VOL. XLVII
No 13
29
The Political Scene (29 March 2004)
The assassination by Israel of the Hamas leader, Shaikh Ahmad Yasin, has been condemned everywhere except in the US. In Iraq, Ayatollah Sistani is threatening to boycott the UN if it endorses the country’s interim constitution. Visits to Tripoli by US envoy William Burns and British Prime Minister Tony Blair have underlined Libya’s newfound international respectability.
Israel Assassinates Yasin
If assassinating Palestinians could solve Israel’s security problems, Israel would already be a secure country. Accordingly, although Israeli officials depicted the 22 March assassination of the Hamas leader, Shaikh Ahmad Yasin, as “a significant blow” in the war on terror, the real reason for the timing of the attack probably lies elsewhere. Coincidentally or not, it came as envoys from the four sponsors of the “road map” (the US, UN, EU and Russia) opened talks on reviving the peace process in Cairo, leading Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmad Mahir to describe the assassination as an “attempt to bury alive any real effort to achieve peace and create a Palestinian state.” And it is certainly true that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon would like to replace the road map, which envisages a viable Palestinian state, with his own plan for a unilateral separation from the Palestinians, which does not. So Israeli Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz may have let at least some of the cat out of the bag when he said on 23 March that “it is very important to weaken Hamas in view of the application of the separation plan” – ie so that Hamas cannot claim the unilateral Israeli withdrawal from Gaza that is the essence of Mr Sharon’s plan as a victory.
Whatever Israel’s motives, however, the assassination of Shaikh Yasin did not go down well elsewhere in the world. It was, of course, universally condemned in the region, where Mr Mahir went further than most when he said on 24 March that ”the Israeli government is not content with resorting to the method of assassination, but it announces clearly its determination to continue these assassinations and even that it has a list prepared. …When an organization carries out such acts, it is called a ‘terrorist organization.’ So what’s the situation when it’s a government that carries out these acts?” Internationally, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan said on 22 March that “I do condemn the targeted assassination of Hamas leader Ahmad Yasin and the others who died with him. Such actions are not only contrary to international law but they do not do anything to help the search for a peaceful solution.” In Europe, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said “it’s unacceptable, it’s unjustified, and it’s very unlikely to achieve its objective,” and French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin agreed with him that the assassination will “only fuel the cycle of violence.” Collectively, the EU foreign ministers issued a statement on 22 March which said that “the Council condemned the extra-judicial killing of Hamas leader Shaikh Ahmad Yasin and seven other Palestinians by Israeli forces this morning. Not only are extra-judicial killings contrary to international law, they undermine the concept of the rule of law which is a key element in the fight against terrorism.”
In North America, Canadian Foreign Minister Bill Graham declared on 22 March that “the extra-judicial killing of Shaikh Yasin is unacceptable and contrary to Israel’s international obligations. We condemn this attack, which will only inflame tensions in the region and create yet another obstacle to achieving a peaceful resolution to this conflict.” Further south, however, the reaction was markedly less straightforward. The initial reaction of White House spokesman Scott McLellan on 22 March was to say that “Israel has the right to defend herself,” although somewhat later he amended that to “we are deeply troubled by this morning’s actions in Gaza.” And the next day, President George Bush gave the Israelis the lightest of slaps on the wrist when he opined that “any country has a right to defend themselves from terror. Israel has the right to defend herself from terror. And as she does so, I hope she keeps the consequences in mind as to how to make sure we stay on the path to peace.” It was hardly surprising, therefore, that when a resolution condemning the assassination was put to the vote in the Security Council on 25 March, eleven countries voted in favor, three (Britain, Germany and Romania) abstained, and the US yet again deployed its veto to protect Israel.
More Rumbles From Sistani
The Americans may have thought they were home and dry (at least until 30 June) when the Iraqi Governing Council (IGC) managed to agree on an interim constitution earlier this month. But it is beginning to look as if the reservations about the constitution expressed at the time by the various Shi'a parties could be more serious than imagined, and that the Shi'a leader, Ayatollah 'Ali Sistani, suspects that the Americans will seek UN endorsement for the constitution that would confer an unacceptable degree of permanence on a document that potentially gives Iraq’s Sunni and Kurdish minorities the right to veto legislation. In a 22 March letter to UN envoy Lakhdar Ibrahimi, the ayatollah said that he “fears that the occupation authority would try to include this law in the new Security Council resolution, allowing it to gain international legitimacy that would be binding for the Iraqi people. Any step towards that end will not be accepted by the Iraqis and will have dangerous results in the future.” Accordingly, he warned that the constitution must not be mentioned in “any new UN Security Council resolution about Iraq” and that he “does not wish to be part of any meetings or deliberations with the UN mission unless the UN adopts a clear position saying that the fundamental law is not binding on the National Assembly.”
Not everyone agrees with the ayatollah, however. Perhaps surprisingly, Intifadh Qanbar, the spokesman for Ahmad Chalabi’s Iraqi National Congress (INC), said on 23 March that “we would like the UN to say yes to this law.” And a Kurdish member of the (IGC), Mahmud 'Uthman, went even further, saying that the Kurds “will not enter a unified Iraq another time without constitutional and international guarantees” and that “in case of violations of the legitimate rights of the Kurdish people in deciding their fate, we will resort to the UN.” If the Kurds are really going to insist on international guarantees for their “legitimate rights” (whatever Mr 'Uthman means by that), the road to a permanent constitution is likely to be even rockier than it already looks.
Burns And Blair Visit Libya
The fact that US Assistant Secretary of State William Burns arrived in Libya on 23 March for talks with Libyan leader Mu'ammar al-Qadhafi was remarkable enough as evidence of Libya’s international rehabilitation following its decision in December to close down its fairly embryonic WMD programs. (According to State Department spokesman Richard Boucher Burns, Col Qadhafi and Mr Burns “discussed potential measures to normalize trade and investment and plans to establish a US liaison office, reflecting the growing depth and breadth of our bilateral engagement.”) But even more extraordinary was the arrival in Tripoli of British Prime Minister Tony Blair on 25 March for the first visit to Libya by a British premier since the country became independent in 1951. Mr Blair said after his talks with Col Qadhafi that he was struck not only by the Libyan leader’s “insistence on Libya’s determination to carry on down this path of cooperation, but also his recognition that Libya’s own future is best secured by a new relationship with the outside world.” Libyan Foreign Minister 'Abd al-Rahman Shalgham for his part emphasized that Libya is in the same camp as Britain and the US when it comes to al-Qa'ida, saying that “for us they are a real obstacle against our progress, against our security, against women…against any change in our region.” Mr Blair’s visit could thus be seen as another step in a process that has been as swift as it has been unexpected ‒ Libya’s reintegration onto the international community and even its emergence as an ally of the west in the war on terror.
Charles Snow