|
|
|
A European proposal
for a US exit strategy in Iraq
or how can the US succeed in stabilizing
Iraq while
cutting back 100.000 US troops ?
|
by
Franck Biancheri:
President of TIESWeb and Director for Studies
and Strategy of Europe 2020.
|
|
| 08/09/2004 |
|
Currently Iraq has no
way out of chaos. Rather the contrary.
Everyday seems to bring even more confusion
and sense of tragedy: militia fights,
jail abuses, terrorists attacks, bitter
rivalries within the US government,
soaring human and financial costs linked
to the US occupation, lack of leadership
and vision, collapse of the ‘coalition
of willing’, … That’s
what I wrote on May 17th. Let’s
keep on reading what I wrote then because
it seems to be more relevant today than
ever (and will still be after the next
US elections in November).
Even
if Washington wants to make US citizens
believe that things will change and
improve after June 30th, any informed
observer knows that there will not be
any significant UN resolution passed
by then, not a single new country will
send forces into Iraq (most probably
countries like Italy or the Netherlands,
if not Poland may pull out during the
summer –well, it was Spain,
the Philippines, and Thailand that pulled
out… and not a single new country
has joined. Poland, Italy and Holland
will most probably start pulling out
by next January) and US troops
will find themselves even more lonely
in front of an increasing number of
Iraqi rebellions.**
Now,
once that has been said, it is time
for Europeans to play a constructive
role and help the international community
as well as the Iraqi people find a way
out of the chaos, towards stability,
peace and prosperity (in this exact
order). Being in good terms with the
Arab world and in speaking terms with
Iran, having been a tactical partner
of Russia and China during last year’s
UN Security Council crisis and as a
60 year-old strategic partner of the
USA, the European Union seems to be
the only intermediary available to forge
a possible lasting solution for Iraq.
The
European Union’s leaders were
divided on the issue of the Iraq invasion
but extremely homogeneous at the Union’s
citizen level (almost unanimously opposed
to the invasion). Surprisingly enough,
today this odd situation could turn
out to be an advantage to propose and
implement a stabilization process.
Before
getting into the proposal itself, four
major facts have to be recognised. It
could take a few months before all parties
recognise them but I am confident that
by November 2004 at last, everybody
will agree upon them (especially in
Washington):
1
. any stabilization process requires
a UN blessing (with unanimous support
from Security Council members)
2 . the UN cannot and will not play
an operational role, especially in the
field of troop command, during the stabilization
phase (past experiences, like ex-Yugoslavia
or Rwanda, have shown that the UN is
currently unable to manage military
forces during a conflict)
3 . the priority currently is to stabilize
Iraq by stopping violence, that currently
is coming from all sorts of groups (international
terrorists, religious militias, rebels
opposed to US presence, US troops
and their Iraqi support forces,
...), while preserving the country’s
unity; and while putting together a
process for giving true power back to
the Iraqi people and leaders as soon
as possible; then only will the time
come to support Iraqi efforts in rebuilding
their country.
4 . the US military presence and especially
the US leadership of the coalition forces
and political authorities (which the
June 30th plan will not significantly
change) has become the major part
of the problem and no longer part of
the solution.
When
those four key elements will have been
agreed upon by all parties (today one
can say that almost everybody on this
planet, including governments supporting
the US coalition, already share these
convictions, except for the current
US administration and maybe 40/50%
of US people), then time will be
ripe for implementing the plan itself
which is made of 3 simple ideas:
1.
The Iraq crisis affects three different
regions, generating very different problems,
therefore, each of these regions should
host a stabilization force coming from
three different groups of countries
with special political and cultural
affinities for the particular region.
Due to existing political, historical
and religious links, the distribution
seems pretty obvious: the European Union
and Iranian forces in the South (Shiite
area), Russian and Arab league forces
in the center (Sunni triangle) and the
USA in the North (Kurd area). Other
countries are of course invited to contribute,
but the majority of troops in each region
should come from the indicated countries.
2.
A central command and coordination must
be establish in Baghdad under British
control, to coordinate this Iraq Stabilization
Force. The UK may indeed be a country
that both sides of the Atlantic trust;
and to get the UN and the international
community involved, Transatlantic cooperation
is instrumental.
3.
To match the current troop level of
about 150.000 soldiers, each regional
stabilization force should provide 50.000
troops. That is to say: 50.000 for the
EU and Iranians in the South, 50.000
for the Russians and Arab League countries
in the center, and 50.000 US troops
in the North.
4.
The stabilization force should be given
a two year mandate by the UN, which
politically will provide for general
elections and full sovereignty for an
Iraqi government by the end of 2005.
5.
Funding will come partially from the
participating countries and partially
from an increased US contribution to
the UN budget (then used to channel
money to countries sending troops for
the Iraq Stabilization Force) equivalent
to the difference between keeping 50.000
instead of 150.000 troops in Iraq. Iraq
oil revenues should be only used to
rebuild the country; not to pay for
foreign troops.
All
the components of this plan are already
available for implementation. It would
drastically decrease the human and financial
burden of the US army and budget (from
150.000 troops to 50.000). It would
offer Iraqis a complete different set
of partners to rebuild their country
showing a clear sign that the invasion
is over. In terms of military forces
and costs, it is within the reach of
all countries mentioned. And in terms
of 21st century global governance, it
would create a ‘precedent’
with long term positive effects, showing
that the international community is
able to act together efficiently.
Of
course, it would also require that Washington
acknowledges that it can no longer play
the game by its own rules. The European
Union has to put an alternative on the
table and press for it, even if it is
only in November 2004 that it may start
being implemented.
One
thing today looks much clearer than
in May, especially when you take a look
at the world’s opinion on the
next US presidential election : the
Europeans, as well as the Muslim world
and Russia, will not get involved in
any long term solution in Iraq unless
there is a completely redesigned course
agreed upon in Washington by next November,
giving them the will to start collaborating
again. If US citizens choose to keep
supporting policies as they are now,
then they have to know that they will
have to keep on carrying the growing
burden of Iraq, for many more years,
alone.
* This plan to solve current Iraq crisis
has been developed by Europe
2020, with its global governance
section.
** Today’s addition to the text
are in italic.
*** as confirmed by the recent global
poll made by the University of Maryland,
read the article on the International
Herald Tribune.
Paris,
Franck Biancheri
Nicholas Reed
|
|
|
|
|
Subscription
|
|
|
Special
Files |
|
|
Interviews
|
|
|
News
Headlines |
|
|
Quiz
|
| |
|
| |
|
