It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


OP/ED: Rift Between U.S And UK Over Iraqi Sovereignty?

page: 1

log in


posted on May, 26 2004 @ 03:48 AM
A difference in language used by Tony Blair and Colin Powell over the powers of a future Iraqi government has led to speculation of a split between the two coalition nations. Blair said that Iraqis would have ultimate control over whether contraversial operations such as that undertaken by the U.S in Fullujah would take place.Colin Powell ,on the other hand, insisted that the U.S and they alone would decide which operations were needed to protect their troops.

A statement later released by Downing Street tried to repair any damage caused by apparently clarifying that the Prime Minister had been refering to British troops only.

The slip ,though effectively painted over, seems to indicate a widening policy gap in this important time leading up to the 30th of June handover of sovereignty and the crucial UN resolution that must precede it.

France and Russia who's votes or abstentions are needed for the UN resolution, which would legally end the occupation status of Iraq,are expected to play hardball over the details.Innitially it was thought that the main sticking point would be the inclusion of a date for coalition troop withdrawal instead of the open ended wording of the draft resolution produced by the U.S and UK which was published recently.It is unclear if the publicatoin of the draft means that France and Russia have accepted that wording or if the publication was a tactic to try and bulldoze that wording through.

Certanly,what is known is that after a telephone conversation yesterday with President Bush,Chirac told the press that although they agreed in principle to the draft there were still different viewpoints over some details.

One of those details now appears to be ultimate Iraqi political control over coalition military opperations.A point that the UK seems to have acceded to while the U.S fiercely resists.

U.S intransigence on this point is understandable especially when popular public perception in the U.S and UK are compared.In the UK generally the UN is still held in esteem and the importance of this resolution to Tony Blair can not be underestimated.Blair must have this resolution.

Bush ,on the other hand, has the luxury of a low public regard of the UN amoungst most Americans.Athough not getting a new UN resolution would be a huge blow,Bush must believe that he can explain effectively a lack of resolution by claiming that some Security Council members were making unreasonable demands.

This would explain the differences between the UK and the U.S being seen now.The drafting of this extremely important resolution can be compared to a dog swimming.Above the water,what we hear from the media,the dog appears to be gliding effortlessy towards the shore,below the water,in the murky world of international diplomacy, there are frantic and desperate maneouvers just to keep afloat.

Sorry if this has turned into an OP/ED.

US Secretary of State Colin Powell has insisted that US forces in Iraq will remain under American control after the 30 June handover of sovereignty.
Mr Powell said that while the Americans would consult the Iraqi authorities, US military units would do whatever was necessary to protect themselves.

[Edited on 26-5-2004 by John bull 1]

[Edited on 5-26-2004 by Valhall]

[Edited on 27-5-2004 by SkepticOverlord]

posted on May, 26 2004 @ 05:08 AM
I think Blair is finally realising he has to put some distance between himself and Bush for the sake of his last remaining vestiges of reputation domestically. The poodle act went far enough long ago. Perhaps too, he sees Bush floundering and doesn't want to be taken down with him. Either way I personally hope there's some more direct criticism to come, preferably publicly and not just from leaked memos.

posted on May, 26 2004 @ 05:13 AM
What is the point in giving the power back to the Iraqis if this will be, as a whole , undermined by overall coalition military control? That isn't giving the power back..

posted on May, 26 2004 @ 05:40 AM
Looks like the BBC is overstating the facts.

Britain Scorns Talk of Split

LONDON (Reuters) - Britain dismissed as "complete rubbish" on Wednesday talk of a split in the Anglo-American alliance over how much power an imminent interim Iraqi government will have over foreign occupying troops.

posted on May, 26 2004 @ 05:53 AM
Correct Earthtone, in this particular case I believe the US is being more truthful than the UK, not that I necessarily agree with either of their statements.

The US will never let any other country govern their troops, that would take trust, and in the present climate, the Iraqi's trust the US as much as the US trusts......well.......anyone...!!

The UK might say that they would allow the Iraqi's to govern, but at the first sign of any cak hitting the fan, would resume control.

If on August 1st the Iraqi's said "Right, get out of our country" do you really reckon that the coalition forces would comply.

posted on May, 26 2004 @ 06:02 AM

Originally posted by Koka

If on August 1st the Iraqi's said "Right, get out of our country" do you really reckon that the coalition forces would comply.

But can you actually see that happening? I think that this choice should be solely left to the Iraqis. We are 'liberators', and if they want us to go then we should because we spread 'democracy' right? I just don't think that they will ask the military to leave any time soon though. The country would fall apart.

posted on May, 26 2004 @ 08:24 AM
They wouldn't get that request from the people they put in power, but there are plenty of Warlords and Fundamentalists who would ask the Coalition forces to leave.

Will the Iraqi's also get to choose their own contractor's for re-building?

posted on May, 26 2004 @ 11:58 AM
Former Ambassador Richard Holbrook just shocked CNN host Wolf Blitzer with remarks about the possibility that Iraq's newly appointed, but as yet unknown governing body, whatever it will be called, will have control over US Military activities in Iraq per the Bush administration. Holbrook took umbrage over Bush's agreement to turn over authority of US military forces in Iraq as suggested/demanded by the UN Security Council.

Blitzer appeared to cut the Ambassador short.

Worst case scenario; if, in fact, the UN (led by France and Russia) votes to give full Sovereignty to the new interim Iraqi Governing body (?) I think you will see Generals resigning on the spot and that will not only happen in Iraq, but in the Pentagon as well.

There is no way in hell US forces will ever find themselves under command other than the US. Look what happened in Somalia!

If GWB agrees to allow Iraq to take his Commander in Chief's responsibilities, something he fought vigorously before the UN, I do believe we will see a revolt throughout the Armed Forces. Mass Mutiny is not a pretty picture. So much for the Patriot Act....and Homeland Security.

The very fabric of our nation is at stake in this matter. This borders on insanity and Treason.

CNN just announce 10:18 Pacific, Russian has ordered ALL personnel, both military and civilian, to evacuate Iraq ASAP due to lack of security and casualties resulting from the lack of security.

John McCarthy
Chairman of The Board of VERPA
Veterans Equal Rights Protection Advocacy

[Edited on 26-5-2004 by John McCarthy]


log in