active steps in the region. In your opinion, in the present state of play will America manage to diffuse tensions in Iraq by curbing Iraq’s president’s far-reaching ambitions?

- Washington will not be left alone when it comes to this issue. The International Community will not recognize Iraq’s Kurdistan as a sovereign region. Most importantly, its neighbor countries – Turkey and Iran – are against this. I do not think that Iraq’s President Masoud Barzani is moved by ambitions only. Anyway, until the official Government is at the helm of Baghdad, radical steps from Kurdistan are not expected.

There is no doubt that all kinds of predicaments that are placed on the path of the U.S. that is viewed by the Kremlin as its archenemy will elate the Russian leaders. However, to your question regarding Russia’s move to actuate the Kurds, I really do not have an answer. In this case, Moscow will be extremely heedful and its influence on these people will not be so palpable.

As for the second part of your question, it’s obvious that Iraq’s PM Nouri-Al-Maliki is in desperate need of American assistance. With what kind of conditions may Americans present these people on this occasion? Americans simply may urge them to form a Government which will be manned with the representatives of different religious beliefs. However, when the region is almost caught in the grips of civil war, reaching this goal will really not be a peace of cake.

A civil war has really nothing to do with the aggression from external enemies. In this case, it is really difficult to single out your adherents from your foes. On June 18, a United States Army general and the 18th and current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Martin E. Dempsey, declared that the Americans lack the necessary intelligence data to carry out a military strike. “Only little can be done for them after Iraq’s Government disappointed their people,” stated the General.

- After the U.S. and the West met with failure in Syria, after Russia seized Crimea, how can the recent developments in Iraq impact international politics as well as the relations between Washington and Moscow?

\- I cannot say that the USA and the West in general have met with failure in Syria. I think that they simply did not manage to figure out which force to back up here -- Dictator Bashar Al -Assad, who was for secularism or those Islamist warriors who were linked to Al-Qaida. As for Russia, it stood by Assad from the very beginning.

It’s true that Crimea’s annexation can be viewed as Russia’s victory; this country has managed to get off easy as the West’s sanctions against it has proven to be rather ineffective, but … when it comes to Iraq, I do not think that the interests of Washington and Moscow will overlap in this case. Any political-geographical change brings a set of new nuances. And no one can say in advance which geopolitical player will benefit from these geopolitical changes.

- As Russian expert Alexander Sushentsov, who has returned from America maintains, the issue of Ukraine has been removed from America’s political agenda. In his words, the American specialists allege, Washington and Moscow have lived down the incident of Ukraine and the American upper crust has shifted its gaze from Ukraine, Russia as well as Iraq. In your opinion, is the Russian expert simply trying to misrepresent the truth by convincing the international community that Washington has forgotten Russia’s outrageous actions?

- America is the only state which is in possession of a global geopolitical code and everything that happens around the world interests this country. How can the present developments in Ukraine as well as Iraq not interest Washington? However, no one knows whether or not the U.S. Administration will take active steps in this direction. It may have simply shifted its focus of attention on other issues by changing its priorities.

--Now Asia and the regions around the Pacific Ocean are more important for the U.S. Could Sushentsov have issued this statement because of the fact that he met with those experts who keep a close eye on China and Vietnam?

-I do not think that the U.S. will abandon Baghdad. I think that America will assist this country in doing away with extremism.

Koba Bendeliani

InterPressNews