BY DOUG LORIMER
While French President Jacques Chirac used the opportunity of his speech to the UN General Assembly on September 23 to criticise Washington's decision to invade Iraq without UN Security Council authorisation, he also indicated that Paris, far from demanding an end to the illegal US occupation of Iraq, is willing to back the creation of a "multinational force" under US command.
Addressing the UN General Assembly a few hours after US President George Bush had made an unapologetic defence of the US-led war on Iraq, Chirac said: "No-one can act alone in the name of all and no-one can accept the anarchy of a society without rules... The war, launched without the authorisation of the Security Council, shook the multilateral system. The United Nations has just been through one of the most grave crises in its history."
However, Chirac also said France was willing to back a Security Council resolution to "give a mandate to a multinational force, commanded naturally by the main troop contributor [the US], in order to ensure the security of Iraq".
While US officials claim they are "making progress" in "restoring security" in Iraq, escalating attacks by Iraqi guerrillas on US troops contradict this. The September 17 New York Times reported that new "intelligence assessments are warning that the United States' most formidable foe in Iraq in the months ahead may be the resentment of ordinary Iraqis increasingly hostile to the US military occupation".
Pentagon intelligence officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told the NYT that despite official claims that the attacks on US troops in Iraq were supported only by "Saddam loyalists", they said anger among ordinary Iraqis "appears to be kindling some sympathy for those attacking US forces".
According to the NYT report: "Other US government officials said some of the concerns had been prompted by recent polling in Iraq by the State Department's intelligence branch. The findings, which remain classified, include significant levels of hostility to the US presence... Some US officials said the intelligence assessments underscored that opposition to US forces in Iraq is likely to get worse before it gets better."
The fierce battle which erupted in the town of Khaldiya, 72 kilometres west of Baghdad, on September 18 provides a dramatic illustration of the hostility of ordinary Iraqis to the US occupation, and of the growing confidence of Iraqi guerrillas to take on US troops.
Five US tanks, two Bradley fighting vehicles and 40 troops surrounded a neighbourhood in Khaldiya, from which gunfire had been directed at a US military convoy after a roadside bomb had set three US vehicles aflame. The battle between a handful of Iraqi resistance fighters and US troops, backed by tanks and helicopter gunships, raged for more than three hours.
Associated Press reported that after the US troops withdrew, hundreds of Khaldiya residents danced in the streets and fired rifles into the air. "Jihad Afash Masir said he allowed two attackers to shoot at the [US] convoy from behind the cement barrier that encloses his front yard", the September 19 Washington Post reported. "There was no better place for them" to fire from, he said, adding that he did not fear retribution from US forces for his role in the attack. "We are sacrificing ourselves for our country", he told the Post.
Falling support
The most recent US opinion polls show that a majority of those surveyed have lost confidence in the Bush administration's handling of the war.
A Washington Post-ABC News poll taken shortly after Bush's September 7 "address to the nation", in which he announced he would be asking Congress for an extra US$87 billion to fund US operations in Iraq, found that 85% of Americans were concerned about the US getting bogged down in a long and costly war.
A CBS News poll released at the same time found that 47% flatly disapproved of Bush's handling of the Iraq war, with 46% approving. Two- thirds of respondents in the CBS poll said Congress should not approve the $87 billion request.
According to the survey of 1500 Americans by the Pew Research Centre for People and the Press, conducted September 17-22, only 15% thought the US operation in Iraq was going "very well" (compared with a majority who thought so in April).
While nearly two-thirds believed that Washington should keep its troops in Iraq until a stable government is formed (compared with one-third who said they should be withdrawn as soon as possible), 70% said that they support a "significant role" for the UN in Iraq, while 51% said that Washington should be prepared to give up some military control to the UN in order to get other countries to deploy troops to Iraq.
It is therefore not surprising that in order to maintain US public support for its occupation, Washington has become increasing desperate to get Security Council endorsement for such a "multinational force" to give the US-led occupation "a broader international face", as US war secretary Donald Rumsfeld put it on September 11.
The obstacle standing in the way of Washington achieving this has been France's demand that any new UN resolution formally transfer "sovereignty" in Iraq from the US occupation regime, headed by Paul Bremer, to an Iraqi body approved by the Security Council.
The Bush administration, on the other hand, has insisted that Bremer's Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) continue to run Iraq until Washington has set in place the institutional mechanisms to ensure a pro-US government is elected by the Iraqi people — "until such time as we allow the Iraqi people to determine how they wish to be governed", as US Secretary of State Colin Powell put it on September 22.
In an interview in the September 25 USA Today, Chirac indicated that the French government would back a new Security Council resolution mandating a US-commanded "multinational" occupation force in Iraq, if the resolution called for the "transfer of sovereignty" from Bremer's CPA to the 25-member Iraqi Governing Council (IGC), handpicked by Bremer in July as the nucleus of an Iraqi provisional government.
USA Today's Barbara Slavin asked Chirac: "But if you can explain to me why you want to transfer sovereignty and authority when many people feel it's going to take quite some time before this group is capable of exercising authority and when the Bush administration wants some sort of election process to legitimise it first?"
Chirac responded: "You can see that the situation is worsening and reactions against the occupation are more and more numerous. Now, it may be an unfortunate reaction but it's a fact, it exists. And it's not just the result of terrorist tactics. It's a political reaction.
"So in that context, of course you're right in saying that the Iraqis will need time before they can actually lead their own affairs but I think that if we don't make this strong political, psychological gesture to tell the Iraqis that we're changing our understanding of things: you have the sovereignty, you hold your fate in your own hands. So it's really a very different approach. Telling them that they're not under occupation, that they're taking their fate in their own hands but at the same time we have to tell them that they can't do everything immediately and that it will take time before actual powers are transferred."
Chirac: Bremer can stay
When Slavin replied that "if there are 150,000 US troops in Iraq, then the country is effectively under occupation", Chirac answered:"Yes, but it's not the same thing. It's not the same thing to tell people they're being occupied and that sovereignty will be exercised as long as it takes by somebody else. It's very different to tell them that we acknowledge the fact that they have a vocation to exercise their sovereignty. It's a strong political gesture. But naturally we're not in a position to do so today, still we're going to help you. That's very different in psychological terms."
When asked by Slavin what would happen to Bremer and the CPA under Chirac's supposed "transfer of sovereignty" to the IGC, he responded: "That's not really the issue. The real issue is to tell the Iraqis that they are a sovereign people and that the Iraqi government has power, that possibly we could improve the situation, under the auspices of the UN maybe? It's possible.
"From that point, the authorities will not be able to do away with Bremer. There will have to be a transitional phase, but the transition has to be organised by the sovereign authorities, and at their request."
Apparently taken aback by Chirac's answer, Slavin said: "I believe that's the US position."
In reality, Washington's position is that the CPA should retain ultimate decision-making power in Iraq, with the authority to veto any decisions of the IGC and its council of ministers.
While Chirac's position would require Washington to relinquish formal control over Iraq, it would be relinquishing it to a US-appointed body, made up of figures handpicked by Bremer who are willing to act as Washington's quislings. In exchange, Washington would get a UN Security Council resolution authorising a US-commanded "multinational" occupation force — and UN recognition of the IGC as Iraq's provisional government.
Under this deal, the French government would be able to win more favour for French business interests in the Arab world by being able to continue posturing as the defender of "multilateralism" and Iraqi "sovereignty" against US imperial domination. And Washington, via the "sovereign" IGC, might even let French companies have a slice of the planned US corporate carve up of Iraq's nationalised industries and public services — the ultimate act of destruction of the Iraqi nation's sovereignty.
From Green Left Weekly, October 1, 2003.
Visit the Green Left Weekly home page.