VOL. XLVI
No 42
The Political Scene (20 October 2003)
Against the odds, the Americans have won unanimous Security Council approval of a new resolution on Iraq which makes only minor concessions to their critics, principally France, Russia and Germany. However, this does not mean that the US is out of the woods yet as far as concerns practical assistance in the form of men and money. Relations between the US and Syria have cooled even further. Saudi Arabia is to hold municipal elections, sort of. And a widely-publicized “peace agreement” negotiated by Israeli and Palestinian doves in Geneva does not appear to pose a serious threat to the current mayhem in the occupied territories.
US Wins Unanimous Security Council Support
In what was widely seen as a diplomatic victory for the US, the UN Security Council on 16 October unanimously approved a new resolution on Iraq which sets a 15 December deadline for Iraq’s Governing Council (GC) to draw up a timetable for a new constitution and democratic elections, but otherwise makes only minor concessions to Washington’s critics on two key points, the timing of the restoration of Iraqi sovereignty and the role of the UN. As far as concerns the transfer of power, the gist of the resolution – the full text of which is to be found on page D6 – can be summarized as follows. Acting under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, it:
“Determines that
the Governing Council and its ministers are the principal bodies of the Iraqi
interim administration, which, without prejudice to its further evolution,
embodies the sovereignty of the State of Iraq during the transitional period
until an internationally recognized, representative government is established
and assumes the responsibilities of the Authority.”
“Calls upon the
Authority…to return governing responsibilities and authorities to the people
of Iraq as soon as practicable and requests the Authority, in cooperation as
appropriate with the GC and the Secretary General, to report to the Council on
the progress being made.”
“Invites the GC to provide to the Security Council, for its review, no later than 15 December 2003, in cooperation with the Authority and, as circumstances permit, the Special Representative of the Secretary General, a timetable and a program for the drafting of a new constitution for Iraq and for the holding of democratic elections under that constitution.”
As for the UN’s role, the resolution:
“Resolves that the
UN…should strengthen its vital role in Iraq, including by providing
humanitarian relief, promoting the economic reconstruction of and conditions
for sustainable development in Iraq, and advancing efforts to restore and
establish national and local institutions for representative government.”
“Takes note of the
intention of the GC to hold a constitutional conference and…calls for its
preparation through national dialogue and consensus-building as soon as
practicable and requests the Special representative of the Secretary
General…to lend the unique expertise of the UN to the Iraqi people in this
process of political transition.”
“Requests the Secretary General to ensure that the resources of the UN and associated organizations are available…to assist in the furtherance” of the program submitted by the GC by 15 December.
Finally, and to get to the point, the resolution “determines that the provision of security and stability is essential to the successful completion of the political process” and “authorizes a multinational force under unified command to take all necessary measures to contribute to the maintenance of security and stability in Iraq.”
Votes Yes, Men And Money No
So after almost abandoning their quest for a new resolution, the Americans now have credible UN cover for a US-commanded multinational force in Iraq without conceding either a specific timetable for the transfer of power or a predominant role for the UN. It was little wonder that Secretary of State Colin Powell said he was “very, very pleased…with this outcome,” while President George Bush thanked the Security Council “for unanimously passing a resolution supporting our efforts to build a peaceful and free Iraq,” adding that “a democratic Iraq will stand as an example to all the Middle East…We want the process to go as quickly as possible, yet it must be done right. The free institutions of Iraq must stand the test of time. We are following an orderly plan to reach this goal.” Yet although the vote may have been a diplomatic coup for the US, it was far from clear whether it will translate into practical support at ground level or that, as US UN ambassador John Negroponte put it, “the fact that this was a unanimous decision by the council is bound to have an important impact upon various countries” which might be considering participating in the proposed multinational force. UN Secretary- General Kofi Annan was probably closer to the mark when he said that “the outcome is a clear demonstration of the will of all the members of the Security Council to place the interests of the Iraqi people above all other considerations,” and France, Germany and Russia may have put the restoration of at least nominal international solidarity ahead of their reservations about the resolution but they were less than entirely happy with it, as they made abundantly clear both before and after the vote. Before the vote, German Chancellor Gerhard Shroeder described the draft resolution as “really an important step in the right direction,” but added that “in our view this progress does not yet constitute the reaction appropriate to the current situation in Iraq” and that “due to this we are not able to commit ourselves militarily or to make other material commitments beyond what has already been announced.” Likewise, French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin said before the vote that “we would have preferred that the text set out more stringent timeframes on the transfer of responsibilities and the transition of power” and indicated that France does not intend to make any financial contribution to Iraq’s reconstruction beyond its share of the €200mn promised collectively by the EU, saying that “we are taking part in the commission contribution, we support it, but we will not go beyond that.” And after the Security Council adopted the resolution, Russia, France and Germany issued a joint statement saying that they had backed the resolution “in a spirit of unity” but that they would not contribute troops or money because of their reservations about its contents, adding that “we believe this resolution should have gone further on two major issues – first, the role of the UN, in particular in the political process, and second, the pace of the transfer of responsibilities to the Iraqi people.”
House Passes Syria Act
Just when it seemed relations between Syria and the US had hit rock bottom, there came the news that the Americans were blaming the Syrians for an incident on 14 October in which a US helicopter was downed in Iraq (without loss of life) near the Syrian frontier. According to a coalition spokesman the next day, “soldiers engaged a small number of people who infiltrated from the border. Some were killed, others detained.” The Syrians denied these allegations vigorously, with a spokesman describing the claim as “completely fabricated,” but that was not likely to cut much ice in Washington, where the House of Representatives on 15 October passed the anti-Syrian Syria Accountability and Lebanese Sovereignty Act by the astonishing margin of 398-4 and where congressman vied with each other to denounce the Syrians in the most apocalyptic (not to say ridiculous) terms. For House majority leader Tom Delay, “Syria is a government at war with the values of the civilized world and a violent threat to free nations and free men everywhere.” (In point of fact, Syria in its present dilapidated state could scarcely threaten its way out of a brown paper bag. But reality has never been a major factor in congressional foreign policy debates, particularly about the Middle East.) And according to representative Robert Wexler of Florida, “Syria is an epicenter of terror that endangers the security of America and Iraq and the stability of the Middle East.”
Elections In Saudi Arabia?
The basis for the announcement on 13 October that Saudi Arabia is to hold partial municipal elections within a year – the first elections of any kind in the kingdom – is a 1975 statute on municipal elections that has never been implemented or revoked, so the Saudis could hardly be accused of rushing at a breakneck pace into the democratic unknown. Indeed, they might not be accused of rushing anywhere, since the announcement made it clear that only half the members of the new councils would be elected: “The Saudi cabinet decided at its session today to broaden citizen’s participation in running local affairs through elections. This will be done by activating municipal councils…electing half the members of each council.” Nonetheless, what might seem glacially slow and inadequate to outsiders is by Saudi standards timely and prudent, even though slower than the pace of reform elsewhere in the Gulf (like Bahrain). The Saudi decision is no doubt to some extent a response to American pressure since 9/11 to lighten up domestically. It may also be a concession to domestic pressure for reform – last month a petition to Crown Prince 'Abd Allah signed by 305 intellectuals, academics and businessmen stressed that “it is necessary to begin a process of radical and overall reforms.” But to be fair to the authorities, it might also be seen as a further step in the process that began in March 1992 when King Fahd ibn ΄Abd al-΄Aziz announced the creation of the Saudi version of a parliament (an appointed consultative council) and the promulgation of something akin to a constitution, a “basic system of government”.
Palestinian And Israeli Doves Reach Agreement
The compromise at the heart of the peace agreement completed by Israeli and Palestinian doves – after two and a half years of clandestine negotiations under the auspices of the Swiss government – on 12 October in Geneva is that the Palestinians concede their right of return to what is now Israel in exchange for sovereignty over east Jerusalem and the Temple Mount/Haram al-Sharif. Former Palestinian information minister Yasir ΄Abd Rabbu, who helped negotiate the deal, claimed that the Palestinian Authority was aware of the details of the agreement and “supports our initiative,” which was probably true but also irrelevant, since the Israelis, who included former Labour leader Amram Mitzna and various left-wing politicians, were negotiating on behalf only of themselves, as government officials quickly made clear. Education Minister Limor Livnat dismissed the Israeli participants as “playthings” of Palestinian leader Yasir ΄Arafat, while Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom said that “there is a government in Israel that deals with such matters. Everything else is virtual. I wouldn’t have expected much else from those brought us the Oslo Accords, for which foolishness we are still paying the price today.” And Prime Minister Ariel Sharon himself declared that “this agreement promises only false hope. By what right are left-wing people proposing moves that Israel can never do, nor will ever do?” So until such time as Labour is able to form an Israeli government that is exclusively from the center and left – ie for the foreseeable future – the Geneva agreement will remain an expression of good intentions rather than the basis for a settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Charles Snow