World View It is said that in war, the winners write the history. The Bush administration appears poised to write another rule of war: the winners shape the loser's new government, writes Mark Brennock
Just as the United States and Britain had no United Nations mandate to launch their invasion of Iraq, they have no international authority either to steer and shape the formation of Iraq's post-war government. Yet that appears to be what they intend to do. And with the EU leaders meeting in Athens this week devoting all of their energies to rebuilding their relations with each other and with the US, they clearly have no appetite right now to confront Washington over this.
So those member-states - France, Germany, Belgium and others - who had initially called for the United Nations to have "the" central role in rebuilding Iraq, including establishing a new regime, this week toned down their demand to seeking "a" central role.
Asked in Athens whether the Irish Government used the definite or indefinite article in describing the "central role" it sought for the UN, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Cowen, dismissed this as a matter of semantics. "If the content of our position is dictated by definite or indefinite articles, we are in serious trouble," he said.
The distinction was not important, and the UN Secretary General himself was not hung up on the definite or indefinite article, he said. "The thesaurus, the lexicon, the vocabulary isn't the issue. The issue is how do we effectively bring about an end to this conflict. How do we look after the short- term immediate humanitarian needs of the people of Iraq, and how do we set about providing a government representative of the people of Iraq in the soonest possible timeframe consistent with the security, stability and the territorial integrity of that country."
Mr Cowen was reflecting the public position taken by many of his European colleagues this week in minimising the distinction between the UN taking the lead or playing second fiddle to the US in relation to political reconstruction. However, the Americans have no problem understanding the distinction. They will welcome the internationalisation of the humanitarian crisis caused by the war. But they have already begun the process of building a new regime with their war allies involved and the rest of the world left out.
The outcome of this is crucial to justification for the war. There is no evidence yet that the war aim of eliminating weapons of mass destruction will be justified in hindsight. Therefore the other war aim - regime change - assumes centre stage. The domestic and international credibility a new regime has will determine whether the war will ultimately be seen as having been one of liberation or imperialism.
Already we have seen divisions and political unrest - as opposed to plain old looting - around Iraq as the US and Britain attempt to put together a regime. The US-organised meeting at an airbase near Nasiriya this week, at which plans for a new administration were discussed, was not a model of inclusiveness.
Two Shia Muslim groups - including the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, which is the main group and is backed by Iran - boycotted. Iraqi exiles and selected Iraqis from within the country sat down together indoors. A large Shia demonstration went on outside the meeting, seeking religious rule.
All were unhappy with Ahmad Chalabi, an exile being promoted by the Pentagon as the next Iraq leader. More generally, they are unhappy with the level of US and British involvement in choosing their government. "No to America: No to Saddam", they chanted.
The UN wasn't invited to the Nasiriya meeting. Diplomats from Australia and Poland were there - they had sent troops to the war - while France and Germany were left out.
Washington may, as it says, want a government broadly representative of the different strands of Iraqi society but it shows no signs of wanting this facilitated by a group broadly representative of the international community.
Meanwhile, the fractured EU was busy trying to forge some form of unity of purpose in relation to post-war Iraq. At this week's Athens Summit, initially designed to show a new geographical unity within Europe, older EU members sought to build a semblance of political unity.
For his part President Chirac softened his demand for the UN to take the lead role from day one, saying it could get involved in different aspects of reconstruction on a phased basis. He acknowledged that the US and Britain had a vital role to play.
The new politeness from Mr Chirac (he didn't accuse the pro-US accession states of being "badly brought up" on this occasion) and Chancellor Schröder's clear anxiety to build good relations with Mr Blair again - with a view to repairing damaged relations with the US - were most revealing about post-war international relations. European powers and others in the international community had opposed America, and America won. In relation to Iraq, America now calls the shots and the EU and the UN are seeking a role the United States will accept.
But on the margins of the summit, EU leaders were already discussing their response to President Bush's call for the lifting of the 13 year s of economic sanctions on Iraq. Lifting the sanctions would free up Iraqi oil sales and effectively end any UN control over the situation. The sanctions remain the last major bargaining chip in the hands of the international community.