Bush Seeks UN Approval For Rushed Iraq Transition

by Thalif Deen

But UN diplomats, U.S. political analysts and representatives of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) are skeptical about U.S. plans for the proposed transition and attempts to accelerate the process.

The rush for the creation of a new Iraqi transitional government, they say, has been motivated primarily by the continued violence against U.S. forces in Iraq.

"There can be Iraqi individuals running a government while Iraq is under U.S. occupation, but that's very different from a genuine Iraqi-run government," Norman Solomon, executive director of the Washington-based Institute for Public Accuracy, told IPS.

He argued that the basic contradictions in the U.S. government's position are flagrant -- in effect, "We want to turn the Iraqi government over to Iraqis so that they can do what we want them to do."

Under pressure from the United States, the current president of the U.S.-appointed 24-member Iraqi Governing Council (IGC) has already requested the UN Security Council to adopt a resolution that would lead to the creation of a provisional Iraqi government by June 2004.

In a letter to the Security Council on Nov. 24, Jalal Talabani, who heads the IGC's rotating presidency, said that once the provisional government is established, the U.S. Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) in Baghdad "would be dissolved" and the military occupation would end.

But the speculation at the United Nations is that the provisional government will formally "request" the U.S. military to remain in Iraq, so that the United States will cease to be an "occupying force" yet retain military control of the war-ravaged country.

During his state visit to Britain last month, President George W. Bush was elliptical on the issue. "We will finish the job we have begun," Bush told media. "We could have less troops in Iraq. We could have the same number of troops in Iraq. We could have more troops in Iraq -- (whatever is) necessary to secure Iraq."

Solomon, also co-author of 'Target Iraq: What the News Media Didn't Tell You', says "Washington is determined to manipulate the election process to select Iraqi government officials next year ... because if that plan in some way goes awry, then U.S. troops will remain as long as Washington wants them, anyway."

Addressing a meeting of the Security Council last week, British Ambassador Emyr Jones Parry insisted that the "formal role" of the CPA, headed by U.S. Ambassador Paul Bremer, would end with the creation of a transitional government. "The (military) occupation would come to an end at the same time," he added.

But one Arab diplomat doubts the occupation would end soon -- based on recent news reports that the Bush administration foresees keeping at least 100,000 U.S. troops in Iraq for about the next three years.

"We had an Iraqi Governing Council which was subject to U.S. manipulation -- and very soon we may have an Iraqi provisional government operating under the same terms and conditions," he told IPS.

Solomon said he doubts U.S. troops will remain in Iraq as "bystanders"-- "and under the political circumstances, it is hard to imagine how the government in Baghdad could be Iraqi-run while the government in Washington is pulling the strings and maintaining the military muscle on-site."

Adam Shapiro, a co-producer of the documentary 'About Baghdad', told IPS "it is certainly a difficult scenario to imagine a genuine Iraqi government while the country is under military occupation."

Even the existing governing council is an entity that most Iraqis do not know, respect or consider legitimate, he added.

In an editorial late November in the 'New York Times' said that since Iraqis were growing weary of U.S. occupation, Bush should ask the United Nations to administer Iraq.

"The United Nations has far more international experience, credibility and reputation for neutrality in these matters than the United States does," it said.

Secretary-General Kofi Annan said a UN role would be predicated on the security situation in Iraq. "I don't think we are there yet. I think we need to follow the security situation," he told reporters last week.

Senior UN officials say that if the world body were mandated by the Security Council to administer Iraq, governance would likely be modelled on Kosovo and East Timor, where the United Nations took over administration with strong backing from the international community.

But Shapiro thinks this might not be a realistic option either. "The current situation would pose a major challenge and impediment to any UN administration in taking a more active role."

"The United Nations also does not have a great deal of credibility in Iraq, so this is highly problematic as well," he added.

Additionally, the Kosovo and East Timor precedents are largely unrealistic for Iraq, given the size of the country and its population, the great diversity of the people and the lack of national consensus on many issues at this point, Shapiro argued.

He said it is still too early to suggest that Washington will bail out of Iraq, especially if Bush is re-elected next year.

"We have to remember that there are many U.S. companies making major investments, as well as profits on Iraq, and certainly the larger strategic goal of oil is still the prime motivating factor," he argued.

Solomon agrees that Washington has no intention of relinquishing effective control over Iraq, because of its geopolitical agenda and its huge economic interests in Iraq's oil.

"As time goes on, the situation seems likely to turn into a protracted modern-day version of a colonial war against guerrillas and a population largely hostile to the occupiers," he suggested.