Global Policy Forum

By Walid Choucair

Will the U.S. try to internationalize Iraq's administration by returning to some sort of plurality in the reconstruction process, or will it just be satisfied to internationalize the occupation, which would fall under its total control, in a bid to throw the responsibility of the loss it is suffering on other countries whilst retaining control?

Certain developments need to be carefully monitored over the next few months, and could see the return of some stability in international relations, as a way out of what could be called the American quivering in Iraq, which features are starting to become clearer by the day.

When the U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said that no one would mind French and German soldiers participating in the reconstruction of Iraq, and when NATO officials declared that Washington expressed its wish to see NATO members play a leading role in the reconstruction of Iraq, this highlighted two interesting evolutions: several signs indicated that someone in Washington is starting to get used to the idea of asking the assistance of the international community in confronting the failure of the occupation to normalize the situation, and in setting an alternative authority to Saddam Hussein's regime, and in stopping the U.S. war from taking roots in the Iraqi soil to prevent additional human losses as a result of the increasing resistance operations. These signs include the fact that the American occupation forces in Baghdad have accepted the role the UN played in speeding up the establishment of the transition government, which would be announced next week and would have executive along with consultative prerogatives. It would be presided by an Iraqi person, not the American governor, Paul Bremer.

The advisor to the UN delegate in Iraq, former Lebanese minister Ghassan Salameh, declared in an interview with Al-Hayat that these developments were perceived as a positive evolution of the situation, indicating to the coalition forces that the UN would remain faithful to the Security Council's resolution 1483. The main American newspapers have published reports from reporters having sources inside the State Department and the White House, confirming that the U.S. is aware that it cannot rule and administer Iraq on its own, and that it should ask the help of the EU and its forces. However, only 10 nations approved Washington's invitation to 70 countries asking them to send their troops to Iraq in the context of a multinational force. Hence, the number of soldiers wouldn't exceed 18,000, including the troops from India and Pakistan who conditioned a decision from the Security Council that would legitimize the presence of their soldiers in Iraq.

Some consider that the decision of the EU against Iran and its nuclear program and linking the progress of relations to positive attitudes from the IAEA and the Roadmap on the Palestinian scene along with terrorism and human rights, was a sample of what Europe can offer in helping Washington prevent Iraq's neighbors from causing more problems to the process of political and economic reconstruction in Iraq. This could mean that Washington is not the only one aiming for international cooperation on the issue of Iraq, but that the other parties which opposed it are now trying to meet it halfway to rewrite international relations the negative expectations impose to the possibilities of the development of the European economy, as the personal interest of the U.S. President George Bush in his reelection imposes a thorough effort from his people to avoid the dangers of the intersection between the interests of his external opponents with those of the local opponents, because of the American monism in deciding of the fate of the international crisis.

The partnership or the new pluralism some are betting on and which the major forces hope to revive is still a mystery. In Iraq itself, the Americans had succeeded in giving concession in the oil, security, communications and education sectors, before the war, as well as during and after it and according to their concepts. Would any partnership project mean to give up what he prepared for? What role would the regional countries have in Iraq? For this role requires a modification in Washington's policy towards the countries of the region, especially Iran and Syria. And would the partnership be limited to Iraq without Palestine, with the Quartet waiting by the door?

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.