Sunday, January 16, 2005
The Continuing Specter of Sunni Arab Ascendancy in Iraq
After seeing "Hotel Rwanda" yesterday I was reminded of the situation of the Sunni Arabs in Iraq. With not more than 20% of the population, they have traditionally been the rulers of the area, a position magnified by Saddam Hussein, especially after the Gulf War. The assumption is that with the upcoming election the Sunni Arabs will lose this preeminence; the Shi'as are set to play the major role in the future. Given this judgment, the continuing violence of the Sunni Arab community (both Jihadist and secular Baath) would seem to be a hopeless attempt to reverse history. The Sunni Arabs do not see it that way, and there are many historical reasons not to agree with them.
Rwanda was traditionally ruled by the Tutsi with about 14% of the population. They ruled over the other 85% who were classified as Hutu. Supposedly the Belgian colonialists benefited through accepting this arrangement, but it is an error to imagine they created it. In 1959, three years before formal independence from Belgium, the Hutus revolted, killing and displacing Hutus. When Rwanda became independent, it was easy for them to cement their ascendancy through elections. During the next 30 years, they continued to press their advantage, killing thousands of Tutsi and driving hundreds of thousands out. By 1990, Paul Kagame had organized Tutsi refugees in Uganda into an army and invaded Rwanda. Peace agreements held for a few months, but they were followed by renewed hostilities in 1991 and 1992. A more enduring peace was then bartered with the help of a small U.N. force. Yet during the next two years Hutu extremists organized thousands into popular militias and instigated a hate campaign on the premise that all Tutsi deserved to be killed. They used the radio to help organize and recruit adherents. Then in 1994, the death of the Hutu President in a plane crash was blamed by the extremists on the Tutsi. This was used as an excuse to start a well-planned extermination campaign that between April and July 1994 killed over 800,000 Tutsi, as well as many thousand Hutu "traitors". This genocide led the Tutsi refugee army along the border to start a new offensive. In a couple of months they had conquered the country and driven out the army and the Hutu militia along with two million civilian Hutus (most of whom have since returned). Paul Kagame and his party easily won elections in 2000 and 2003, which I doubt were free and fair. But why should they be? They no doubt feel they have earned the right to once again rule over the Hutu.
The lesson I take from this is that popular majorities, such as the Shi'a, even when they are able to organize militias such as al-Sadr's "Mahdi Army", may be no match for more highly motivated, organized, and confident majorities such as the Sunni Arab community. Leading a few thousand people who believed they have the right to rule and are used to ruling, Paul Kagame was able to overcome a much larger majority community with both a national army and a large militia. The Sunni Arabs on the basis of their actions against American and Iraqi governmental forces may well be another minority community that cannot be denied (unless we stay permanently). It is true that they will be largely shut out in the upcoming election. But the leaders of the resistance know that and welcome it. They know that democracy is not the route that they can take to reestablish their community's power. It is rather through the better organization and institutionalization of their community that they can once more rise to the top. They may have a good shot at success.
Rwanda was traditionally ruled by the Tutsi with about 14% of the population. They ruled over the other 85% who were classified as Hutu. Supposedly the Belgian colonialists benefited through accepting this arrangement, but it is an error to imagine they created it. In 1959, three years before formal independence from Belgium, the Hutus revolted, killing and displacing Hutus. When Rwanda became independent, it was easy for them to cement their ascendancy through elections. During the next 30 years, they continued to press their advantage, killing thousands of Tutsi and driving hundreds of thousands out. By 1990, Paul Kagame had organized Tutsi refugees in Uganda into an army and invaded Rwanda. Peace agreements held for a few months, but they were followed by renewed hostilities in 1991 and 1992. A more enduring peace was then bartered with the help of a small U.N. force. Yet during the next two years Hutu extremists organized thousands into popular militias and instigated a hate campaign on the premise that all Tutsi deserved to be killed. They used the radio to help organize and recruit adherents. Then in 1994, the death of the Hutu President in a plane crash was blamed by the extremists on the Tutsi. This was used as an excuse to start a well-planned extermination campaign that between April and July 1994 killed over 800,000 Tutsi, as well as many thousand Hutu "traitors". This genocide led the Tutsi refugee army along the border to start a new offensive. In a couple of months they had conquered the country and driven out the army and the Hutu militia along with two million civilian Hutus (most of whom have since returned). Paul Kagame and his party easily won elections in 2000 and 2003, which I doubt were free and fair. But why should they be? They no doubt feel they have earned the right to once again rule over the Hutu.
The lesson I take from this is that popular majorities, such as the Shi'a, even when they are able to organize militias such as al-Sadr's "Mahdi Army", may be no match for more highly motivated, organized, and confident majorities such as the Sunni Arab community. Leading a few thousand people who believed they have the right to rule and are used to ruling, Paul Kagame was able to overcome a much larger majority community with both a national army and a large militia. The Sunni Arabs on the basis of their actions against American and Iraqi governmental forces may well be another minority community that cannot be denied (unless we stay permanently). It is true that they will be largely shut out in the upcoming election. But the leaders of the resistance know that and welcome it. They know that democracy is not the route that they can take to reestablish their community's power. It is rather through the better organization and institutionalization of their community that they can once more rise to the top. They may have a good shot at success.
Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
