Opinion - Editorials   

Iraq: No material change

THE UNITED STATES has agreed to alter the profile of its unjust occupation of Iraq under the pressure of overall circumstances. A new resolution, 1511 (2003), `unanimously' adopted by the United Nations Security Council on October 16, emphasises that the Coalition Provisional Authority, the instrument by which the U.S. rules Iraq, has only a temporary role. It recognises the Governing Council of Iraq and the cabinet as the principal elements of the country's interim administration and the embodiments of its sovereignty in the transitional period. The resolution asks the Authority to "return governing responsibilities and authorities to the people of Iraq as soon as practicable." By way of speeding up the processes through which Iraqi state structures will be re-established, the Security Council has invited the Governing Council to provide by December 15 a timetable and programme for the drafting of a new constitution and the holding of democratic elections. It has resorted to ambiguous phraseology in an effort to meet the concerns of those countries that do not want to send troops to serve under the Authority's command. However, the reference in the resolution to "a multinational force under unified command" does not signify that the U.S. will relinquish its grip on military affairs in the conceivable future. An attempt has been made to curb the Authority's control over the Iraqi economy. The resolution insists that an independent mechanism to audit finances be set up on a priority basis and that the oil and other revenues of Iraq be used in "a transparent manner... for the benefit of the Iraqi people."

These changes in the Authority's status will remain largely symbolic so long as it wields effective military power. However, the U.S. administration would not have countenanced even these alterations had it not been under pressure on multiple fronts. It is clear that Iraqi patriotic resistance is deep, extensive and resourceful. Over a 100 American soldiers have been killed since formal military operations came to an end. The U.S. has already sunk more than $ 80 billion in its Iraqi operations. While Congress has sanctioned another $ 87 billion for military actions and reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan, the American public has begun to resent the colossal expenditure of money in foreign lands when its own needs are being neglected. President George W. Bush's ratings have dipped drastically in opinion polls and the political turmoil has badly affected his administration. These developments form the background to the renewed U.S. attempt to pressure other countries to participate in the military operations and share the costs of reconstruction. However, the Security Council resolution has failed to satisfy the other major powers, notably France, Germany, Russia and China, which have made it clear they will not join any multinational force under the present circumstances.

India rightly decided in July not to send troops to Iraq despite intense U.S. lobbying and pressure. It must stay resolutely with that decision. Participation in a multinational force under "unified", that is, U.S. command, will make India a party to the unjust occupation of Iraq and violation of its sovereignty. Secondly, as New Delhi has recognised, the real role envisaged is not peacekeeping but "peace enforcement". Thirdly, it would be irresponsible to stake the lives of Indian soldiers as `cannon fodder' for somebody else's war of occupation. Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee recently informed Mr. Bush that, among other things, India had no troops to spare for operations elsewhere since they were required for internal security duties. Nothing has happened for India to resile from this position.

Printer friendly page  
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

News: Front Page | National | Southern States | Other States | International | Opinion | Business | Sport | Science & Tech | Miscellaneous |
Advts: Classifieds | Employment | Obituary |

Stories in this Section

• Iraq: No material change
• Censorship of internet
• LTTE and Muslims
• Funding higher education
• Beatification
• Ayodhya issue
• Better late than never
• Soft target?
• On The Hindu

Copyright © 2003, The Hindu. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent of The Hindu