How will the latest attack in Iraq influence UN's role?

Producer: Yvonne Gomez
First broadcast: 19 January 04, Radio Singapore International

The death toll of American troops in Iraq is continuing to rise following the series of deadly attacks on coalition forces over the weekend.

US military officials are, however, saying that the attacks have reduced, from a high of 40 a day, to 15 a day, since November.

For more on why these attacks continue, and what their perpetrators hope to
achieve, Yvonne Gomez spoke to Dr Michael McKinley from the Australian
National University in Canberra.

MM: Well, the Americans are claiming a sort of victory that the scale of the attacks is actually down. They're saying that this reflects that their various counter-guerrilla operations have had some considerable effect on the collection of groups that were fighting against the coalition forces. But against that, there's also evidence that the groups still fighting have acquired a much more sophisticated way of conducting their attacks, and this is especially true when it comes to firing at aircraft because that is not an easy thing to do for amateurs. I think the groups themselves had to keep going for two reasons. One was that Saddam had been taken prisoner, and therefore there was a need to show that that was effectively irrelevant to the overall campaign. The other thing that's happening is that there's a fair amount of manoeuvring going on inside all of the groups, particularly the Sunni and the Shi'ites, the Sunni in particular. Because if the Sunni do not stay active, then I think the United States will try and marginalise them even further, when it comes to putting into place an Iraqi government. That is one of the reasons why the Shi'ites in the south want a transfer right now, or as soon as possible, because they see that if a plebiscite
was held, or something like that, the Shi'ites would be the principle beneficiary.

How do you think the latest attack complicates the UN's role in Iraq's future?

MM: Well every time there's an attack, particularly when non-combatant deaths are caused, then the organisations concerned think very seriously about whether they can expose people to that type of risk, and most of them take the responsible decision that they cannot. And so if you can maintain a reasonable amount of violence that is not indiscriminate, that is to say, not necessarily directed at the military, then what you're going to get are the non-government groups saying they are not interested. You are also going get investors saying they're not interested in setting up operations in Iraq, and that means, of course, the employment prospects of people in Iraq are themselves reduced greatly. So it feeds into, if you like, a perpetuation of the status quo, or something worse.

There's been talk of meeting a July deadline to hand over sovereignty to a transitional Iraqi government? How will this attack set back those plans?

MM: Well, I notice that the viceroy, if you like, of Iraq, Paul Bremer, is now talking about modifying the plans which have already been modified. The United States is desperate to have much more international involvement. Certainly desperate to have much more United Nations involvement, whilst of course, remaining in control of the key decisions. And once again, the United Nations is looking at this and saying, under those conditions, its questionable whether or not you can get a genuine transition. And no one knows what a genuine transition to Iraqi sovereign power looks like, because it begs all sorts of questions about whether you allow this new government to be dominated by the 60% Shi'ite population, whether you allow it to include a Kurdistan, which is significantly autonomous, which of course then involves running a problem. And Turkey has been adamant that it is not prepared to countenance a significantly autonomous Kurdish region.

It does look like the coalition is spinning its wheels in Iraq and now there may also be some resistance to this by Shi'ite spiritual leader Ayatollah Ali Sistani, who insists that this transitional government should be elected and not appointed. How much of a challenge does this pose to the US-led coalition?

MM: A considerable one in my view, because without the support of the Shi'ites, who make up 60% of the population, you have a problem in Iraq in general, and a problem in the south of Iraq where the British are the main occupying power. And if the British were to be attacked in anything like the rate at which the United States has been attacked in the Sunni Triangle, as a result of deep political dissatisfaction, then I would think the resistance back in Britain would be vastly more than we have seen in the United States. So it would upset the whole coalitions plans and compositions for the future.