United Nations backs new resolution on Iraq

Producer: Yvonne Gomez
First broadcast: 9 June 04, Radio Singapore International

A United States and British resolution on Iraq has received the unanimous endorsement of the United Nations Security Council.

This came after the US and Britain made some amendments to a earlier draft, to acknowledge concerns the French and German governments had over an Iraqi veto on US-led military action.

The revised resolution affirms the need for cooperation on sensitive offensive operations and places Iraqi security forces under Iraqi control.

For a reaction to what this latest resolution means for unity within the international community, Yvonne Gomez spoke to Dr Samina Yasmeen from the University of Western Australia.

SY: Basically, it s good because in a sense, when the Americans invaded Iraq, they had sidelined the United Nations. And with this, those who were critical of the American position on Iraq have joined hands, and in some ways, suggests the United Nations has been brought back into how Iraqi sovereignty has to be restored, and what developments might take place in Iraq. It doesn t necessarily mean that the American position has been weakened. In some ways, it has transcended the UN position and other countries that were in the sidelines and not really party to what was happening in Iraq, now have a greater possibility of getting involved in Iraq.

What can you say about the Americans and British actually, sort of humbling themselves by revising the resolution?

SY: I think they had two choices. One was to hand over power to the interim government in Iraq, but not really hand over total sovereignty to the new government. And the other choice was to hand over power still give some sovereignty, but to retain some control as well. If the Americans and British had not succeeded in working out an arrangement where the Iraqi government appears to have more sovereignty than they had before the resolution was passed, the danger really was that the other countries in the region and the other external parties interested in what s happening in Iraq, would not have supported what s happening in Iraq, and the American position. Now, the reason why the Americans and British, but mostly the Americans, have to make these concessions and fit in with what the French suggested, and to some extent, what the Russians were suggesting, is an indication that the American government has realised that when they got involved in Iraq, they had one idea of what was likely to happen. Having been there for more than a year and having gone through insurgency retaliations and resistance, they ve realised that for them to come up with some solutions to the Iraqi problem, it is very important for them to have other countries on board. But anyway, by giving these concessions suggests that the American government is beginning to realise the limits of its own power. It s the same with even the British government. So I guess, in a way, both these countries have reflected their acceptance of the fact that they can t really go it alone in Iraq. They need to bring other parties on board.

Most people will agree that this is a positive sign this show of unity within the international community on this issue. But the resolution still doesn t say who is going to have the last say in Iraq. Do you think that this is a non-issue, this show of unity? It s still not going to solve the problem in Iraq, even after the 30th of June?

SY: I wouldn t say that it s a non-issue. As I ve said, the fact that the Americans and British have actually made this compromise, even if just on paper, indicates that it s a big move away from where they were last March. But what s on paper may not necessarily follow through, in terms of what happens in real life. But there are certain things that I think we have to look at. One of them is the issue of sovereignty. The traditional definition of sovereignty is that the country or group that represents a country or a state. It controls the territory, the bureaucracy and has the will of the people being represented through this group, and it controls both military and paramilitary services. Where I think this slight compromise changes the situation, is that until a compromise was made, the American government was not really willing to accept that as an occupying power, when it hands over sovereignty over to the Iraqi interim government, that the instruments of violence would not be placed under their control. When the Iraqi people retaliate, for example, against any possible American offensive in Falluja, it s the interim government that has to pay the price. Ultimately, I think power realities might dictate what happens. The fact that the Americans are the occupying force and the fact that they do have large forces in the region, might really mean that when it comes to the crunch, American forces might be the ones who really do determine what happens. So it s not a non-issue. I think, in some ways, it s a positive development which tells Americans, and reflects their acceptance, that not only are there limits to their power in terms of an external country occupying Iraq and not really managing it properly, but that there are also limits as to how far they can have impose their opinions in Iraq.