Later the Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud Al-Faisal reportedly elaborated the proposal. To a group of reporters, he said that the dispatching of " Muslim troops to Iraq needs a number of requirements to be met, (including) that these troops would be replacing the coalition forces currently there, not supplementing them". And he further stated that: " The request should come from the Iraqi government and should have a full and apparent backing of all parts of the Iraqi people… These troops should work under the auspices of the UN".

The proposal from Saudi Arabia, a hugging neighbour of Iraq, appears to have originated from best of its intentions. Whatever destablising incidents have been occurring in Iraq has a direct or indirect impact on Saudi Arabia and the region. However, the proposal does not seem to have been discussed with the Chairperson of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (Malaysia) or raised at the recent meeting of Foreign Ministers of the organisation in Turkey where the Secretary General of the OIC was appointed.

The Saudi proposal has, among others, the following salient features:

* Muslim troops would replace US-led forces

* Muslim troops would work under the UN auspices

* Iraqi interim government would request for Muslim troops

* Iraqi people from all parts should back the Iraqi government's request

Before we examine briefly these points, it is appropriate to recognise the UN role in Iraq under the Security Council resolution 1546 of 8 June, 2004.

Let us make one fact crystal clear at the outset. Although the UN resolution 1546 provides some kind of legitimacy to the interim government, it did not create a UN peace-making force in Iraq. The UN, in terms of the resolution, has been given a very limited role in the political process, leaving security to US-led forces, now euphemistically called "multi-national force".

In terms of the resolution, the UN has three-fold specific tasks, i.e. (a) to assist the interim government in convening during the month of July a national conference to select a Consultative Council that will advise the interim Iraqi government, (b) to advise and support the Iraqi authorities on the process for holding elections and (c) to promote dialogue and consensus building on the drafting of a permanent Constitution in Iraq.

The fact that the UN is not in charge of the security in Iraq is evident by the fact that the multinational forces, led by the US, do not wear UN "blue helmets". Furthermore, according to the UN resolution, " the US, on behalf of the multinational force, should report to the Security Council on the progress within three months of the date of the resolution on a quarterly basis thereafter". This clearly points out the responsibility of the US to the UN in matters of security in Iraq.

The above paragraphs show that the resolution has not given the UN a mandate to look after the security, although the Bush administration wants to give the impression that troops of other countries, if sent to Iraq, will work under the UN mandate. This interpretation seems to be misplaced. If troops are sent to Iraq, they will work under the supreme command of the US and not of the UN.

The most important question is : whether the US-backed interim government in Iraq and the US will agree to the Saudi proposal that Muslim troops will replace the US-led forces in Iraq.

Many political analysts believe that they will not agree. There are primarily for two reasons: (a) the very survival of the US-picked interim Iraqi government depends on the presence of the US-led forces and (b) during the year of US Presidential election, the Bush administration will not agree to withdraw its forces from Iraq that may symbolize the weakness and failure of the present US administration.

If Muslim troops work under the auspices of the UN, the Security Council will need to adopt another resolution in which the UN is entrusted with security in Iraq. The new UN mandate will depend on the course of the action favoured by the Bush administration.

Another question is whether the UN is ready to carry out this mandate. The UN has been unfortunately associated with the US in Iraq because of the UN sanctions, pursued vigorously by the US for more than 12 years. Regrettably, the UN is not perceived as a neutral body in the eyes of most people in Iraq because most Iraqis suffered during the days of crippling sanctions where thousands of children died because of lack of medicines and equipment. Therefore many believe the attack on the UN building in Iraq last August, killing many UN officials, was due to the misperception of the role of the UN in the country. It is doubtful whether the UN, under the prevailing chaotic situation, can look after effectively the security in Iraq.

The Saudi proposal also makes it clear that it is not only the Iraqi interim government that requests for Muslim troops but also that request must have the backing from "all parts of the Iraqi people". This means that Shi'ias, Sunnis and Kurds must agree that Muslim troops will replace the US-led forces. There is serious doubt whether Iraqi Kurds in the north will agree to this proposal because their semi-independent status is being protected by the US-led troops. Once the US-led troops are withdrawn, they fear that Baghdad rule will prevail over them.

It appears that unless the US agrees to the conditions of the Saudi proposal, there is no likelihood of Muslim troops in Iraq. Furthermore, Iraq does not accept any troops from its immediate neighbours. This implies that troops from Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Syria and Iran are ruled out. This leaves other Muslim countries to provide troops.

Given the scale of violence in Iraq, it is doubtful if any Muslim country is prepared to dispatch its troops to Iraq. Moreover, overwhelming majority of population in Muslim countries including non-Arab countries , such as, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan and Iran, are opposed to Iraqi war because it was launched without UN approval. Given the illegitimacy of the war in Iraq, it is difficult to legitimise it through the back door.

In all probability, the proposal may not see light of the day for the reasons stated above. However, the Saudi proposal has given a new window of opportunity for the US to withdraw its forces from Iraq. It is doubtful whether the US will acknowledge the reality that the presence of its troops in Iraq is an incitement to violence in the country.

Barrister Harun ur Rashid is a former Bangladesh Ambassador to the UN, Geneva.