³ÉÈËÂÛ̳

Washington: Travelling between Baghdad, London, New York and Washington this past fortnight it has become clear that the issue of finding the right legal basis for American and British troops to remain in Iraq after their United Nations mandate expires at the end of this year has become a great deal more complicated than it appeared before - and this reflects the tug of war between Iranian and US influence in Iraq. Senior Iraqi officials have revealed to me that the entire future of the treaty is now unclear, "because people in our own government are not sure they want it".

This bombshell would appear to dash hopes in the US administration that a deal can be finalised before President Bush leaves office and creates the possibility - theoretically at least - that the entire US military presence in Iraq, around 150,000 troops, could be ordered out on 1st January 2009. Since, I am told, the Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki does not want this, because he recognises that hard won recent security gains might well be lost, the Iraqi government is now working on a holding plan that involves asking the United Nations to extend its mandate for Coalition troops. Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari has therefore spent this week in New York engaged in difficult bilaterals with those countries - notably Russia - that might stand in the way of the UN Security Council renewing that resolution.

A few months ago, the two sides seemed to be edging towards agreement on two treaties; a Strategic Framework Agreement in which the US and Iraq would define the nature of their future military relationship and a Status of Forces Agreement which would set out precisely matters relating to the stationing of US personnel in Iraq, such as the vexed issue of their immunity from Iraqi law. The UK is negotiating a separate Status of Forces Agreement with Iraq. At the start of the summer US officials were so optimistic that they could make progress in the talks that they said they hoped to sign agreements by the end of July.

While negotiators have not yet found the right language to bridge the differences over the immunity issue or the exact description of how US withdrawals will be phased, the whole venture has now been de-railed by political divisions within the Iraqi cabinet. While Kurdish and Sunni politicians believe strongly that Iraq must capitalise on recent security improvements, and needs continued US help to do that, some Shia ministers have been questioning the need for the entire treaty.

In his speech to the UN General Assembly on Tuesday President Mahmud Ahmedinejad of Iran referred to the treaties the US wish to negotiate as, "imposing colonial agreements on the people of Iraq... the occupiers, without a sense of shame, are still seeking to solidify their position in the political geography of the region and to dominate oil resources". The logic of Iran's stance seems clear enough then, that Iraq should show the Americans the door.

The effect however of scuppering these draft US/Iraq treaties could, perversely, be to extend the operations of US forces under the existing UN mandate, which gives them sweeping powers, such as the right to detain Iraqis without trial. This then is the cleft stick Iraq's government finds itself in: many within it, including apparently the Prime Minister, accept that they still need American help in some areas but their attempts to cut US troop levels and curtail their powers are now threatened by the possibility that they will have to extend the existing UN mandate rather than re-define the relationship. It would appear that Iran dislikes the idea of the US forging a long term strategic relationship with Iraq so much that it is prepared to see the perpetuation of the existing 'occupation' arrangements.

For its part the US government will have its own difficulties now, because following the tensions over Georgia this summer, it must now ask Russia not to veto any extension of UN Iraq mandate in the Security Council. Some believe the Russians simply won't cooperate, others that the Iraqis may sweeten them with promises of weapon and other contracts. If all else fails, US and UK diplomats apparently have the option of 'cut and pasting' the terms of the existing Security Council mandate into Memoranda of Understanding between themselves and Iraq - continuing in other words without a UN mandate, but with something that attempts to look like one !

New York - Speaking to the United Nations General Assembly, President Bush finished with a repetitive use of the word 'together'.

The world could fight terrorism together, struggle for freedom together develop its economy together and so on.

The gap between rhetoric and actions is far older than the UN itself - and every leader's speech to the General Assembly tends to be peppered with lofty phrases about the edification of mankind - but one really wonders at the end of the Bush Administration how far people are still interested in doing things together here.

The unilateralist trend in politics is strong. The president's invasion of Iraq undermined the UN enormously. But of course he has not been the only one who had behaved in that way.

President Clinton launched the war in Kosovo without a UN mandate, and recently Russia's actions in the Caucasus have cast further doubt on the major powers' willingness to work collectively to improve world security.

Unilateralism has in fact become the hand maiden of nationalism. Pursuing national agendas - whether they be in the use of force or in responding to climate change - has become essential for politicians wishing to remain n power.

China is very suspicious of those who would blunt its economic development in the cause of stopping global warming.

Russia resents those who would tie its hands within what it regards as its natural sphere of influence, the former Soviet republics.

As for the USA, it wanted to choose its own response to the trauma of 9/11.

These nationalistic or unilateralist stances derive in the most part from deep seated popular attitudes in the countries concerned, not from the caprices of politicians.

Even the United Kingdom, with its acute sense of a diminished role around the world cannot resist sometimes adopting nationalistic positions - for example in relation to France during the wrangling to agree a new European Union budget a couple of years ago.

The weakness, or growing irrelevance even, of the UN derives quite directly therefore from the assertiveness or pride of its principal members.

Those who retain the key rights on the body's most important body, the Security Council, also regard the defence of their position at the UN as a matter of national pride.

This has been an important factor in recent years in blocking the reform of the Security Council which in turn has led to questions about the organisation's future relevance or importance.

There are of course some regional organisations which are doing quite well despite these unhealthy trends.

But if you want a global response to a problem, the UN is the only real forum.

I used to think that countries might re-discover the habit of sacrificing a little national interest for the global good if some Sword of Damocles was held over their heads.

But if the spectre of climate change and the recent financial crash have not had the desired effect, it's hard to know what would.

Baghdad - Many people might think oil played its role getting US troops into Iraq, but now that black gold is going to have a major effect in getting them out.

For the Iraqi government's revenues have sky-rocketed to an estimated $80bn this year as a result of the rising oil price, and it is making them increasingly assertive.

The cash is pouring in so fast that the Iraqis do not know how to spend it, and cannot even print banknotes fast enough to service the burgeoning government payroll (soldiers and civil servants in this country are all cash paid).

The United States, with its vast national debt and tottering economy continues to sacrifice its soldiers meanwhile, to gain what General David Petraeus, the outgoing commander here, calls "irreversible momentum" towards stability.

It is true, of course, that foreign oil companies, including American and British ones, have been granted fat contracts to expand Iraq's oil production and many see this as payback for their role in stabilising the country.

That said, the characterisation of the 2003 invasion as a 'war for oil' looks increasingly bizarre when one considers the financial clout that Iraq's government has gained in recent times - a bonanza paid for by motorists, or other oil users in the USA, and other major economies.

Many foreign experts doubt Iraq's ability to use the money wisely or fairly.

At the end of 2006, for example, it emerged that the government was sitting on $10bn in cash because they lacked the 'capacity' to spend it fast enough. Nobody knows quite how big the cash mountain is now, but the country is crying out for investment.

The electricity supply remains many people's bugbear, but there are a host of other ways the ministries could be spending money to improve the lives of ordinary Iraqis.

The doubts extend to whether the money will be distributed fairly among the country's ethnic groups and whether it will lead to galloping corruption. It is the delicate question of Sunni-Kurdish-Shia relations that has prevented the passage of an oil bill through Iraq's parliament for the years.

Walking with an American commander through the streets of Doura, a predominantly Sunni suburb of Baghdad, I ask which of the many visible public works projects are being paid for by the Iraqis rather than the US taxpayer. It transpires that very few are.

In his talks with local officials, the American has detected a "terror of corruption" in disbursing contracts that has prevented them moving much faster.

It is clear though that if the American job-creation money dries up and the government is not smart about stepping up its act, Sunni residents of Doura and elsewhere may soon be accusing the Shia-dominated cabinet of discrimination.

The oil bonanza thus carries risks as well as opportunities. As the cash mountain gets bigger and bigger, political pressure will build from ordinary Iraqis for it to be spent, and the character of the relationship with the US is changing.

"External pressure has less and less effect", notes one senior foreigner.

For the Americans, this is complicating their negotiations on a new Strategic Framework Agreement (see below) with the Iraqis - a treaty setting out why US troops will remain in the country once their United Nations mandate expires on 31st December 2008.

Many believe Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is tempted to drag out the negotiations, making the most of the Bush Administration's weakness in its dying days.

So, as the different parties enter the much talked about 'end game' in Iraq, the reduction of violence and high oil price change the diplomatic dynamics completely.

When the UN mandate for foreign troops expires, many expect a further boost to Dr al-Maliki's confidence.

"From the 1st January", jokes one wag currently negotiating with the Iraqis, "the lunatics will very much be in charge of the asylum".

Baghdad - There is light at the end of the tunnel but nobody knows how best to describe it.

Coming back here after several months, negotiations between the US and Iraqi governments about the future status of coalition forces in this country are said to be almost complete.

Time is short: the United Nations mandate governing the presence of foreign troops here will expire at the end of this year - but more importantly, it is the Bush administration's ardent wish to conclude the new deal before November's presidential elections in the US. So much of American policy here has been dominated by the electoral cycle back home that this latest milestone is of enormous importance; for since democracies normally respect treaties signed by their predecessors, this is George Bush's chance to define the next administration's approach to Iraq.

So not only will the new treaty define the circumstances and timetable for the withdrawal of US combat troops from Iraq - whatever Barack Obama is saying about it on the stump - but it also offers the Bush Administration its last, best, chance to tell the world "we won". But how do you actually say that?

Read the rest of this entry