Ö÷²¥´óÐã

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 !