Washington sought world support for its unilateral invasion of Iraq, but the world declined to give the US an easy ride, writes Gamal Nkrumah In his address to the UN General Assembly in New York on Tuesday, United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan rebuked United States President George W Bush for the "preemptive" strike on Iraq. Annan warned that Washington's aggression against Iraq "could set precedents that result in a proliferation of the unilateral and lawless use of force, with or without credible justification." French President Jacques Chirac, taking the moral high ground, delivered a more forceful reprimand. "The war, launched without the authorisation of the Security Council, shook the multilateral system. The United Nations has just been through one of the most grave crises in its history," Chirac told the world body. "No one should assign themselves the right to use force unilaterally and preemptively. No one may act alone," the French president said. Judging by the French president's stinging rebuke, Paris is obviously no slouch when it comes to playing political hardball. The French, along with the Russians and Germans, want to see a handover of power from the US-led Anglo-American Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq to the UN. The Bush administration adamantly refuses such an act, and instead demands a face-saving bigger role for the UN in Iraq. Specifically, the Bush administration wants other countries -- both Western and Arab -- to fund Iraq's reconstruction. But most countries are reluctant to contribute money and troops without a clear UN mandate that gives the UN, and not the US, authority over Iraqi affairs. France, Germany and Russia are pressing for a greater UN role in the running and reconstruction of Iraq. The international community clearly could not be bludgeoned into condoning Washington's whims. Another bone of contention between Washington and Paris is the question of the democratisation of Iraq and the transfer of power to the Iraqi people. The Bush administration warns that such a move is immature and impractical. Paris, Berlin and Moscow, on the other hand stress that the current Iraqi Interim Governing Council (IGC) has little credibility and is in effect a mere rubber-stamp for US dictates. German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder told reporters in New York that he would ideally like to see power transferred to the Iraqi people "as quickly as possible" or at least in a "matter of months". Meanwhile, with costs and US casualties mounting, cracks are beginning to appear on both sides of the Atlantic over the nature of the occupation force. While the world leaders meet in New York to discuss a possible UN role in Iraq, UN officials have been holding emergency meetings to re-access the role of the UN in Iraq after a suicide bomber detonated a car bomb outside the UN offices in Baghdad on Monday. This was the second such attack in as many months. The UN has already reduced its staff in Iraq after an earlier explosion last month which killed 23 people, including UN special representative to Iraq, Sergio Vieira de Mello. Human rights groups in the US and Europe are also expressing grave concern about the human rights record of the occupying US troops in Iraq. Even top US officials are beginning to sound less confident about the situation in Iraq. "Some Iraqis are beginning to regard us as occupiers and not liberators," confessed Paul Bremer, the head of the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq. This tense state of affairs gives rise to questions regarding the ability of the US, let alone the UN, to ensure public safety in Iraq. It is for precisely this reason that France, Germany and Russia want to see a swift transfer of power to a democratically elected Iraqi government. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International are also concerned about the security situation in Iraq, and the New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists has voiced grave concern about the safety of journalists in Iraq. They warn that the "reckless reactions" of US troops to hostile fire from underground Iraqi resistance fighters is creating a climate of fear and trepidation in Iraq and endangering the lives of foreigners in the country. "We are concerned about the situation. There are a growing number of incidents. At this point in time the situation is serious," Joe Stork, acting executive director of Human Rights Watch Middle East and North Africa, told Al-Ahram Weekly. On Tuesday, the day President Bush addressed the UN General Assembly, Human Rights Watch released a report outlining the dangerous implications of the aggressive reactions by US troops in Iraq against the underground resistance. And was the report deliberately released on Tuesday to highlight the gravity of the situation? "Sheer coincidence," Stork told the Weekly. "As attacks against them continue, soldiers are sometimes resorting to deadly force in a reckless and indiscriminate way. We are concerned that the situation will get out of hand and innocent civilians will bear the brunt of the escalation in violence," Stork added. Stork said there were less reports of atrocities being committed in southern Iraq by the British occupying forces than by the US forces in Baghdad. He ascribed this discrepancy to a variety of factors. "There are a number of different variables. It is not necessarily a question of nationality. The attacks on British forces in southern Iraq are less intensive than in the US-administered part of the country. Perhaps that explains why the British troops resort less viciously to taking revenge on Iraqi resistance fighters," Stork told the Weekly. But the main issue now, continued Stork, is the behaviour of the occupying military force towards the civilian population; human rights, he reiterated, must be respected and upheld.
