Post-Saddam Iraq mapped out by Allies
( 2002-12-02 11:04 ) (7 )

Tony Blair is to send the former Chief of the Defence Staff, Lord Guthrie, to Turkey as his unofficial military envoy to shore up support for an invasion of Iraq and to discuss plans to remove Saddam Hussein from power.

Guthrie, who is seen by the Prime Minister as a 'safe pair of hands' and who is highly respected by Islamic leaders in the Middle East, will join the Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, in a move which reveals the central role that Turkey, an immediate neighbour of Iraq, will play in any future conflict.

The dispatching of Guthrie and Straw this week coincides with a visit to Turkey by the hawkish US Deputy Defence Secretary, Paul Wolfowitz, who is also visiting Nato headquarters in Brussels and London as part of a tour to discuss both how a war might unfold and any arrangements for administering a post-Saddam Iraq.

The development of a European rapid reaction force made up of European Union and Nato armed forces will also be discussed by Guthrie, who has a military role which mirrors the diplomatic role of Lord Levy, the Labour fundraiser and Middle East expert who is used regularly by Blair to discuss tactics with Middle East leaders and for his close connections with Israel.

Yesterday, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, the British ambassador to the United Nations in New York, revealed how close Britain and America came to a breakdown in relations over President George W. Bush's plans to act unilaterally against Saddam.

Asked in a BBC interview for News24 whether there were times when Britain feared that the US might 'go it alone', Greenstock said: 'We were in doubt quite close up to September 12 [the day Bush made his address to the UN on the multilateral approach to disarming Iraq].'

Greenstock said that if Bush had decided to act unilaterally it would have made it very difficult for Britain to maintain steadfast support.

'At that point, without any discussion whatsoever in the Security Council, it would have meant a very careful look at what our international obligations were and where we could place ourselves, where our military could place themselves in terms of international law and in terms of a rational decision supported by Parliament and the British people,' Greenstock said.

He also revealed that there were a number of 'points of difference' with the Americans during the planning of action against Saddam. '[They were about] how much time you give inspectors, on the connection with Palestine and the Middle East peace process,' he said. 'The differences were ironed out remarkably quickly.'

With military plans now well advanced, officials are now beginning to map out a post-Saddam future for Iraq.

'A lot of thinking has been going on into a post-war Iraq,' Greenstock said. 'It's not been talked about in public very much because we're not making assumptions, but there is a good deal of strategic planning going on.'

The ambassador said that a transitional government may have to be imposed on the country until a new leader could be installed. He said that similar systems had been used following the conflicts in Afghanistan and Kosovo.

'I think there would be more tolerance [of a transitional government] than you would think for a few weeks or months, but it would have to move over to the Iraqis very quickly,' he said.

Meetings between the rival opposition groups in Iraq who could form a new government have been bedevilled by disagreements. Wolfowitz will chair a meeting next week in London in an attempt to get the beginning of a blueprint for change in place.

At the core of the row lie two divergent visions. The first is that of the 'Group of Four', an alliance between the warlords who control the two main Kurdish parties; the Tehran-based Shia fundamentalist group, the Supreme Council of Islamic Revolution; and the Iraqi National Accord, which is led by former military and civilian members of Saddam's Ba'ath regime.

Critics of the Group of Four claim it wants to carve up power among its members by having themselves anointed the 'official' opposition. The group initially tried to restrict the number of delegates to 75, all of whom would require its approval. Although it has now agreed to enlarge the numbers to more than 300, the group is still refusing to relinquish control over nominees.

On the other side lies the Iraqi monarchist movement and the largest opposition body, the Iraqi National Congress, led from London by the former academic and banker Ahmad Chalabi. Its spokesman, Zaab Sethna, said it was vital to include representatives of younger generations of anti-Saddam activists, many of whom had little in common with the established opposition bodies.

(The Observer, UK)