BY DOUG LORIMER
Desperate to reduce the burden on US troops in trying to suppress armed resistance to its occupation of Iraq, President George Bush's administration is pushing for a new UN Security Council resolution that would provide political cover for a range of countries — particularly Turkey, India and Pakistan — to send troops.
Pakistan is considering sending up to 11,000 troops. A spokesperson for Ahmad Chalabi, current president of Washington's hand-picked Iraqi Governing Council (IGC), told reporters on September 9 that he would welcome as many as 10,000 Turkish troops under a UN mandate. However, both Pakistan and Turkey — the two largest potential contributors of Muslim troops — have indicated they will only send troops to Iraq if there is clear Security Council authorisation for a "multinational peacekeeping" force.
In July, Washington asked India to send about 15,000-20,000 soldiers but the Indian government turned down the request in the absence of a clear UN mandate.
According to Reuters and Associated Press, the draft resolution submitted by the US to the Security Council's other four veto-welding permanent members — Britain, China, France and Russia — calls for the council to authorise a multinational force under a US commander, to serve alongside the existing US-led "coalition" forces. The latter consist of 136,000 US soldiers, 11,000 British troops and 12,000 troops from Italy, Spain, Japan, Australia and US satellite states in eastern Europe and Central America.
The draft resolution also calls on the Security Council to recognise the US-controlled IGC as Iraq's interim government, responsible for producing "a timetable and program for the drafting of a new constitution for Iraq and for the holding of democratic elections".
According to a September 10 Associated Press report, amendments to the US draft resolution jointly presented to UN secretary general Kofi Annan by France and Germany (a non-permanent Security Council member) aim to dilute the role of the US-dominated Coalition Provisional Authority, headed by Paul Bremer, in constructing a new Iraqi regime.
The amendments call for immediately "initiating under the auspices of the UN a new process leading ... to the full restoration of Iraqi authority", with a UN-approved interim Iraqi administration to take control of "all civilian areas, including control over natural resources" (meaning Iraq's vast oil reserves).
However, this would undermine the real purpose of Washington's "unilateralist" invasion of Iraq — to "liberate" Iraq's oil resources from the Iraqi people by installing a pro-US puppet regime that would sell off the country's nationalised oil industry to ExxonMobil, ChevronTexaco and other US oil corporations.
Prior to the US-led invasion, Saddam Hussein's regime had signed agreements giving the French Total oil company — which in 2002 became the world's fourth largest oil distributor (after ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch Shell and BP) — the prime position in exploiting Iraq's oil resources after UN sanctions were lifted.
In an interview with the Qatar-based al Jazeera TV on September 10, US Secretary of State Colin Powell rejected the French-German proposals that the US hand control of Iraq to the UN. "To think that the UN could suddenly take this all over, to the exclusion of the Coalition Provisional Authority, is not realistic. It would not work", Powell declared.
Ridiculing the idea of a rapid restoration of Iraq's national sovereignty, Powell said: "Suggestions that ... all we have to do is get up tomorrow morning and find an Iraqi who is passing by and give him the government [and] say, 'You're now in charge and Ambassador Bremer and the American army are leaving', that's not an acceptable solution."
According to the September 10 Los Angeles Times, US officials are engaged in a "strategy to isolate France and entice other countries to commit new troops and funds by offering them the prospect of ... taking charge of one or more of the 14 critical areas for reconstruction recently identified by the World Bank and the US-led provisional authority in Baghdad".
By dangling such carrots, the LA Times reported, "the administration hopes to isolate France to prevent it from thwarting Washington's effort to win a new UN resolution".
"We're telling them that this is not just about writing cheques or sending troops, but about having a stake in Iraq so their government agencies and humanitarian groups are involved in a sector when a new sovereign government is in power in Iraq. It's a way to get in on the ground floor. That's the selling point", a "well-placed US official who requested anonymity" told the LA Times, adding: "France was the ringleader of the opposition last time. Our goal is to ensure it doesn't happen again."
Speaking to the US National Press Club in Washington on September 11, US war secretary Donald Rumsfeld said: "A new resolution would ... provide some countries with a feeling that it was more of an international activity that they were engaged in, which would be a good thing. It also would ease the process for some people to give additional money."
With his characteristic diplomatic finesse, Rumsfeld said the Bush administration's goal for its Iraq occupation "is to get a still broader international face on it and then a considerably greater Iraqi face on it".
From Green Left Weekly, September 17, 2003.
Visit the Green Left Weekly home page.