Resolution 1546 about Iraq.

By Sebastian Bestard.

With promisses and pressure from the United States/UK, the resolution conserning the future of Iraq was passed in the UN Securitycouncil.
The resolution legalises the Illegal military occupation of the country, and the assumption of a puppet government in Iraq, appointed by the US.
At the last moment, the United States secured themselves the vote from Russia, by giving them a piece of the cake, of the rebuilding contracts - especially inside the oil sector - as well as the perspective of the repayment of old Iraqi debt to Russia (approximately about 8 billion dollar).
The United States present ambassador in the UN, John Negroponte who has said that, “This resolution will secure solid Iraqi sovereignty” and about the same resolution that it “reflects the great international support for an Iraq where Human rights is being entirely respected”, will soon be transferred to the new American embassy in Baghdad, (along with a staff of a few thousand “diplomats”) so that he in the future, will be able to function as a true Roman proconsul.
He was the former US ambassador in central America, with close links to death squads and
torture specialists.
The “president” of the new temporary government in Iraq appointed by the CIA,
Sheik Ghazi al Yawar, said that he is very sure that the resolution means “total sovereignty, and a new age with a peaceful Iraq.” (Wonder if he truly believes his own words?)
Resolution 1546 allows – and legitimises – the presence of coalition forces, as well as further occupation also beyond June 28. And very paradoxical, it also marks the end of the military occupation, from that very same date. The resolution cancels the coalitions temporary authority, but the control of foreign forces in Iraq, will still be in the hands of American generals. At he same time, it is mentioned that the new government (appointed by the US and UK amongst CIA`s pro-western exile Iraqi contacts) will be given “total sovereignty”.
This puppet government - which legitimate foundation is based on the bayonets of American soldiers – officially allows that foreign troops stay in the country, and in addition pleases them to do so, because it seems to be the only way it might stay in power. The UN, will not be given any
power role, but will only be there to take care of humanitarian and rebuilding assignments (and will also be allowed to pay for what the Americans destroyed during the invasion) fire extinguishing assignments, in other words.
But can one talk of sovereignty in a country beneath the boots of 160.000 occupants?
And which total sovereign government is it that the mass media is mentioning?
According to resolution 1546, the first free (?) elections will be held in January 2005, to elect a temporary governingcouncil, which is to select the other temporary government, and this government is to finish the country's constitution, which at last will lead to a constitutional government the 31. of December 2005.
The mandate of the foreign forces ceases when that process – or when the date in the calender for the handover of power in Iraq, is reached – in other words when a constitutional government is elected in December 2005. This mandate will be evaluated/tested (or renewed and prolonged?) every 12 month. It is also mentioned in the resolution, that the Iraqi government, whenever it might please it, can demand that foreign forces leave Iraqi soil. But because the Securitycouncil has got the power to disband this mandate, and because the US is a permanent member of this council, the power to block every decision this council might make of leaving Iraq, will still lie in American hands, if they chose to use their veto right.
But the Iraqi government, on the other hand, will have no veto right, concerning such
security questions. The government has rejected themselves this right, so that their masters in Pentagon, will be able to conduct large scale military operations on Iraqi soil, whenever it might please them.
It is also mentioned in the resolution, that the Iraqi government only will be “consulted” about ”delicate offensive military operations”. This particular line contains no further explanation.
As the British foreign minister has said: “A limited number of foreign forces will be able to stay on Iraqi soil, so far an elected (selected?) Iraqi government ask for it”.

The true sovereignty and independence of the Iraqi people, will not fall like drubs from the sky,
but will be a result of the daily struggle.