VOL. XLVI
No 21
The Political Scene (26 May 2003)
The US has received an open-ended mandate from the UN to rule Iraq, while on the ground the Americans have been making it clear that they do not expect any Iraqi contribution to running the country for some time to come. Back home, Senator Robert Byrd has voiced a lone, but eloquent, protest against the course on which the US is now embarked. Following a spate of suicide bombings, Israel Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has postponed a visit to Washington to discuss the “road map” to peace. As al-Qa΄ida strikes again in Morocco, the Americans have accused Iran of abetting the terrorist group.
UN Lifts Sanctions
The bottom line of the resolution (number 1483) lifting sanctions on Iraq, passed on 22 May by the Security Council (by 14 votes to 0, with Syria absent but later approving), at least in an Iraqi perspective, is that it endorses the control of the Authority – ie the US and UK – over Iraq’s political and economic future for a period of potentially indefinite duration. French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin claimed before the vote that the draft “takes into account” the concerns of those countries opposed to the invasion of Iraq, some of which were financial (the repayment of Iraqi debt) and others political (the role of the UN and weapons inspections). And it is true that in regard to the latter, the resolution, “acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the UN,” asks the Secretary General “to appoint a Special Representative for Iraq whose independent responsibilities shall involve reporting regularly to the Council on his” – but not the Authority’s – “activities under this resolution,” which include “working intensively with the Authority, the people of Iraq, and others concerned to advance efforts to restore and establish national and local institutions for representative governance, including by working together to facilitate a process leading to an internationally recognized representative government of Iraq.” It is also true that on weapons inspections, the resolution throws a bone, though not much of one, in the Russians’ direction when it “reaffirms that Iraq must meet its disarmament obligations, encourages the UK and the US to keep the Council informed of their activities in this regard, and underlines the intention of the Council to revisit the mandates” of UNMOVIC (the UN monitoring body) and the IAEA. But when it comes to the essentials – money and power – the language of the resolution, which went through four drafts, may have been softened round the edges, but the content remains the same. The resolution “supports the formation, by the people of Iraq with the help of the Authority and working with the Special Representative, of an Iraqi interim administration as a transitional administration run by Iraqis, until an internationally recognized, representative government is established” – not “elected” – “by the people of Iraq and assumes the responsibilities of the Authority.” It notes the establishment of a Development Fund for Iraq into which “all proceeds” from oil and gas exports will be paid and from which “funds… shall be disbursed at the direction of the Authority, in consultation with the Iraqi interim administration.” As for the duration of the Authority’s mandate, the resolution “decides to review the implementation of this resolution within twelve months of adoption and to consider further steps that might be necessary” – which means, given the Americans’ right of veto, that the default setting for the resolution and the Authority’s very considerable powers is “on.”
US In No Hurry
Under the new resolution, the first step in the political reconstruction of Iraq is the formation “by the people of Iraq with the help of the Authority and working with the Special Representative” of an “interim administration” (so much for the idea of a provisional government). This is a scrupulously vague formula that could mean virttually anything. But both the Americans and the British are making it clear that (a) they are in no hurry to move the political process ahead, (b) that the powers of the interim administration will be distinctly circumscribed and (c) that they have gone right off the idea of using the seven-member leadership council of Kurds and exiles as some sort of interim Iraqi authority. (Parenthetically, this appears to mean that the Pentagon hawks’ favorite candidate for leadership, Ahmad Chalabi of the Iraqi National Congress, is now just one contender among many.) The UK special envoy in Baghdad, John Sawers, said on 20 May that he hoped an interim administration would be formed after a national conference in one to two months, but that its role would be limited to drawing up a new constitution while the US and Britain continued to run the country. Mr Sawers also inadvertently voiced a classic colonialist argument when he said “I haven’t talked to any Iraqi who thinks the job can be done better by some ad hoc committee than by the coalition itself,” adding that “it will only be possible to hand over power to an Iraqi government when it has been genuinely elected by the Iraqi people” and that “my instinct is that it will take more than a year and less than two years.” As for the leadership council, “I have sympathy with those people who say that we shouldn’t just hand over power to self-appointed people who have come back from abroad. We want to… leave time for new political parties to form and for new leaders to emerge.” Mr Sawers views on the national conference were echoed the next day by the real power in Iraq, US administrator Paul Bremer, who said that “I don’t think it’s going to be in June. We are talking now like some time in July.” Mr Bremer also shares Mr Sawer’s opinion of the leadership council, saying that “the group we saw on Friday is not representative of the Iraqi people. We are going to broaden our reach with the partners we are talking to. That’s the process we are in now.” Perhaps unsurprisingly, the members of the council have had little to say about their abrupt demotion by the Americans, but one prominent exile who refused to join the group, former foreign minister Adnan Pachachi, sounded almost fatalistic on 21 May when he said that “cooperation with the US is inevitable. We have to adopt a balanced position that takes into consideration the situation as it is. The days of shouting slogans and trying to outbid each other are over.” Mr Pachachi also pointed out that before the establishment of the internationally recognized government there should be “an interim government or authority” to represent the Iraqi state internationally at organizations such as the UN, the Arab League and OPEC, adding that “it would be extraordinary for the coalition to send a representative to the Arab League.”
A Warning From Senator Byrd
These developments have not gone unnoticed on Capitol Hill, where Senator Robert C Byrd of West Virginia, gave a powerful speech on 21 May attacking the administration for leading the country to war under false pretences and warning of the dangers of the course on which the US has now embarked in the following terms:
“In what may be the most damaging development, the US appears to be pushing off Iraq’s clamor for self-government. Jay Garner has been summarily replaced, and it is becoming all too clear that the smiling face of the US as liberator is quickly assuming the scowl of an occupier. The image of the boot on the throat has replaced the beckoning hand of freedom. Chaos and rioting only exacerbate that image, as US soldiers try to sustain order in a land ravaged by poverty and disease. ‘Regime change’ in Iraq has so far meant anarchy, curbed only by an occupying military force and a US administrative presence that is evasive about if and when it intends to depart.
“Democracy and freedom cannot be force fed at the point of an occupier’s gun. To think otherwise is folly. One has to stop and ponder. How could we have been so impossibly naïve? How could we expect to easily plant a clone of US culture, values and government in a country so riven with religious, territorial and tribal rivalries, so suspicious of US motives and so at odds with the galloping materialism which drives the western-style economies.”
The full text of Senator Byrd’s speech can be found at his web site at:
http://www.senate.gov/~byrd/byrd_speech…_list/byrd_speeches_2003may_list_2.html
Sharon Postpones Washington Visit
The Israelis seized on the five suicide bomb attacks by Islamic Jihad and Hamas which left at least 12 people dead in Israel and the occupied territories between 17 and19 May for two purposes: to avoid discussing the international quartet’s “road map” with the Americans; and to blame Palestinian Authority President Yasir ΄Arafat for the attacks and thus for the failure of the road map, as part of the campaign to marginalize the Palestinian leader into “irrelevance.” As far as concerns the former, it was announced on 19 May that Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, who, unlike the Palestinians, has never accepted the road map, was postponing his scheduled visit to Washington this week. (Mr Sharon met with Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmud ΄Abbas on 17 May, the first such high-level meeting in over two years. According to reports, Mr ΄Abbas repeatedly asked Mr Sharon to give him some room for maneuver by stating his acceptance of the road map, after which the Palestinians would take action against their militants before Israel actually did anything it was supposed to do, such as halting settlement activity. But the most Mr Sharon was prepared to say was that he shared the same goals as the road map – a Palestinian state.) As for Mr ΄Arafat, to hear the Israelis tell it he is a fiend incarnate who is capable of conspiring with Islamic extremists to destroy the peace process so earnestly desired by Mr Sharon while surrounded by Israeli tanks in his compound in Ramallah. For Mr Sharon’s spokesman Raanan Gissin on 18 May, “the problem is not the road map, the problem is the trail of blood… which has been charted very clearly by Yasir ΄Arafat and those who support him.” Government spokesman Avi Pazner painted an even more demonic picture: “What we have here is an obvious joint effort by terrorist organizations and I would say even a fatal alliance between Palestinian terrorist organizations and ΄Arafat, who is doing everything he can to scuttle Abu Mazin and Ariel Sharon’s efforts to rekindle the peace process. It is in Yasir ΄Arafat’s interest to hamper his rival Abu Mazin, to prove he cannot govern, and for that purpose he has formed an alliance with Hamas and Jihad, in an attempt to stop the revival of the peace process with terrorist acts. We have undeniable evidence that Yasir ΄Arafat is trying to block the peace process with his favorite weapon, terrorism. We are now facing a wave of terrorism abetted by ΄Arafat, carried out by Islamic organizations.” Also on 18 May a senior Israeli official told AFP that in a further attempt to isolate Mr ΄Arafat, Israel intends to boycott foreign officials who meet with him, saying “we have cancelled no meeting already planned with a foreign official, but those who want to see ΄Arafat in the future should know that they will not be able to meet Israeli officials.” Whether that will have much of an effect on Mr ΄Arafat’s social schedule remains to be seen. But it can be said with some assurance that if the present Israeli government really believes that Mr ΄Arafat is the source of all its problems with the Palestinians, it is not just barking up the wrong tree but at the wrong forest altogether.
US Accuses Iran Of Harboring al-Qa΄ida
Coming on the heels of last week’s suicide bombings in Riyadh, the five suicide attacks in Casablanca on 16 May which left 24 dead (including 10 suicide bombers) and scores of wounded suggested that al-Qa΄ida has decided to shift its baleful attention to the Arab world (and not even necessarily to American targets in the region, since although the targets in Morocco were hotels and restaurants frequented by foreigners, most of the victims were Moroccans.) This could be an indication that stepped-up security is making it harder to attack targets in the US, which would be good news for the Americans if not for the Arabs. (On the other hand, once aware of the threat, Arab governments can react a good deal more vigorously than the Americans can, at least domestically.) Whatever the case, the latest al-Qa΄ida offensive has already had one unexpected side effect in the form of a revival of US claims that Iran is sheltering al-Qa΄ida members who may have been involved in the Riyadh attacks. According to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on 20 May, “there’s no question but that there are al-Qa΄ida in Iran. There’s also a good deal of speculation about their role in what took place in Saudi Arabia.” This might be dismissed as standard Pentagon hawk hyperbole, particularly since in the wake of the weapons of mass destruction debacle in Iraq – not to mention the failure to unearth any evidence at all of a link between Saddam Husain’s regime and al-Qa΄ida - the Americans’ credibility is not exactly at an all-time high. But the charge of collaborating with al-Qa΄ida was repeated the next day by State Department spokesman Richard Boucher, who said that “we have made clear to Iran as recently as this week that we believe that al-Qa΄ida operatives are present in Iran and that Iran needs to meet its responsibilities…the presence of al-Qa΄ida operatives working from Iran is a matter of very serious concern to us. Whether they’re there with permission, not with permission or what, it’s the responsibility of the government to prevent those kind of people from coming to their country.” In response to these accusations, Iranian government spokesman Abdollah Ramazanzadeh said on 21 May that Iran had expelled some 500 suspected members of al-Qa΄ida in the past year and that “the only al-Qa΄ida members that we know of are the ones that have been expelled. If any exist in Iran, they have entered illegally and we have no information about them,” adding that “any Iranian citizen or foreign security organization which has information about the presence of people suspected of having links to al-Qa΄ida in Iran should provide us with that information and we will take action to expel them.” Mr Ramazanzadeh sounds sincere enough, but then so does Mr Boucher (who is not generally listed as being among the administration’s hawks). Perhaps the explanation is that since Iran has two parallel systems of government, the reformist left hand may not know what the conservative right hand has been doing.
Charles Snow