The
tug-and-pull over the draft resolution submitted to the
United Nations regarding the power and authority of the
interim Iraqi government is on. As can be expected, the
United States and the United Kingdom are on one side,
and France, Germany, Russia and China are on the other.
The Bush administration has not stopped envisaging Iraq
as a war trophy that it owns and should treat the way it
pleases. The opposing countries in the world body have a
starkly different perspective.
In his speech in
Carlisle, Pennsylvania, this week President George W
Bush used the phrase "full sovereignty" for Iraq several
times. Even though within the US domestic arena few
believed his earnestness over it, the Permanent Five at
the UN and Germany appear adamant about holding
America's feet to the fire on that issue. Ironically,
British Prime Minister Tony Blair also took Bush
seriously regarding that phrase and made a statement
that the interim Iraqi government should have veto power
over foreign forces in the country. When the media
zoomed in on Blair's statement as a sign of a "first
crack" in Anglo-American unity regarding Iraq, he had to
backpedal his way out of it by aligning himself with the
muddled US meaning of "full sovereignty".
What
exactly is the US position? Maintaining purposeful
ambiguity, to be sure. According to reports on
behind-closed-door maneuverings at the UN Security
Council, France has described the US-UK draft resolution
as "a good basis for negotiation" but "not yet a good
resolution". The US ambassador at the UN, John D
Negroponte - who will also become America's first
ambassador to post-Saddam Hussein Iraq - agreed that the
draft resolution was a work in progress and was ready to
be "fine-tuned"; however, he added that the US did not
want to "burden" the resolution with details. France and
other opponents of the current draft translated
Negroponte's explanation as a US ploy to retain ample
ambiguity in the final language of the resolution so
that it could later implement it as it desired.
China had a better idea. Instead of complaining
about the ambiguity of the Anglo-American draft
resolution, it circulated a paper titled "Iraq Run by
Iraqis", with suggested amendments to the resolution.
This position is reportedly receiving a lot of support
within the UN.
Now the Bush administration is on
the defensive. There is no doubt that an important
aspect of its position is that the interim Iraqi
government should have no power over blocking military
operations by US-led forces. At the same time, US
officials in the recent past have made statements to the
effect that US forces would leave Iraq if they were
invited by the interim government to do so. Between
these palpably contradictory positions, the fact of the
matter is that the United States wishes to maintain
control over any future military operations in Iraq. To
agree to anything less than that, according to this
perspective, is tantamount to stating that, even though
Iraq has emerged as the gathering place of global
terrorists, it is the interim Iraqi government that will
call the shots over when and where to fight the forces
of terror.
One indication of the muddle-headed
US thinking over the real authority of the interim Iraqi
government became apparent by the fact the no one from
the US side wanted to answer the following question that
was raised during the informal discussion at the UN:
What happens if the Iraqi government were to oppose
specific plans by US commanders to strike insurgent
positions? The best the US officials could do was to say
that the two sides would consult when faced with such
situations. France and its partners to this discussion
translated it to be a purposeful ambiguity that would
only result in enhancing the maneuverability of the
Americans in Iraq.
The Chinese proposal from its
aforementioned paper, which was immediately endorsed by
Russia, Germany and France, proposes that the interim
government would have control over the Iraqi army and
police, and require the multinational force to consult
with the Iraqi government on all military actions except
for self-defense. This proposal would also give the new
Iraqi government the right to determine whether foreign
forces remained in their country. Moreover, this
proposal also limits the mandate of multinational forces
to next January 5, the date of the expected elections
for a transitional government.
The US and the UK
are expected to insist on sustaining ample ambiguity in
the final language of the resolution. At the same time,
it is doubtful whether Washington would agree to allow
the interim Iraqi government the final say about when
the multinational forces should leave that country.
However, the ultimate deciding factor on all these
issues is whether the security situation inside Iraq
deteriorates or improves. Right now, the flames of
violence have already engulfed noteworthy portions of
the Shi'ite population. What is still favoring the US,
at least for now, is that moderate Shi'ites are
determined to capture their rare moment in history and
bring about a Shi'ite-dominated government. That may be
one very important reason why Muqtada al-Sadr appears to
have been forced by other Shi'ite leaders to back down
in his present confrontation with US forces.
There is little doubt that the Shi'ite
leadership is resolutely driven by the desire to see the
day when their country will have a moderate Islamic
democracy in which they will have a significant say. To
achieve that result, they are looking at the UN with
hope. They know that the lone superpower is fighting an
uphill battle in their country. The US is also willing
to give democracy a chance in Iraq, even a moderate
Islamic democracy, as long as such a system emerges as a
result of an election. That, in the final analysis, is
what is driving the Shi'ites of Iraq to stay away from
mounting a civil war against the United States. The UN,
they hope, will resolve all the muddle-headedness
involving great powers and work for the creation of
democracy in their troubled country.
Ehsan
Ahrari, PhD, is an Alexandria, Virginia, US-based
independent strategic analyst.
(Copyright
2004 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Please
contact content@atimes.com for
information on our sales and syndication
policies.)
