July 31, 2003
America and Europe do not yet agree on who or what should control Iraq. A new United Nations resolution, or a handover of power to Iraqis, might encourage more countries to participate in peackeeping
Heartened by the killing of Saddam Hussein's heirs, George Bush and his aides have been making a concerted effort to put an optimistic face on America's occupation of Iraq. Saddam himself is said to have narrowly escaped one of the increasingly confident raids devoted to his capture. Yet 50 Americans have been killed in combat since May 1st. American commanders say that the frequency of guerrilla attacks may be decreasing, partly because of their efforts to kill or catch the perpetrators. But the attacks have also become more sophisticated, with bombs and ambushes replacing pot-shots.
The Americans hope that more and better tip-offs will help them to cut down the militancy. They are also trusting in their power to persuade ordinary Iraqis that they mean well, and thus, in Mao's formulation, deny the guerrilla fish a friendly sea to swim in. Working against this is the fact that, the more casualties the Americans suffer, the harder it is for them to present a friendly face to civilians.
Politicians in America and Europe draw contrasting lessons from these travails. Some officials in Brussels believe that the unexpected cost of the occupation, in cash and casualties, may persuade Mr Bush to secure a new United Nations resolution on Iraq. Short of such a resolution, several countries, including France and India, have said that they will not participate in any peacekeeping effort. It would also be tricky for NATO, already stretched by its other commitments, to serve directly under the command of one of its own members.
An international military presence is already in Iraq, and forces from more countries are due to arrive in the next few months. But most of the foreign contingents are small. The vast majority of coalition troops are still American: around 148,000 out of a total of 160,000. Moreover, some of the other contributions are being bankrolled by America. More help from outside is needed, if the Pentagon is going to be able to fulfil its plan to send more of its own people home.
But more foreign boots on the ground will not necessarily save Americans from being killed. Although soldiers from other countries may be less vulnerable to attack, the Americans are unlikely to trust them to carry out operations in the most deadly part of the country. This is the so-called Sunni triangle, to the north and west of Baghdad, which is "still a war zone" according to America's top general. America's priority at the moment is to recruit Iraqi police and militia for humdrum security duties, thus freeing its own troops to concentrate on the rumbling, sometimes lethal, combat operations.
In sum, though the Americans would like to have more help from overseas, they do not want it at the price of a resolution that would restrict the autonomy of their administration. They argue that Resolution 1483, passed by the Security Council in May, should be enough for potential allies. Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy defence secretary, commented on July 29th that some of the stay-aways may just be waiting for the mission to become less dicey.
Although Resolution 1483 gave all the last words to the Coalition Provisional Authority (in other words, the Americans with British help), the UN has been quietly taking on more responsibility. Kofi Annan, its secretary-general, last week spelt out the ways in which his organisation could help. Among much else, he mentioned law reform, training policemen and civil servants, preparing for elections and writing a new constitution. The UN team, led by Sergio Vieira de Mello, is growing.
Best If Iraq Runs Itself
In any event, no new resolution is likely until the autumn. The trick in drafting one would be to subject the Americans to some sort of accountability, without emasculating their authority: an exercise that could require no less prestidigitation than the original pre-war resolution. But by the autumn, public opinion in Europe and elsewhere may be less hostile to the Iraqi affair. And Iraq may also be closer to some form of legitimate government; America's civilian administrator said on July 31st that general elections might be possible by mid-2004.
If Iraq were more self-governing, France, India and the rest could portray their involvement as helping Iraq, rather than bailing out the Americans. The Pentagon worries that letting in the UN might somehow slow the handover of power to Iraqis. But if the handover were to happen swiftly, other countries could involve themselves in the exercise, with no loss of face on either side. Iraqis might be pleased too.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Global Policy Forum distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
