From Morning Star

WHEN the US occupation forces attempted to close Iraq down for a number of days to allow the January 30 elections to take place, George W Bush and Tony Blair saluted those Iraqis who voted.

Mr Blair pronounced himself 'humbled,' which must be a first, by the bravery and commitment to democracy of the voters. After the count, it is evident that the occupiers will either have to tell the electorate that their ballots mean nothing or they will have to start packing their bags.

The United Iraqi Alliance, which was set up by leading Shi'ite cleric Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani and won 48 per cent of the vote, made 'a timetable for the withdrawal of the multinational forces from Iraq' one of its major manifesto commitments.

But, according to Mr Bush – and, hence, Mr Blair too – 'You don't set timetables.'

Simple people may draw the conclusion that, as far as the White House is concerned, Iraqi voters may plump for whatever they want, but the occupiers will have the final say.

However, Mr Bush may not have matters all his own way in his novel approach to democracy.

Although he and his Downing Street echo have increasingly lauded the polling as a sign that normalisation and democratisation are on track, it should not be forgotten that the occupiers initially barred the way to a national election.

Support for early elections cost the first post-war US administrator Jay Garner his job, while his replacement Paul Bremer envisaged holding on to his proconsul role for up to a decade while Iraq was remade in the US image.

What changed matters was the reaction of the Iraqi people.

Apart from the fierce resistance in the Sunni triangle, the Mehdi Army militia of Muqtada al-Sadr engaged US forces in southern Iraq last April-May before agreeing a Sistani-mediated ceasefire, which had early elections at its heart.

Support for the vote was intended to secure a key role for Shi'ite leaders in drawing up constitutional arrangements while reaffirming opposition to long-term occupation by the US and its allies.

While the US, in time-honoured fashion, will seek to subvert the choices of those who voted by attempting backstage manoeuvres to fashion an administration that acts in line with Washington's wishes, this will be far from easy.

Direct rejection of United Iraqi Alliance views on setting a timetable to end the occupation risks provoking a sharp escalation of resistance on an Iraq-wide basis.

In those circumstances, Messrs Bush and Blair would portray a speedy withdrawal of coalition troops as a surrender to terrorism and a betrayal of the fledgling Iraqi democracy. They would try to blackmail people in Britain and the US into extending and intensifying the occupation.

No-one should be duped into believing that there is any progressive role in Iraq for the occupation troops.

Last September's unanimous TUC vote in favour of the 'speedy withdrawal' of the coalition forces and the dismantling of foreign military bases to allow the Iraqi people to decide their own future is still the correct approach for Britain's labour movement.