Prominent Iraqi political groups may once again take on the appellation "opposition", reports Nyier Abdou in Baghdad The passing last week of a UN Security Council resolution formalising the US-UK occupation of Iraq has left ripples of indignation in its wake. Restive Iraqi political groups once collectively known as the Iraqi opposition responded with a show of defiance, stepping up calls for the convening of a national conference that would set up an interim Iraqi leadership. Among the heavyweights in the Coalition Provisional Authority and the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance (ORHA), the Security Council resolution was merely a formality that scored international acceptance for what is already the status quo in Baghdad. But the blunt fact of the occupation has woken up Iraqi political circles to the reality of post-war Iraq -- a reality that exists outside of the meeting halls and press statements issued by groups vying for distinction in Iraqi political life. Following the passing of the resolution on Friday, prominent politician and former Iraqi Foreign Minister Adnan Bachachi held a press conference the next morning at Baghdad's Alwiya Club. The emphasis was on pressing forward with an Iraqi political process, but the impetus was an evident fear that the so-called group of seven -- the "leadership council" of Iraqi opposition groups -- was in danger of being devastatingly marginalised by the US and UK. "The resolution has some positive things in it, like the lifting of sanctions," said Intifad Qonbar, spokesman for the Iraqi National Congress (INC). But Qonbar went on to skewer the resolution, primarily for its definition of the US-UK leadership as an occupying power. "This is something we refuse totally," he told Al-Ahram Weekly. Qonbar described the notion of a formal occupation as "not in line" with the understanding reached between the Iraqi opposition and the US and UK in the intense discussions that preceded the war. "This was a war of liberation, not one of occupation," he said. At a press conference on Monday US Administrator in Iraq Paul Bremmer lauded the lifting of sanctions as the long- awaited opportunity for Iraq to "sell oil freely again", noting that the revenues could now be "used for the Iraqi people". But he brushed aside the dissent stirred up among Iraqi political groups over the resolution as much ado about nothing. Asked by the Weekly if there was new friction over the resolution between the US and Iraq's "G-7", Bremmer remarked that the resolution "did not change the reality" of the political order in Iraq, but "merely recognised that fact". He noted that he is in constant consultation with numerous political leaders, but stressed that it was his belief that the resolution "didn't change anything". "The group of seven is a good start, but they're not fully representative as a body," a senior ORHA public official told the Weekly. "They're not the only parties we're talking to." He added that there is a real push toward setting up an interim Iraqi "administration" that would "work alongside" the coalition and maintain a "consultative role" in helping to rebuild the Iraqi political process. But Qonbar scoffed at this suggestion, insisting that it should be the other way around. "A consultative Iraqi authority will defeat its own purpose," he said, noting that without real power no Iraqi administration could garner respect in the eyes of the Iraqi people. Qonbar insisted that there would have to be an interim leadership that is wholly Iraqi and does not recognise the possibility that this could be thwarted by the US-UK Provisional Authority. "We are not here to listen to orders from the US," he said. Qonbar is certain that by calling a national conference and putting together an interim leadership that would begin building civil society, the G-7 can effectively dictate the process of political reform. He suggested that by becoming the de facto leadership, they could effectively eclipse the Coalition Authority -- and that this is in fact what everyone wants. "The US has no interest in ruling Iraq," said Qonbar. "It doesn't want to colonise Iraq. When the Iraqi people do something and it is working on the ground, the US will support it." "That is one possibility," mused Madhi Al-Hafez, a close aide to Adnan Bachachi and a member of the Executive Council of the Independent Democrats' Group. In an interview with Al-Hafez and executive council member Saad Abdel-Razzaq, the two stressed that Iraqi political groups have deep reservations about the Security Council resolution, noting that establishing a fund that would allow the Authority to administer the revenues of Iraq's oil sales is cause for considerable concern. But he conceded that pressure from the G-7 might not yield a shifting of power in the short term to an Iraqi leadership. "Of course we are struggling against occupation," Al-Hafez said. "But we will work to establish an agreement with [the Authority] that will allow us to be a part of the political process." Asked if this meant the end goal was the immediate withdrawal of American and British troops from Iraq, Al-Hafez remarked that what is expected is a gentler transition of power. Al-Hafez told the Weekly that discussions that have been underway for the last two weeks to broaden the G-7 to include more political groups have been stepped up since the passing of the resolution. He expected the addition of another six parties, including the Communist Party, in the coming week. Confirming a feeling among the G-7 that the resolution had enforced a trend of marginalisation by the US-UK leadership, Al-Hafez said that adding more parties, along with an expected 13 NGOs, would consolidate power among Iraqi political groups to wield more pressure on the Authority. While expanding the G-7 is one way to close ranks among the various political groupings in the face of a dominant Western power base, it could also weaken the strength of the G-7's primary political purpose: to formulate an efficient and functioning political body. It seems that the discordant political agendas of the G- 7 would be further varied by the addition of more parties. But Al-Hafez said that on the issue of setting up an interim government, all the groups are of the same mind. For now, the convening of a national conference to discuss the makeup of such a body is paramount. "Political reform has already started," Bremmer told reporters on Monday, saying that in towns and provinces across the country, there are "spontaneous election campaigns". "Political reform is happening -- it's happening every day in front of your eyes; you just have to go out and talk to Iraqis." But many Iraqis are not so enthusiastic. People are eager to get the ear of a journalist, usually to demand that the world is told of the poor services in the capital -- no water, no electricity -- and the lack of security. At a local coffee shop, one man criticised the impotence of Iraqis to choose their leadership. He said that it is neither the Americans nor expatriate figures like Bachachi or INC leader Ahmed Chalabi who can rule Iraq. A number of people, however, seem to be ready to throw in their lot with the Americans as the lesser of two evils. "I'd rather be ruled by the Americans than by their agents," quipped one Iraqi. "Before, we had Saddam -- and it was a fact. We dealt with it," remarked one local driver. "Now we have the Americans, and we will deal with that. Let's see what they can do." It is the G-7 that seem most impatient with what many see as the ineffectiveness of the Authority. Many analysts suggested that the removal of the common enemy that held the fractured Iraqi opposition together would precipitate an internal struggle among political groups. But a continued refusal to accept the political order formalised by the UN resolution last week could in fact bind them together, making them, once again, the Iraqi opposition.
