To preclude such a development, the Russian leadership proposes an international conference on Iraq, like the one that took place a couple of years ago in Bonn on Afghanistan. In the course of this meeting its participants may form or approve a new transitional government, and stipulate its powers, plan of work, and principles of coordinating efforts with the UN and the leadership of the multinational force.
The meeting, it is believed in Russia, should be attended by representatives of all Iraq's political groups, the country's neighbours and those members of the international community that are interested in an Iraqi settlement. No one, Moscow stresses, is going to dictate to the Iraqis how they should live, but, considering the great internal differences, the international community should play the role of a mediator. The meeting will also help to clarify how the Iraqis themselves view their country's future structure, while it will also impart legitimacy to the political process.
As Lavrov noted, "an international conference on Iraq is not an end in itself, but a way of ensuring the transparency of forming a new Iraqi government." Moscow does not want a repeat of the July 2003 situation when members of the Iraqi Interim Governing Council were appointed by the coalition administration. The result has been that the majority of the Iraqis consider them American puppets. This fate must not befall a new Iraqi government, which will administer the country until National Assembly elections scheduled for January 2005. The international community must be confident that a new government will enjoy the trust of most Iraqis.
The issue of to what extent the new Iraqi government will be independent of Washington is also highly important. "If this government is set up only to guarantee the legitimacy of foreign troops staying in Iraq, this way leads to a dead-end," noted Konstantin Kosachyov, head of the State Duma's committee on international affairs.
Following June 30, the status of the US and allies in Iraq will be changed - de facto they will cease to be considered occupiers. US Secretary of State Colin Powell noted in his speech at a world economic forum in Amman that those who continued to fight would be fighting their own people and their leaders. This is important for Washington. In a way it is absolving the US from responsibility for the situation in Iraq, which is not improving. It may be recalled that while the US and its allies were considered, according to UN Security Council resolution 1483, to be occupying powers, they bore responsibility for the situation in that country. Now Washington hopes that a new resolution will be adopted in the near future, one that will mark the end of the occupation with all ensuing consequences.
But Moscow believes that the resolution is not the most important point; the main thing is to agree on a concept for the Iraqi settlement. Otherwise the most tragic consequences will ensue, in the first place for the Americans, who have already lost more than 570 men in Iraq.
However, there are currently too many differences on the settlement concept. While disclaiming responsibility for the development of events in Iraq, the Americans do not want to lose control over the country. In a recent interview with the American media, Colin Powell pointed out that following June 30, the Iraqi armed forces would be subordinated to a national defence ministry, but the commander of the multinational force, who will be an American, will have the right to issue orders to them. In other words, Washington is continuing to insist that Iraqi security issues should remain in American hands.
Of course, it is a generally acknowledged fact that the Iraqis will not be able to cope without outside military help. And certainly the actions of the Iraqi and foreign troops should be coordinated. The question is: who will be giving orders - Baghdad or Washington? If it is the American capital, then the Iraqis will think the occupation is continuing.
Kosachyov believes that foreign troops stationed in Iraq must be subordinated to the Iraqi government. This is an arguable point, but in any case the Iraqis should have the last word. Then those who refuse to lay down their arms will be fighting Iraqis, rather than the occupiers. So the international community considers that transfer of sovereignty to Iraqis should also include the transfer of control over security forces to them.
However, Iraq is not refusing outside aid. It is generally recognised that the multinational force will stay in Iraq. But a question mark still hangs over the nuances of its presence and the issue concerns the timeframe of the mandate. Some compromises, including in the course of Russian-American consultations, have been found. Today, all sides are in agreement that the multinational force will remain in Iraq until a transitional or, later, a permanent government of that country asks them to withdraw. It seems this is to be recorded in a UN Security Council resolution that will approve the mandate of the multinational force. Previously, Washington had noted that foreign troops would not leave Iraq until the situation there was stabilised. The problem was who would determine whether or not the situation had stabilised.
Unfortunately, this is only one of the many issues, which was clarified. And if the international community fails to sort out the legitimacy of an Iraqi government and its powers by June 30, then not only the ceremony of transferring sovereignty set for that date will be a formality, but all further efforts to stabilise the situation in Iraq will be in vain.
