After weeks of discussions and haggling over details, the UN Security Council has finally passed a US-British joint resolution on Iraq. The non-contentious part of the resolution says that direct democratic elections are to be held by December 31, 2004, and in no case later than January 31, 2005, to a Transitional National Assembly which will have responsibility for forming a Transitional Government and drafting a permanent constitution for the country by December 31, 2005.
The controversial issues relate to the basic problem of occupation. The resolution iterates, as per the already announced plan, it will end on June 30, restoring full sovereignty to the new Interim Government.
Unless the government has full control over the security apparatus it cannot really claim to be sovereign. Sovereignty, as it is commonly understood, is not divisible.
Hence, France, Germany and some other UNSC members had argued that the US must give a firm date by which it is to withdraw its forces from the occupied country; and that until that happens the Iraqi Interim Government must have the right to veto the coalition troops' operations.
In a last minute addition to the resolution, the US and Britain sought to accommodate these concerns by promising to work in "partnership" with the Iraqi government and "co-ordinate" their military activities with it.
That stipulation still falls far short of sovereign control, but it meets realistic expectations under the prevailing circumstances.
The US and Britain also pledged that the coalition troops would leave the country by January 2006. In a particularly significant proviso, the US has said that it will get out of Iraq before that date if and when the Iraqi government tells it to do so.
Thus the occupation power has charted an exit strategy for itself, which it needed badly.
Still, the US will try to stay on for as long as it can in order to manipulate the new political structures in a way that helps it install pro-American leaders in them. It goes without saying that so far as those fighting the US and British troops are concerned the real issue is occupation.
That must end before anyone can expect peace to return to that unfortunate country. If the intensity of the Resistance's resolve is anything to go by, it will continue to fight until the occupation comes to a definitive and comprehensive end.
The US and its supporters argue that if its forces and those of its allies were to leave before the Iraqis themselves are able to look after security matters, that will create a vacuum of authority, leading to more chaos and bloodshed.
That is a convenient excuse to prolong the occupation so that the US can achieve certain long-term goals. For, a UN force can easily fill a vacuum of authority, if it is called upon to do so.
As per the new resolution, a UN protection force is to provide assistance to the US-led coalition "to help meet the needs of the Iraqi people for security and stability, humanitarian and reconstruction assistance and to support the efforts of UNMI."
Pakistan is one of the countries that are expected to contribute troops to assist in these efforts, and it has already indicated its intention to do that in case the Iraqi government sends a request to that effect.
Which the interim government hand-picked by the US is expected to send in soon. But given the past experience, if the UN protection force is required to assist the occupation force that can lead to disastrous consequences for all involved.
The Iraqi Resistance has amply demonstrated in the past that it is unwilling to accept any kind of help if it, in any way, aids the occupation. A case in point is the devastating attack on the UN humanitarian mission in Baghdad.
Thus while the only solution to the Iraqi problem at present is a UN protection force, it would be able to deliver on its mandate only when the occupation forces start pulling out as it moves in. Such a course of action will mollify the Resistance, ending the bloodshed and chaos that has come to characterise occupied Iraq.
Comments
Comments are closed.