Copyright 2003 Alef Publishing Ltd.

Mideast Mirror
April 4, 2003

Washington alone will decide the future of Iraq

Colin Powell arrived in Brussels yesterday as a
High Commissioner sent from Washington to regulate its
relations with its NATO allies who have started to
remember that they also possess fingers that they can
bite in sorrow (if not regret) for missing out on their
share of the 'Iraqi cake' - Rajeh al-Khouri in an-Nahar

The declared long-term aims of the U.S. war party can
barely tolerate a role for Colin Powell, let alone Kofi
Anan. Anyone reading Hans Blix's recent statements can
imagine the shudder that creeps up Wolfowitz's spine as
he contemplates the possibility of the UN returning to
Iraq-Joseph Samaha in as-Safir

The international community is already discussing the
role of the UN in post-war Iraq. The 'war party' in the
United States is opposed to any such role, while
British PM Tony Blair seems keen on it. But a number of
Arab commentators argue that it is clear from U.S.
Secretary of State Colin Powell's meetings in Brussels
yesterday, that no such role will be acceptable to the
U.S. unless it has a dominant say in post-war Iraq.

ANOTHER CHAPTER IN THE WAR: "The New York Times
yesterday described the events of the past two days on
the road to Baghdad as 'a ray of light at the end of
the tunnel'", notes Rajeh al-Khouri in Friday's
Lebanese daily an-Nahar.

"But the current talk of victory may be just another
chapter in the 'psychological war' whose din will bury
the sound of missiles as Baghdad's outskirts are
breached." The reality in the field is one thing, while
American 'imperial aspirations' are another. The latter
are still 'up in the sky'. Thus Colin Powell arrived in
Brussels yesterday as a High Commissioner sent from
Washington to regulate its relations with its NATO
allies who have started to remember that they also
possess fingers that they can bite in sorrow (if not
regret) for missing out on their share of the 'Iraqi
cake'. For at the end of the day, all emotions and
protest against the war will calm down, when the
calculations of self-interest begin to take hold.

It is enough to recall what happened yesterday at
NATO's headquarters in Brussels: Colin Powell inside
the hall receiving 20 ministers in succession, each of
whom had been separately delegated with task of
discussing the following: The future of Iraq, the EU,
NATO, and the UN based on the de facto situation
imposed by the war on the outskirts of the Iraqi
capital.

Of course, says Khouri, Powell does not possess the
arrogance of his colleague Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld. Nor does he possess the facial expressions of
his boss George Bush, who always has this mocking look
regardless of whether there is cause for such mockery
or not.

At first, Powell was not that enthusiastic about waging
war against the rest of the world and international
legitimacy. Yet yesterday, he was a High Commissioner,
and exceptionally so. He chose his expressions and
words to match the new logic that will be imposed on
the roles, facts, laws, and conventions that govern
international relations, even though the war on Iraq is
not yet over.

For Washington wanted this war to be the first in its
strategy of 'preemptive strikes' that is supposed to
consolidate its hegemonial power as the new de facto
state of affairs in the world.

Although attention was focused on Powell's talks with
his French, Russian, and German counterparts in
particular, the American premonition of victory in Iraq
almost canceled out any lingering conviction that there
might be real differences between the United States'
NATO allies in 'old Europe', and its new 'followers'
among the 'breakaway' states that emerged from the
collapse of the USSR.

The proceedings were very exciting. Powell devoted 15
minutes to meet with the Vilnius Group of states,
perhaps to pat them on the shoulder and tell them that
the United States will not forget their support when
they signed a letter backing military intervention
against Iraq before the war began.

For the record, the Vilnius Group states comprise
Albania, Estonia, Lithuania, Moldavia, Bulgaria,
Romania, Croatia, Macedonia, Slovakia, and Slovenia.
And let us remember that when Rumsfeld speaks of
'coalition forces' he includes these states in his
list.

"Why trot out this group of states now?" asks Khouri:
"Because the view from the 'Imperial Balcony' finds no
reason for treating France better than Estonia for
example, or listening to Germany more closely than
Mauritius."

"Anyone who finds this unbelievable should read
Powell's statements in Brussels-even though they were
coated with a modicum of diplomatic decorum-or recall
what he said before Congress last week, when he
declared that Washington would not cede control of Iraq
to the UN as some Europeans are demanding: 'We have not
born this heavy burden with our coalition partners so
as to forgo a dominant say in how matters will develop
in the future.'"

It would be futile to say that this is a war for
control and not for sowing democracy or eliminating
weapons of mass destruction. This has become so well
known as to be trite. However, it is necessary to raise
one question: Why does the 'Empire' feel the need to
resume its contacts with the Europeans?

Its only real need is to obtain an acknowledgement of
the de facto situation that has resulted from the war,
especially since the French and the Russians-and, to a
lesser extent, the Germans and the Chinese-have
expressed their desire for the U.S. to be victorious
over dictatorship the past few days.

Powell was both frank and discourteous in his demand
that the international community should first recognize
the provisional Iraqi authority (or, in other words,
the American hegemony) that will be imposed on Iraq.
Only then will it be possible to speak of the UN, and
other groups that might offer their help. And this
means that all the wagers in Paris, Berlin, and Moscow
on an early role for the international body in Iraq
have not paid off.

The only help that these groups and bodies will be
permitted by the United States is of the following
nature, concludes Khouri:

"First, the UN can turn into a relief organization
under the supervision of Iraq's new ruler, retired
General Jay Garner, Ariel Sharon's friend who admires
his methods of crushing the Palestinian intifada.

Second, NATO can play the role of municipal police, but
only under U.S. command. Third, the EU can contribute
towards reconstruction, perhaps in the hope of gaining
some crumbs from the billions that will go to American
companies in the context of 'reconstructing Iraq.'"

INTO THE THEATER OF OPERATIONS: "There are signs that
the realm of international politics is trying to storm
the theater of military operations", writes Joseph
Samaha in the Lebanese daily as-Safir.

- Whether the occasion is appropriate or not,
French PM Jean-Pierre Raffarin keeps repeating his call
to be more precise in determining who is an enemy
(Saddam Hussein) and who is a friend (the United
States), adding his hopes for an American victory in
the war.

- - British PM Tony Blair suddenly remembers
Jacques Chirac and Vladimir Putin, and speaks to them
both on the phone.

- - U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell
overcomes his diplomatic 'lethargy' and pays a
lightning visit to Ankara and Brussels.

- - There are increasing reports in the American
press about renewed disagreements between the State and
Defense Departments regarding the distribution of roles
in the coming Iraqi government. All these developments
contribute to the same course of events that was
initiated by the appointment of Kofi Anan as temporary
supervisor of the 'food-for-oil' program. This 'course'
can be summarized by the following single question: Is
there a future role for the UN in Iraq?

There is no doubt that Blair is trying to secure such a
role. Reports from London suggest that he failed to
convince George Bush to assign any role to the
international body during their recent meeting. Blair
does not enjoy strong support in his own country. The
anti-war movement remains strong and steadfast.
'Optimism' regarding a rapid end to the fighting has
disappeared.

More importantly, however, Blair-who has accompanied
Bush till the end of the line-has an interest in
repairing the rift in relations between the Europeans
on the one hand, and between the Europeans and the
Americans, on the other. And as he has said, the main
way to achieve this is for 'any post-war provisional
administration of Iraq to have the approval of the UN.'

In this way, the war would merely have been a phase in
which international shackles were temporarily cast
aside, only to return to the Security Council
afterwards with a stronger position from which to
compel those who were opposed to the resort to force
into some sort of apology.

The U.S. 'war party' does not share this view, says
Samaha. Its position was that going to the UN was a
trap from the beginning, and that what is needed is to
eliminate as many as possible of the conventions and
commitments that restrict the movements of the imperial
center.

This party's declared aim is to subjugate Iraq by war,
and then move on to disciplining other enemies, forcing
hesitant friends to make difficult choices, and
imposing a Likudnik solution on the Palestinian
problem.

In these extremists' opinion, U.S. unilateralism is a
blessing, not a curse. In Baghdad, this blessing can
only be implemented via direct rule under the
supervision of Paul Wolfowitz; its main task being the
placement of the 'Chalabis' of this world after INC
leader Ahmad Chalabi in positions from which they can
control the country's fate. It is not logical for the
war to be fought in order to invite others to enjoy its
fruits, determine its results, and preventing it from
becoming a part of a strategy that extends to the
entire region and the world.

These extremists have been accused of misjudging the
situation in Iraq politically, which led to military
confusion. However, notes Samaha, they swiftly moved on
to the counter-attack. They developed a theory
according to which the responsibility for any mistakes
that were made, was that of the State Department and
the intelligence services, because they had insisted on
keeping the Iraqi opposition at an arm's length and
depriving it of any role.

Given this, Donald Rumsfeld called for the activation
of the INC on the grounds that in some of its
formations, it contains 'the pure treason that should
be this phase's distinguishing mark.' It was therefore
not strange to find assurances regarding the INC's role
being issued by the most extreme of Zionists taking
part in the AIPAC conference.

The declared long-term aims of the American war party
can barely tolerate a role for Colin Powell, let alone
Kofi Anan. Anyone reading Hans Blix's recent statements
can imagine the shudder that creeps up Wolfowitz's
spine as he contemplates the possibility of the UN
returning to Iraq.

For Blix is now saying that the administration was
annoyed at him because he was not producing the
required evidence. It is possible to read into what he
says that he was being subjected to pressure because of
the clash between the logic of his work, and the logic
that wanted to end the theatrics in order to launch the
attack.

The return of a Blix look-alike to Baghdad would be a
nightmare for the war party. It would not be strange if
Blair were to be subjected to a hostile campaign
because of his ideas and his insistence on activating
the roadmap. And this would lead to restaging the same
sort of scene we witnessed a few months back, that was
decisively ended by Bush at the time.

It is true that the American president agreed to go to
the Security Council. But he made this conditional on
the Council adopting his hard-line position. He did not
hesitate for a moment to brush international legitimacy
aside when his forces were ready for the invasion. Is
it likely that he will be ready to offer this very same
body-'which has lost its significance'-a new
opportunity?

"If he does", concludes Samaha, "this would be truly
surprising. However, he will do nothing of the sort
until he has sufficiently assured that the
international 'glove' will not hinder the hand that
wants to strike and steal."