VOL. XLVI
No 49
The Political Scene (8 December 2003)
American plans to accelerate the transfer of sovereignty to Iraqis remain in doubt after the intervention of Ayatollah Sistani. American interest in the peace agreement reached in Geneva by Israeli and Palestinian doves has not gone down well with the Israeli government, which has also spurned an offer from Syria to resume peace negotiations.
More Confusion In Baghdad
It would probably be an understatement to say that, following last week’s intervention by Ayatollah 'Ali Sistani, the status of the agreement between the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) and the Iraqi Governing Council (IGC) on the accelerated formation of a provisional government by the end of June next year is unclear. The CPA, probably wisely, has kept an extremely low profile, presumably in order to avoid the appearance of dictating terms to the IGC. But the position of the IGC itself on Ayatollah Sistani’s demand for the direct election of the provisional government – rather than its selection by a complicated series of “caucuses” involving bodies largely appointed by the CPA – is confused and contradictory. At a meeting on 30 November, the IGC agreed unanimously that full national elections would be the best way to choose the provisional government. However, individual members of the body, such as Hamid Majid Musa of the Iraqi Communist Party, questioned whether it would be feasible to hold such elections. “There is no-one on the IGC who would refuse to hold elections,” he said. “It’s the perfect way for a democracy. But is it possible to do?” A second IGC meeting on 3 December similarly failed to reach a clear-cut conclusion. According to the current IGC President, 'Abd al-'Aziz Hakim of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), “we did not reach clear results…the door is still open and the discussions are ongoing.”
One issue on which the IGC members did manage to agree – unsurprisingly – is that the council should not be dissolved once the provisional government is in place by July next year, as specified in the agreement, but should stay on in some sort of supervisory capacity. The rationale – or at least the reasoning – behind this decision was explained by Mr Musa, who said on 30 December that “the IGC is playing a big role in the political process right now. As you look at this whole process, there will be a political gap next summer. Who will have the authority? In other countries they have a president or a queen or a king. So we have to be the ones here to monitor the situation and supervise implementation of the agreement.”
Geneva Virtual Agreement Launched
It is difficult to know what to make of the virtual peace agreement reached in October by Israel and Palestinian doves headed by former ministers Yossi Beilin and Yasir 'Abd Rabbu, which was launched with maximum publicity in Geneva on 1 December. On the one hand, by its very nature it has no legal status or validity. On the other, it has received widespread international support from the great and the good (headed by ex-president Jimmy Carter), and has not been altogether disowned by the Americans. However, at the popular level, the agreement has been denounced by both the parties directly concerned (as when 250 right-wing Israeli rabbis issued a fatwa on 1 December declaring it to be an “act of treason” whose authors should be “brought to justice and declared outside the brotherhood of humanity”). At the official level, the Palestinians are behind the idea in principle, while the Israelis are dead set against it, particularly after US Secretary of State Colin Powell let it be known that he intended to meet with Mr Beilin and Mr 'Abd Rabbu on 5 December, prompting Israeli deputy Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to say on 2 December that “I think he is making a mistake. I think he is not helping the process. I think this is a wrong step by a representative of the American administration.” In reply, Mr Powell indicated that it was not up to the Israelis to decide who he should talk to (at least not yet), saying that “I do not know why I or anyone else in the US government should deny ourselves the opportunity to hear from others who are committed to peace and who have ideas.” That in turn prompted an adviser to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, Dore Gold, to accuse the Americans on 4 December of interfering in Israel’s domestic politics, saying that “it is clear that only the democratically elected government of Israel has the authority to dispatch negotiators to sit with Palestinians and reach agreements. It is our hope that friendly countries around the world respect the democratic choices of the people of Israel and don’t get drawn into our domestic politics.” As for the question of how Mr Powell’s interest in the Geneva initiative squares with Washington’s sponsorship of the international quartet’s “road map” to peace, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher explained on 1 December that the two plans were not in fact incompatible, since “we think the road map is the way to make progress. Down the road of the road map…we get to the point where these big issues have to be discussed. We think it’s worthwhile that people are already considering them, discussing them and debating them in Israeli and Palestinian society.” And Mr Powell himself confirmed on 2 December that “the road map is definitely not dead. That is the only real plan that is out there that has been adopted by the parties. The Geneva document is interesting but does not reflect agreement by the parties.”
A Syrian Olive Branch Spurned
Syrian President Bashar al-Asad appeared to hold out an olive branch of sorts when, in an interview published by the New York Times on 1 December, he urged the US to use its influence to revive peace negotiations with Israel, saying that an agreement to return the Golan Heights to Syria in exchange for security guarantees for Israel had been 80% complete before he became president. However, Israeli Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom made it very clear the next day that Israel’s present government is not particularly interested. Mr Asad’s remarks, he said, are “very encouraging, but talk is not enough. We are looking forward to seeing that the Syrians are taking an active role to move towards peace by putting an end to the terrorism and violence that is coming from its territory. If they will do so, if they will shut down the training camps of the extremists, if they stop the shipments that are coming to the Hizbollah through the airport if Damascus, if they are willing to resume negotiations with Israel without preconditions, of course we will consider it very seriously.” Preconditions, it would seem, are to be the prerogative of the Israelis alone.
Charles Snow