Will Iraq be democratic at long last?

Algeria, conscious of its position as the only Arab member in the UNSC, had put forward four critical demands for incorporation in the resolution. The demands were: that full and undiminished sovereignty be restored to Iraq; that the Iraqi government exercise full authority and responsibility in governing the country including on security issues and over its financial and natural resources; that all armed Iraqi forces be placed under the sole authority of the Iraqi government; and that the Iraqi government's consent be required in respect to sensitive military operations undertaken by the multinational force (MNF) as well as the engagement of its own forces in the operations by MNF.

The US saw the passage of the resolution as a vivid demonstration of broad international support for a federal, democratic, pluralistic, and unified Iraq where Iraq's sovereignty would remain undiluted with its government having sovereign authority to request for or decline assistance, including in the security sector, and having a final say in the continued presence of the MNF. Perhaps, the most important factor in reaching unanimity in the passage of the resolution was the support given by France which had been waging a running battle with the US in promoting the primacy of the UN in the Iraq saga. One may recall that the Anglo-US abandonment of the UN route in the invasion of Iraq was occasioned by Jacques Chirac's and Russia's threat to veto any UNSC resolution that would legitimise the armed intervention in Iraq , a position immediately adopted by China. This prompted President Bush to declare that the UN risked fading "into history as an ineffective and irrelevant debating society."

Tap here to add The Daily Star as a trusted source

This Kaganite (a la Robert Kagan) display of American muscularity has been explained by Michael Glennon (of Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy) as reflective of an earlier shift in world power toward a configuration America unipolarity that was simply incompatible with the way the UN was meant to function. Since the end of the cold war, the French, Russian, and Chinese efforts were directed to ensure a return to a more balanced global system. President Chirac wanted a multipolar world in which Europe would be the counterweight to American military and economic power. He felt that any community with only one dominant power was always a dangerous one and provoked reaction. Joseph Nye (of Harvard Kennedy School of Government) agreed with the position held by Jacques Chirac. Warning about the dangers of a foreign policy that combines unilateralism, arrogance and parochialism, Nye argued that throughout history coalitions of countries have arisen to balance dominant powers, and the search for new state challengers was well under way. The combine of challengers to the US hegemony was joined by Germany. All these countries, two pillars of Atlantic alliance and the others erstwhile enemies, refused to accept Charles Krauthammer's assertion that an unprecedently dominant US was in a unique position to fashion its own foreign policy, and that this freedom of action impelled the US to ignore restrictions imposed by international institutions, regimes, and treaties.

It was made crystal clear by President Bush in 2002 that America had and intended to keep her military strength beyond challenge and thereby making the destabilizing arms race of other eras pointless. This was in sharp contra-distinction to the European approach to a globalist foreign policy. What escaped the European thinking was the fact that, with the end of the cold war, the centrality of Europe in the American global matrix was lost, and that the terrorist attacks of 9-11 had totally changed the way the US looked at the world. The war on terror completely blanketed the American conscious and sub-conscious mind leading the US policy-makers to decide, as recently accused by Human Rights Watch on maltreatment of detainees by US troops, that the war on terror permitted the US to circumvent international law and the Geneva Conventions.

But Secretary of State Colin Powell, supposedly the dove in the den of hawks, disagrees. In a recent article (Foreign Affairs Jan/Feb 2004) he forcefully argues that US strategy is not unilateralist, imbalanced in favour of military methods, obsessed with terrorism, or biased toward pre-emptive wars on a global scale. He states that pre-emption refers to undeterrable threats by non-state actors/ terrorists. He adds that critics' assumptions otherwise have sprung from "using their own mottled political histories as reference point and have mistakenly projected their own Hobbesian intentions onto our rather Lockean sensibilities." He emphasises that the US strategy is one of partnership that strongly affirms the vital role of NATO and other US alliances including the UN. He reiterates American concentration on relations with major powers especially those with whom US had difficult relationship in the past, notably Russia, China and India.

It is in this context that one should see the UNSC resolution 1546 of June 8, 2004. France's goal had been to ensure that the Iraqi Interim Government should have the attributes of sovereignty and complete authority to govern the country beyond June 30; to give the Iraqi people credible assurance that political process was continuing and that the presence of MNF was temporary and limited in time and that the transition period would end as soon as possible; and no less importantly to bestow a mandate to the UN enabling it to preserve its role in settlement of crises. The Russians were happy that the UNSC had managed to work out a decision ending the occupation and transferring full sovereignty to the Iraqis.

The UNSC resolution has been detailed and specific. It called for a federal, democratic, pluralist, and unified Iraq and endorsed the formation of an interim government; holding of elections by this year end or by next January to form a Transitional National Assembly and a Transitional Government and draft a permanent constitution leading to a constitutionally elected government by the end of next year. The resolution gives the Special Representative of the UN Secretary General to play a leading role in the political process of Iraq and empowers the Iraqi government to terminate the mandate of the MNF which will now be staying in Iraq at the request of the Iraqi government. Both the request of the Iraqi government for the continued stay of MNF and the agreement of the US administration acceding to the request are integral part of the resolution. Significantly however MNF will continue to be under US command and the Iraqi forces will be under the command of the Iraqis.

Almost simultaneously with the passage of the UN resolution, the G-8 Summit, which was also attended by the new President of Iraq was held in Georgia, USA. The summit fully supported the UN resolution on Iraq, but President Chirac opposed sending NATO troops to Iraq. Briefing the press after the G-8 Summit President Bush spoke of a consensus emerging across the Middle East on the need for political, economic and social change and pledged G-8 nations' help to "further the causes of freedom and reform to help an increasing number of people join in the progress of our time." Interestingly Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Kuwait, three close allies of the West in the Middle East, chose not to respond to the invitation sent to them to attend the G-8 meeting. Their non-attendance notwithstanding, the G-8 decided to establish a Forum for the Future which will bring together senior government officials from the Middle East and their counter parts to discuss ideas relating to socio-economic and political advancement in the Middle Eastern region.

This, in sum, is the Greater Middle Eastern Initiative built on the diagnosis of the Arab world's shortcomings presented in the 2002 Arab Human Development Report. This initiative is likely to be non-assertive as the Bush administration, like the preceding ones, remains paralysed between American desire for deep rooted change in the region and the useful and co-operative relations the US has with the governments of the region. Besides, any paternalistic attitude by the West trying to foist upon the Arabs the concept of Western modernity ignoring or relegating the Palestinian cause to the background will not be acceptable to the Arabs in general. Regarding Iraq, President Bush's proposals on the transference of sovereignty to the Iraqis is a little late in the day considering, in the words of the New York Times, "After nearly 14 months of policy failures, none of them acknowledged by the President, which have left Iraq increasingly violent and drained Washington's credibility with the Iraqi people and the international community." Perhaps, in the face of US lack of credibility as a pro-democratic actor and the Arab rulers hold on significant US economic and security interest a gradualist strategy for democracy in Iraq and the Greater Middle East would have a better chance to succeed than coercive measures to democratise societies inherently wedded to non-secular values.

Kazi Anwarul Masud is a former Secretary and Ambassador.