VOL. XLVII
No 11
The Political Scene (15 March 2004)
Iraq’s interim constitution has been signed, but with reluctance on the part of the leaders of the country’s Shi’a majority. France, Germany and Britain have come up with their own versions of the Americans’ Greater Middle East (GME) initiative for regional reform, while even Washington’s friends in the Arab world are unenthusiastic about the whole idea. Senator John Kerry has had to rethink some relatively complimentary remarks about Palestinian leader Yasir 'Arafat.
Shi'a Reservations About Interim Constitution
The Iraqi Governing Council (IGC) finally signed the country’s interim/temporary constitution some days late on 8 March, but no sooner had it done so than Shi'a political and religious leaders made it clear they had only signed with grave reservations. As 'Abd al-'Aziz al-Hakim, the head of the largest Shi'a party, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), put it, “we had to choose between stopping the political process or continuing it and trying to correct it later.” (Another SCIRI official Hamid al-Bayati, confirmed that the Shi'a intend to try to remedy what they see as the defects in the interim constitution when he said on 8 March that “we are committed to what we signed, but if we have the chance to alter it in the future, we will do our best.”) However it was the Shi'a spiritual leader, Ayatollah 'Ali al-Sistani who dealt the agreement the heaviest blow when he said on 8 March that “it sets obstacles in the way of reaching a permanent constitution for the country that preserves its unity and the rights of different religious groups,” adding that “any law drafted for the transitional period will lack legitimacy unless it is ratified by an elected national assembly.” The next day another Shi'a cleric, Ayatollah 'Ali Bashir al-Najafi said in Najaf after meeting with Ayatollah Sistani that the ayatollah has “reservations about the place of Islam in the temporary constitution as well as the role of federalism” – presumably a reference to the description of Islam as “a” source of legislation and to a potential Kurdish and Sunni veto on the permanent constitution. However, it appears that the Shi'a are prepared for now to go along with the temporary constitution, though they sound as if they intend to take a much stronger stand when it comes to the permanent constitution (which is to be drafted by 15 August 2005).
Iraq’s neighbors are taking an understandable interest in developments in Baghdad, and the Saudis welcomed the new constitution with a statement saying “the council of ministers expresses its satisfaction with the agreement on Iraq’s interim constitution and its signature.” In Tehran Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi said on 8 March that “the signing of the Iraqi interim constitution is an effective step in the transfer of power to the Iraqi people, and Iran welcomes this favorably,” adding that “Iran believes that the rapid organization of elections, the departure of foreign occupation forces and the return of power to Iraqis to run their own affairs will ensure security, well being and development.” The Turks, however, were not so happy, with Justice Minister Cemil Vicek saying on 8 March that “the interim law does not satisfy us, it increases our concerns. We see it as an arrangement that will not help the establishment of permanent peace in Iraq and one that will allow for the continuation for a long time of unrest and instability there.”
The Europeans And The GME Initiative
France and Germany have replied to American plans for a political, social and economic makeover of the entire region – the Greater Middle East (GME) initiative outlined in a working paper for the G8 meeting next June (MEES, 23 February) – with a “non-paper” of their own dated 27 February and entitled “A strategic partnership for a common future with the Middle East.” In general this goes some way towards remedying what the Arabs (and probably most Europeans as well) regard as the two major flaws in the American approach: a somewhat cavalier attitude towards the sentiments of the peoples and countries actually involved; and the omission of any reference at all to the Arab-Israeli conflict. As far as concerns the former, the first two “principles for action” in the Franco-German paper are that “the impetus must come from the region” and that “the national feelings and identity of each country should be taken into account.” As for the latter, the non-paper has this to say: “The European security strategy underlines that ‘the resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict is a strategic priority for Europe. Without such a settlement, there is little chance of resolving the Middle East’s other problems.’ That is why it is essential to relaunch the Middle East peace process in parallel in order to reach the long-awaited settlement on all tracks. It is equally essential to restore a responsible and sovereign government in Iraq. Neither of these two questions should be allowed to prevent the development of a long-term partnership, but we cannot count on a total success as long as the Middle East peace process remains bogged down.”
The British also think the Arab-Israeli conflict will have to be addressed if there is to be change in the region, although they still apparently believe the international “road map” is the way to do it. Foreign Secretary Jack Straw told a meeting in London on 1 March that “we cannot let the violence in Israel and Palestine be a block on the process of change which the region needs. But equally, we have to recognize, quite aside from its terrible human cost, that the continuing conflict makes change only more difficult than it already is, and clouds the whole relationship between the Islamic world and the west. As long as the current stalemate continues, the situation in Palestine will be cited by many to argue that a region still in conflict needs stability, not reform. Getting Israelis and Palestinians to reengage on the road map is vital, not just for their own sake, but for the process of change in the region.”
Arabs Unenthusiastic
French President Jacques Chirac cannot have done much to endear himself to the Americans when he said on 5 March apropos of the GME initiative that “we support modernization which comes as a result of consultations, cooperation between states. On the other hand, we think that nothing can be imposed. In other words, modernization yes, interference no.” Nor have American plans to reshape the Middle East have not gone down very well with America’s Arab allies, let alone its regional adversaries. Saudi Crown Prince 'Abd Allah and Egyptian President Husni Mubarak warned in a joint statement on 24 February that “Arab states do not accept that a particular pattern of reform be imposed on Arab and Islamic countries from outside,” and Mr Mubarak told the Paris daily Le Figaro on 8 March that “all reform in the countries of the Middle East will not be able to succeed as long as this conflict is not resolved,” adding that “an initiative imposed from abroad would be rejected by the peoples concerned and would lead to anarchy in the whole region, from Morocco to Pakistan. That would play into the hands of terrorism… If the extremists win you can forget democracy.” Even so staunch an ally of the US as Kuwait was curtly dismissive of the GME initiative, with the Prime Minister, Shaikh Sabah al-Ahmad al-Sabah, saying in remarks published on 10 March that “Kuwait has not received anything and does not want to receive anything.”
Kerry Declares 'Arafat Irrelevant
As American presidential hopefuls embark on their quadrennial quest for the Jewish vote, the leading Democratic contender, Sen John Kerry, who made the mistake of referring to Yasir 'Arafat’s “transformation from outlaw to statesman” in a 1997 book, has been forced to rethink his position on the Palestinian leader. In an interview with AP on 10 March, Mr Kerry explained that whereas Mr 'Arafat had been a statesman in 1995, “he missed a historic opportunity and he’s proved himself to be irrelevant… as far as I am concerned, he’s an outlaw to the peace process,” adding that “obviously, Yasir 'Arafat has been an impediment to the peace process.” “Irrelevant” is, of course, the label Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has been trying (with somewhat mixed success) to attach to Mr 'Arafat since December of 2001, and its choice by Mr Kerry is unlikely to be coincidental. So it would seem that in order to court the Jewish vote in the US, it is now necessary for American presidential candidates to align themselves not just with Israel but with the Israeli right wing.
Charles Snow