« Ronald Reagan, a Legacy of Fear-Mongering -- and past “Intelligence Failures” | Main | The Nuremberg Defense in Iraq »
June 08, 2004
The UN Resolution Marches On With Much Lip Service (Better Some Than None)
The text of fourth draft resolution is now public and barring a momentous turn of events it will be accepted unanimously by the Security Council on Tuesday.
It’s an improvement over the last three versions in one major way: it includes a “no later than” date for the completion of the political process. It explicitly specifies that the mandate for the occupation will end at that date. As such, it would require another resolution to extend the mandate, unless, of course, the new government of Iraq asks the forces to stay. Unlike previous drafts, it also recognizes the right of the “government of Iraq” to ask the occupation troops to leave. This means that, as far as the White House is concerned, the political-military process has now shifted towards creating the conditions under which the new government in Iraq to be constituted in 2005 will find itself both obligated --and able-- to ask the U.S. forces to stay.
The draft still authorizes the multinational force “to take all necessary measures” under very vague terms; it still does not provide a means of accountability for the US-led occupation forces; and it still does not provide the government of Iraq, be it selected, elected or otherwise appointed, a final say over actions carried out by these unaccountable foreign troops.
Other than that, Iraq will be fully sovereign and independent.
This is basically a “let’s get the U.S. elections out of the way before figuring out how to carry on” resolution. The neo-con experiment in neo-colonialism, a muddled project to begin with, has clearly failed but current realities of politics in the twenty-first century do not allow for full-blown traditional colonialism. So the quest is on for a blend: some elections but some direct clients; some sovereignty but many troops. It remains to be seen if they can make this mixed model work better than market socialism did in Yugoslavia..
Of course, the pesky natives continue to pose the largest problem to any neat plans. Polls taken in Iraq cannot reflect very fine distinctions in public opinion: the security climate is dismal, the country is under occupation, the people are just coming out of decades of totalitarianism and nobody really knows the value of the statistical markers of the polling universe (Iraq) one needs to design random, and therefore statistically representative, polls. Still, it seems clear that an overwhelming majority of the people of Iraq want the U.S. out immediately, view the occupation as illegitimate and will elect an anti-occupation government at the first chance. But their chance will come sometime in 2005 at the earliest, which puts us over the U.S. elections. In the meantime, the Interim government is deeply dependent on the United States for both legitimate and illegitimate reasons.
There are legitimate and understandable reasons why the Interim Government cannot and will not ask the U.S. forces to leave but first let me say something about the Interim Government and its legitimacy .
I have criticized the selection method and I continue to hold that it is was an illegitimate process. However, not all the actors in that government are illegitimate and they would have a rightful seat at a transitional government in a country emerging from dictatorship towards elections -- groups like DAWA, the SCIRI, KDP, PUK do represent millions, have true grassroots organizations and are genuine political forces. The only argument against including them in the IG is that perhaps a transitional government should have been all technocratic with the sole purpose of bringing about elections, which is what Brahimi seemed to be proposing earlier. These groups, however, decided not to allow that and it remains to seen if they will use their forced appointment for an illegitimate attempt at power grab. It’s not even clear that, under conditions of occupation, one could have constituted a “technocratic” government that would not have been at the complete mercy of the United States: these groups have genuine political pressures and supporters they have to take into account unlike technocrats who can be more easily bribed and threatened.
Now, given the global political climate and the security situation in Iraq, it’s hard to imagine how any political group could ask the U.S.-led occupation forces to leave before elections are held. In a sane world, the United States would have been forced to leave Iraq as expeditiously as possible, be replaced by real temporary multinational force which would help stabilize Iraq until a legitimate Iraqi government in command of Iraqi forces providing functions of the state could be constituted. But this is not a sane world and the world community is not willing to stand up to the United States. Neither does the world community seem willing to actually help the people of Iraq towards independence and sovereignty in a material way. There is of course a real question of plausibility of the scenario: is it even possible to imagine that the United States could be forced to relinquish the occupation if the world community actually tried to impose its will? I don’t know. It may not be possible but nobody’s trying anyway so this thought experiment might buy you a cup of vente latte at the local Starbucks if you remember to bring along four bucks.
Which means that, in the real world, the Interim Government is dependent on the United States to provide the only existing security structure in the country. And thus the IG cannot request an end to the occupation until a real government emerges.
It’s also unlikely that they will ask the troops to leave for other illegitimate reasons: the Interim Government was picked by the United States and is therefore composed of either individuals with close-ties to the U.S. government or representatives of groups that are willing to play ball with the occupation. The members themselves seem unable to travel outside of the Green Zone with any guarantee of safety. Of course it’s clear the presence of the United States itself is a good part of the problem, but it’s also possible that groups which would bomb Ashura worshippers in Karbala and Baghdad and school children in Basra would continue to use violent means with or without the occupation.
In short, a functioning, legitimate Iraqi state is necessary for the occupation to end since it’s unlikely that Iraqi leaders can or will demand the withdrawal even though their right is now enshrined in the current resolution. And a functioning and legitimate Iraqi state will definitely requires the unique legitimacy conferred by constitutional conventions, national assemblies, elections and all the other trappings of nation-state building.
The good news is that this resolution describes such a path. The bad news is the draft provides the United States a massive incentive to try to tightly control the process, using the leverage of the occupation, in order to produce a client state which will be dependent upon or unable to resist a permanent U.S. military presence in the country.
The people of Iraq have been promised democracy and sovereignty which they seem to fervently and impatiently desire. The fact that such promises were made at all is a positive development, regardless of how dishonest the promise-makers may be. In fact, I’d venture history of human progress is doted with the extraction of unmeant promises from the powerful followed by a fight to hold them to those promises.
Posted by zeynep at June 8, 2004 02:12 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.underthesamesun.org/mt-tb.cgi/44
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The UN Resolution Marches On With Much Lip Service (Better Some Than None):
» phentermine facts from ceixnoirs.dyndns.org
phentermine counterindications phentermine drug interaction cod phentermine shipped phentermine order phentermine sites accepting florida orders phentermine 375 90 count 80 cheapest phentermine on internet phentermine levoxyl online pharmacy buy phente... [Read More]
Tracked on July 16, 2005 11:50 AM
Comments
Wonderful, terrific weblog you have here, z.
It's curious to me how willing the Security Council has been to give unanimous support for resolutions (1483, 1511, now this one) that give the US essentially full control over Iraq's oil, oil accounts and economy; while allowing the US complete authority to deploy and control troops (whose "multinational" character is laughable).
Despite the emerging Kurdish political split that may derail some things, I don't see the new cabinet/Prime Minister effectively resisting anything Negroponte and the Americans tell them to do. The oil accounts, and oil service and security contracts will remain firmly in their non-transparent realm while the economic privatization and sell-off of Iraqi assets will be jump-started in a hurry ahead of any elections.
What's Chirac's strategy anyway, give the American's most of what they want at the Security Council, then see if they keep twisting in the wind in the face of Iraqi resistance while preventing any NATO rescue missions?
Posted by: Eric at June 10, 2004 02:37 PM