Bitter fights ahead

The newly installed interim authority in Iraq is the
best bet for the US to advance its designs in the
Middle East. However, developments in the last week
clearly showed that Iraqi politicians and leaders of
various ethnic groups have a mind of their and this
might not exactly be dancing to Washington's tunes.
Both sides, despite pledges of co-operation with each
other, are destined to fight it out at every juncture
of Iraq's course towards shaping its own political
future.
The US plans for Iraq has turned a key corner with the
installation of an interim government, which will
formally take charge on July 1. The next item on the
US agenda is "legitimising" its military occupation of
Iraq by sealing a special agreement with the interim
government while also securing a United Nations
Security Council resolution which is purposely kept
ambiguous about withdrawing US military forces from
the embattled country.
No matter what angle one would look at the situation,
it is loud and clear that the US will maintain its
military presence in Iraq for the foreseeable future
and exercise absolute control over the country through
direct and indirect means.
The US has already devised mechanisms that give it
absolute power over all political and administrative
decisions taken by the interim government.
Upto 150 American officials will be installed under
contracts signed by the US-led Coalition Provisional
Authority (CPA) — these contracts are binding on the
interim government — and these US officials will hold
direct authority over all the key institutions — state
finances, the armed forces and media and
communications.
Earlier, the US envisaged that the interim government
will have little control over its armed forces, but
the revised version of a draft resolution at the UN
Security Council gives the interim government control
over the Iraqi army and police.
However, the interim government would have no
authority to make or change laws and will be unable to
make major decisions within specific ministries
without tacit US approval.
An example is a media and telecommunications
commission appointed by US overseer Paul Bremer. The
body will have immense powers over the media,
including the power to shut down news agencies and
newspapers. Fines of millions of dollars could be
imposed on television channels for violating the "code
of conduct" laid down by the US.
A US-appointed Board of Supreme Audit will have
representatives in every Iraqi ministry, with powers
to monitor all contracts and expenditure.
The US-installed members of the board will have a
five-year term of office and cannot be removed except
by a two-thirds vote in a Iraqi parliament as and when
it is elected. American “advisors” will remain in
every ministry, reporting to a virtual parallel
government operating out of the American embassy in
Baghdad, which, with over 3,000 staff, will be the
largest in the world, and run by John Negroponte, a
man known for ruthlessness in Vietnam and Latin
America in the 60s and 70s.
It does not really matter to the Americans that the
revised draft UN Security Council resolution says that
the interim authority could ask Washington to
withdraw its forces at any time from Iraq since the
US knows there would never be any such request since
those supposed to be making the request are
American-controlled.
The unseen string is the power of American funds that
are being spent in Iraq. That is the leverage that the
US would be using to have it way in the country.
The revised draft of the sought-for UN Security
Council resolution states that the interim government
will be "fully sovereign" and reaffirms the right of
the Iraqi people to determine their political future
freely, control their natural resources and coordinate
international assistance.
That catch in the resolution is: While it notes "that
the presence of the multinational force in Iraq is at
the request of the incoming interim government," it
doesn't specifically give the new leaders the right to
ask the force to leave.
Instead, it anticipates that the incoming government
will make a formal request "to retain the presence of
the multinational force" and leaves room for the date
of that request to be included in the resolution.
That is where the interim government would be coerced
into signing a proposed "Status of Forces Agreement"
under which it would request that the US military will
stay on in Iraq until the interim government is
capable of assuming security of the country.
The new interim prime minister, Iyad Allawi, has
already said the US military will be asked to stay on
and promised that Iraq's security forces will be a
"pivotal partner" with US and other coalition troops
in the fight to restore security to Iraq.
This is not likely to happen any soon, and hence the
January 2006 deadline —  the installation of a
constitutionally elected government —  will remain
only a clause in the resolution with as much as value
as the paper it is written on.
That is the American grandiose plan. The only unseen
element in the plan is how the people of Iraq are
going to recognise and respect the interim government
in the days, weeks and months ahead.
If the signs on the ground are any indication, it will
be tough going for the interim government, and, by
extension, to the US.
The interim government will not be able to assume
control of security without American military help,
and no election worth the name could be held as long
as the American military could not pacify Iraqis. With
the mounting Iraqi resistance against occupation, the
deadline set for electing a government does not seem
realistic.
Washington knows that well, but it would not be the
one to tell the world that its plans for Iraq have
little to do with freedom and democracy for Iraqis but
aim at consolidating the American grip on the oil-rich
Gulf region.
The interim government, or at least some of its
members, have shown that they are determined to assert
their independence and aim for full sovereignty
despite the obvious American effort to retain absolute
control of the country. That was what we saw when the
now dissolved Interim Governing Council (IGC) insisted
on its own choice for president, Sheikh Ghazi Yawar,
rather than Adnan Pachachi, who was backed by the US.
It was as much a signal to the US that things might
not be going Washingtons' way no matter how carefully
the plans were laid down months ago.
It is no easy sailing for the caretaker government.
The biggest challenge it faces is securing the
endorsement and support of a majority of the country's
25 million people, of whom Shiites have a majority of
60 per cent.
It has to tread a delicate line between serving the
interests of the people of Iraq and risking being
labelled as American agents if its decisions are seen
dictated by Washington.
Notwithstanding the language in the UN draft
resolution and declarations from Washington that Iraq
would soon have "full sovereignty," the interim
government and the US would be engaged in a
long-running battle involving bottlenecks in
appropriation of the country's oil revenues,
reconstruction contracts and local administration.
On the political front, the US will veto any move to
characterise Israel as an enemy or to even censure the
Jewish state for its occupation of Arab territories.
However, the interim authority would draw Iraqi fire
if it is deemed as staying silent on Israeli actions
against the Palestinians.
Similarly, the US would be keeping a close eye on
Iraq's relations with other countries and would
intervene at any point it feels such ties have a
negative effect on American interests.
Having advanced its goals of ensuring energy security
and assuring itself of a say in the international oil
market by taking control of Iraq and having eliminated
a potential military threat to its ally Israel by
removing Saddam, Washington is unlikely to give up
its stranglehold on the country and deprive itself of
a weapon which it wants to use to achieve its third
elusive objective: Regional stability of the type that
serves American interests.