Whatever opinion they hold of the invasion and occupation of Iraq, most people in the UK and the US at least claim to want to see that country governed by democracy and the rule of law, and free from sectarian and ethnic division. To judge the value of those claims, witness the sheer indifference politicians and the media in those two countries have shown to an independent Iraqi initiative created to achieve those very goals: the Iraqi National Foundation Conference.

The INFC describes itself as an umbrella group "composed of academics, professionals, community leaders, religious scholars and veteran moderate Arab-nationalist politicians. It straddles sectarian and ethnic divides, and attempts to formulate the widest platform possible". In the face of growing societal division, it has revived inter-communal prayers, the hallmark of the 1920 revolution against British colonial rule. Membership is open to anyone who will subscribe to its minimum points of unity: withdrawal of the occupying forces troops and opposition to any division of Iraq on an ethnic or sectarian basis. The INFC does not enjoy the publicity enjoyed by the Indian Congress Party before independence, or the African National Congress during apartheid. But when people who oppose the occupation are asked what they would favour instead, the INFC may well provide some of the answers. Certainly the anti-war movement in the US and the UK should see building substantive links with the group as an urgent and immediate priority.

Two high-level representatives of the INFC - Media Coordinator, Saad Jawad and General Secretary, Sheikh Jawad Al Khalisi - visited the UK this week. On Wednesday 5 September they spoke to a group of anti-war activists about the desperate situation in Iraq, and the solutions that their group was proposing. Since the western political classes have conducted a long debate over the past few years on what is best for the future of Iraq without substantially involving any actual Iraqis in those discussions, the rest of this article will simply relate the words of the INFC representatives at the London meeting.

Saad Jawad said that the occupation was effecting the "demolition" of Iraq. He said that before the war, western journalists had asked him why he thought the US wanted to invade. He would offer two reasons: oil and enhancing Israel's security. The journalists would laugh and say that there was a lot more to it than that, for example democracy, human rights and so forth, which gave Saad Jawad his turn to laugh. Now, he feels that the position they took at the time has been demonstrated to be the more accurate.

Saad Jawad said that the US has consistently interfered in the workings of the new government. It stood in the way of that government's formation for three months after the election, and then gave it just three months to draft a permanent constitution under its supervision. In addition, we have heard Hilary Clinton saying that Ibrahim al-Jaafari can not be accepted as Prime Minister and George Bush saying that there will be no Islamic state in Iraq, so one can see clearly that any "democratic" choices that Iraqis make are assessed strictly in terms of what is acceptable to Washington.

Saad Jawad also alleged that oil exports from Iraq are not being recorded, that the counters at oil drilling stations are turned off, and that in effect, the country's natural resources are being plundered.

Sheikh Jawad Al Khalisi began by saying that the western media ought to be covering this independent project for Iraq's future. For him, the phrase "the new Iraq" is a misnomer. Freedom, democracy and human rights do not exist in this "new Iraq". Even Iraq's new government understands that it is the occupier that pulls the strings. The occupation works by division, along sectarian and ethnic lines, for example through the Transitional Administrative Law imposed by the US, or through the effects of US military actions. Since divisions preclude a unified Iraqi response to occupation, one can say that there is essentially no Iraqi state or government in existence. Furthermore, the new constitution does not reflect the interests of Iraqis. It is devised to entrench and exacerbate division, and as such could well pave the way to civil war. The referendum on the constitution is not internationally organised or monitored, and thus is illegitimate. It is also illegitimate because it comes as the result of the illegal and immoral invasion of Iraq.

Iraq is without democracy and human rights. But it is also without even the most fundamental necessities required for a basic standard of life to exist; things Iraqis once took for granted, such as sanitation and security. To overcome the present situation Iraq must return to legality; a legality arising from the will of Iraqis. The UN has recognised this, but the US does not. There are great dangers in continuing with the occupation because of the divisions it imposes on Iraq: dangers to the country, and dangers to the wider region. The INFC's solution is an independent, pan-Iraqi plan for the nation's future, in accordance with international law and under UN auspices.

The Sheikh told the group a story that might offer some hope for the future, as talk of civil war continues to grow. Last week, several hundred Shia pilgrims in Baghdad were killed in a stampede sparked by rumours of a suicide bomber in their midst. The worst of the carnage occurred on a bridge over the river Tigris between Sunni and Shia districts. A railing broke and many people fell into the river and drowned. An Iraqi champion swimmer - a Sunni - was on the scene and managed to save six people who had fallen from the bridge. He then saw a seventh, a Shia woman, but was unable to save her, and they drowned together. This, the Sheikh said, was already becoming a symbol for Iraqis, who want societal divisions to be overcome at this critical and violent time. Many people from Falluja gave blood to help the victims of the stampede, so hope for enduring Iraqi unity can be drawn from this story.

The INFC representatives were asked why the constitution could not be accepted as it is and the principle of legal precedent used to build upon it. Saad Jawad's response was twofold. First, why should we Iraqis, who gave the very concept of written laws to the world, adopt a constitution that was essentially written for us by the US? To impress them? To show that we are civilised? Secondly, is it advisable for us to use legal precedent to build on a foundation, the current draft constitution, that is itself fundamentally flawed? Sheikh Jawad Al Khalisi underlined this point. He said that as he understood it, a precedent is a legal step taken in the absence of a specific law. But the constitution is based upon illegality, and sound legal precedents cannot be made upon such a basis. The UN Secretary General has said that the invasion of Iraq was illegal. The legality of the war has been questioned by a great many international lawyers, many of them British. The constitution is not only based on illegality, but flows from political power, and is designed to serve those ends.

The INFC representatives were asked what steps had been taken to work with the UN. Sheikh Jawad Al Khalisi said that the INFC has been in contact with the United Nations since June 2004, before the so-called "transfer of sovereignty" from the occupiers to the interim Iraqi government. At the time, the INFC put it to the UN that it should be the UN that controls and administers the transitional process. Lakhdar Brahimi, the UN representative in charge of drawing together the interim administration at the time, agreed with the INFC proposals, but he was removed from the scene and the US instead dictated the course of events. Iyad Allawi was imposed as interim Prime Minister by the US, against Brahimi's wishes. Before the January 2005 elections, the INFC told the UN that, in order for it to participate, the elections should be held within the context of an international legal framework and under international observation. Failure to meet these basic conditions made the elections illegitimate, and this applies to the forthcoming constitutional referendum and the subsequent parliamentary elections as well.

Sheikh Jawad Al Khalisi said that the INFC welcomes the support of those in the UK who oppose the war and occupation. He also welcomed the growing anti-war sentiment in the United States, as people there are awaken to the reality of the situation in Iraq. He said that the INFC has handed to the US detailed, formal requests for the withdrawal of its armed forces. Any negotiations or discussion between the US and the INFC must be accompanied by a strict timetable for ending the occupation.

When asked what we in the UK could do to help, Saad Jawad asked that people continue to bring pressure to bear on the UK government, particularly regarding the illegality of the war. A large anti-war demonstration in Central London has been planned for 24 September 2004 and an international peace conference, bringing together US, British and Iraqi groups, will be held at the end of the year. Saad Jawad said that he and the Sheikh would be happy to attend the peace conference, "if we survive".