VOL. XLVI
No 47
24
The Political Scene (24 November 2003)
The Coalition Provisional Authority and the Iraqi Governing Council have agreed on a timetable for the transfer of sovereignty to a provisional Iraqi government by next June and to a permanent government by the end of 2005. Coalition forces are to be invited to stay on by the new government. Israel is none too enthusiastic about efforts to revive the international quartet’s road map to peace.
Back To Plan A In Iraq
When the Americans took over Iraq at the end of April, their plan – insofar as they had one – appeared to be to install a provisional government to run things under the watchful eye of the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA). However, with the replacement of Gen Jay Garner as American administrator by Paul Bremer barely a week after the end of hostilities, the idea of a provisional government was shelved in favor of an “interim administration” in the form of the CPA-appointed Iraqi Governing Council (IGC), while any transfer of sovereignty back to the Iraqis was postponed until after a constitution had been written and approved and elections had been held. Now, under the pressure of escalating attacks on coalition forces and next year’s US presidential election, it is back to plan A under an agreement reached by the CPA and the IGC on 15 November, shortly after Mr Bremer returned from consultations in Washington. Under this agreement, according to the current chairman of the IGC, Jalal Talabani, the IGC is to draft a law “for the administration of the state for the transitional period” by the end of February 2004. This law is to include “procedures for the election of a transitional assembly by the end of May 2004” as well as “a timetable for the drafting of a permanent constitution by a council directly elected by the Iraqi people and the election of a new government according to the provisions of the new constitution before the end of 2005.” In the interim “the transitional assembly shall elect the provisional Iraqi government before the end of June 2004,” when the IGC and CPA will be dissolved and “the new transitional administration will be recognized by the coalition and will assume full sovereign powers for governing Iraq.” The transitional assembly and provisional government “shall continue to work until the ratification of a permanent constitution and the transfer of powers to an elected government in accordance with the constitution.”
Iraq Occupation To Become Presence
So if all goes according to plan, Iraq is to have an interim constitution by the end of February, a transitional assembly by the end of May, a provisional government by the end of June and a permanent constitution and government by the end of 2005. This scenario is nothing if not ambitious, given that on its own the IGC appears to have made no progress at all towards meeting the 15 December deadline set by the UN in mid-October for drawing up a timetable for a new constitution and elections. But, as Mr Bremer made clear on 16 November, there will be considerable American input, particularly as far as the interim and final constitutions are concerned. “We will write into that constitution exactly the kinds of guarantees that were not in Saddam’s constitution,” he said. “We’ll have a bill of rights. We’ll recognize equality for all citizens. We’ll recognize an independent judiciary. We’ll talk about a federal government. All of these things will be in the interim constitution, which will provide, in a limited time, probably two years, for a permanent constitution to be written that also embodies those American values.”
The Iraqis night well point out that it is surely up to them to decide what values to enshrine in their constitution, and that Mr Bremer’s blithe assumption that these will be American is curiously colonial for the twenty first century. They might also point out that since the Iraqi army has been disbanded and the security forces are currently being trained, the provisional government will have to rely on the coalition forces for its muscle, and that unless the coalition puts its forces under the command of the Iraqis, which seems unlikely, the relationship between the two sides will be subject to what might charitably be described as misinterpretation. Mr Bremer made a fine distinction when he said on 16 November that the Iraqis “want the American occupation to end but the American presence to continue…so our presence here will change from an occupation to an invited presence.” And a “top coalition official” who sounded remarkably like Mr Bremer explained on the same day that “when we hand over sovereignty, we hand over sovereignty; sovereignty means all decision making, and therefore coalition forces, if they stay, as we expect them to stay, will stay at the invitation, with the agreement, of a sovereign government which takes over on the first of July.” That is all well and good, but it begs the question of what might happen should the sovereign government ask the coalition to leave. However a closer reading of the 15 November agreement suggests that the Americans are not above trying to load the dice in their favor in this regard, since it provides that between now and the end of March the two sides – i.e. the IGC and CPA, since the provisional sovereign government will not be in place until the end of June – will reach “security agreements to cover the status of coalition forces in Iraq, giving wide latitude to provide for the safety and security of the Iraqi people.”
Efforts To Revive Road Map
Following last week’s formation of a Palestinian government, efforts have been under way to breathe some sort of life into the only peace plan on the table, the international quartet’s road map. On the Palestinian side, Prime Minister Ahmad Qurai' has persuaded the main Palestinian groups – Fatah, Islamic Jihad and Hamas – to meet in Cairo early in December to discuss a truce with Israel. Internationally, the EU on 18 November called on Israel to “stop and reverse the construction of the so-called security fence inside the occupied Palestinian territories” and said that the continued building and expansion of Israeli settlements “inflames an already volatile situation.” The next day the Security Council unanimously passed a resolution which “calls on the parties to fulfill their obligations under the road map in cooperation with the quartet and to achieve the vision of two states,” while President Bush, in London, called on Israel “to freeze settlement construction, dismantle unauthorized outposts, end the daily humiliation of the Palestinian people and not prejudice final negotiations with the placement of walls and fences.” And Israel helped things along by declaring that it would continue to build the fence and settlements and would ignore the UN resolution. According to the Israeli vice premier, Trade Minister Ehud Olmert, on 20 November, “Israel will always have the right to take unilateral steps for separation from the Palestinians through a fence or other means.” Meanwhile a “senior Israeli official” was quoted on 17 November as explaining that “dismantling a settlement at this stage without first ensuring that calm is restored with the Palestinians would be seen as a reward for terrorism.” (In the circumstances, the official’s assertion that settlement outposts in the occupied territories “will be dismantled at the opportune time if it is confirmed that they have effectively been built without permission” was less than totally convincing.) As for the UN resolution and the road map, Mr Olmert declared on 20 November that “it is possible that we will hold talks with the new Palestinian government on the basis of the road map but…Israel does not feel that it is bound by the resolution.”
Charles Snow