Aha I see the hegemons this evening have already decided to move fast to revise their text to accept that the troops will be go whenever the Iraqis even the interim government, request it, as I suggested might be the end result of the debates.
The hegemons presumably calculate that abject surrender is best achieved as promptly as possible so that the technicalities will not be noticed against the backdrop of Bush meeting the Pope. It also undermines the advantage the imperialist rivals get by spinning out the negotiations, and it moves the power game onto a new territory altogether. It seems possible that the interim government is quite sophisticated and Allawi knows how to balance everything out, including how to use Shristani to neutralise Al Sadr's militia. Interesting that the kidnappings stopped as a general policy. Meanwhile it becomes in the interests of the occupying troops to retire to barracks, avoid confrontations, and too many convoys, and try to think of a strategy against mortars. Indeed the tables may be turned with the intermin government pleading with them not to leave, in a way that will finally give some political support to Bush and Blair in covering themselves with their domestic electorates. The other pay off would be if it manages to turn military hegemony once again into financial dominance, if in return for staying in Iraq the interim government will give primacy to a financial framework in which US interests dominate over those of old Europe. The fine print of these inter-imperialist skirmishings could get even finer and harder to analyse. They will include hazy terms for "debt forgiveness" - there are technical terms like "odious" I think. It will also depend on how contracts get awarded. The interim government will minimise the hegemons bargaining power the faster it achieves on the ground compromises with local militias. Llocal militias in turn may be persuaded to compromise if this allows the interim government apparently to accelerate statements distancing themselves from the occupyers. It is just possible then that as almost all sides want the occupying troops out as rapidly as possible, things will stabilise punctuated only by terrorist activity that finds it difficult to find a target that will strengthen its position with general Iraqi opinion. All right, highly speculative, but the last speculations were not wide of the mark. What I am basing these thoughts on to be explicit is 1) calculation of the shifting balance of power and how others may see it 2) respect for the intelligence and resilience of Iraqi people. Chris Burford ----- Original Message ----- From: "Chris Burford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, June 04, 2004 8:14 AM Subject: [PEN-L] screwing the hegemons > Interesting public debate in the Security Council, with Zebari taking > full advantage of its attention, and other powers like China, France, > Germany and Russia, enjoying keeping the hegemons waiting for > approval. Time is not on Bush's side. Everyone knows that. > > While saying that a specific deadline for withdrawal of troops would > not be helpful Zebari emphasised the wording of the resolution should > be strengthened to emphasise full sovereignty for Iraqis - which > sounds like encouragement for an amendment that the hegemonic troops > will leave whenever the Iraqis request it, rather than subject to a > Security Council resolution which the US and UK could veto. > > The subtleties of inter-imperialist rivalry these days! > > Chris Burford >
