World>Terrorism & Security
posted May 26, 2004, updated 12:59 p.m.

'Mind the gap'

Blair plays down apparent differences in US and British policy about who will control multinational force in Iraq.

by Matthew Clark | csmonitor.com

Differences between US and British policy on Iraq have surfaced again, despite the best efforts of diplomats and leaders to play them down.

The latest apparent difference centers around whether an Iraqi interim government will or will not have veto power over US military actions in Iraq after the transfer of sovereignty on June 30, and appears to belie the show of unity on Iraq policy often trumpeted by the highest levels of the US and British governments.


05/25/04 Strategy for a Iraq sovereignty 05/24/04 British memo criticizes US tactics in Iraq 05/21/04 No high-octane solution

Sign up to be notified daily: Find out more.

The Independent reports that British Prime Minister Tony Blair " put pressure on the Bush administration to allow the Iraqis a veto over the allies' military operations." According to the newspaper, Mr. Blair's comments Tuesday "appeared to open up an immediate – and rare – public disagreement with America as Colin Powell, the US Secretary of State, insisted that its forces will remain under American control."

Mr. Blair said:

Let me make it 100 percent clear. After June 30 there will be full transfer of sovereignty to the Iraqi government. If there is a political decision as to whether you go into a place like Fallujah in a particular way, that has to be done with the consent of the Iraqi government and the final political control remains with the Iraqi government.

In what The Sydney Morning Herald calls " an immediate rebuff" to Blair," Mr. Powell said:

Ultimately ... if it comes down to the United States armed forces protecting themselves or in some way accomplishing their mission in a way that might not be in total consonance with what the Iraqi interim government might want to do at a particular moment in time, US forces remain under US command and will do what is necessary to protect themselves.

Although Downing Street later said Blair was talking only about British troop operations, the Herald reports that the Prime Minister's comments indicate that "Britain is trying to exert its influence over Washington as the United Nations Security Council considers the handover of power to Iraqis" laid out in a joint US-British resolution on Iraqi sovereignty.

Reuters reports that Blair " sought to quash talk of a split with the United States over Iraq." Blair told parliament Wednesday that he and Bush are both "absolutely agreed there should be full sovereignty transferred to the Iraqi people and that the multinational force should remain under American command."

Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott called the talk of a split "pure rubbish" and went on to explain that the US and Britain did not disagree that Iraqis would have political control over foreign troops, except when those troops were attacked. "Under circumstances which can occur where a terrorist attack takes place and attacks a military force, whether it's the Americans or the British, clearly they will be expected to defend themselves. Nobody doubts that," he said.

Reuters reports that this position "still appeared to fall somewhat short of Washington's broader interpretation," articulated above by Powell.

This discrepancy comes a few days after British officials purportedly warned of "heavy-handed" US military tactics in Iraq in a leaked government memo published in The Sunday Times of London. The memo also lamented the damage the prison abuse scandal has done to "the moral authority of the coalition inside Iraq and internationally" and stressed that Britain wants the Iraqi interim government to "have an effective veto over major operations."

Although the memo did not receive wide coverage in the US media, it made headlines throughout the British press.

BBC News Online world affairs correspondent Paul Reynolds writes that "the solid front presented by the US and UK in the presentation of their draft UN resolution has already been dented."

It seems that each side is stressing what is most important to its own interests. And these interests do not always coincide these days, as the strains of the occupation begin to show.

As the US-British draft resolution is weighed by the UN Security Council, the question of exactly who has final say over military actions of the multinational force will take greater significance. Reuters lays out the importance of the issue this way:

The charged issue of control over troops is crucial to convincing Iraqis – and skeptical powers like France and Russia – that London and Washington are serious about handing back sovereignty to Iraq. It also touches an American taboo over foreign control of its troops.

As The Economist states, " striking the right balance between security and sovereignty will be no easy task."

"In effect," writes The Economist, "America must now pull off a sleight-of-hand. The need to make Iraq's sovereignty seem real in the world's eyes is crucial for UN support, as well as for quelling the resistance in Iraq itself."