VOL. XLVII
No 20
The Political Scene (24 May 2004)
The Americans have fallen out with the man they originally planned to install as the head of the Iraqi government, Ahmad Chalabi, who has now moved decisively into the anti-American camp. The assassination of the current president of the Iraqi Governing Council has underlined both the inability of coalition forces to remedy the lack of security and the need for them to remain in the country for the foreseeable future. Israel’s iron fist in Gaza has drawn a rebuke from the UN.
The End Of The Affair: US Breaks With Chalabi
After US Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz announced on 18 May that the Pentagon had ended the $340,000 monthly subsidy it has been paying to Ahmad Chalabi’s Iraqi National Congress (INC) for the last four years, an unnamed Defense Department official claimed that the decision was “not tied to the quality of the information” on Iraq’s alleged weapons of mass destruction which Mr Chalabi and the INC supplied before the invasion. That may well be so, since – as Mr Chalabi himself has pointed out – the fact that the information was wrong is only relevant historically at this point. It is indeed far more likely that Mr Chalabi, once the protégé of the neoconservative hawks in the Pentagon, has fallen out of favor with his American sponsors because, sensing which way the wind is blowing in Iraq, he has of late visibly put some daylight between himself and the Americans by moving closer to the positions adopted by more radical Shi'a politicians and parties (not to mention their backers in Iran as well). Whatever the reasons for his falling out with the Americans, he responded to the loss of his funding with a further display of independence by suggesting that it would be up to the Iraqi Governing Council (IGC) and not the Americans to decide how much sovereignty would be handed over on 30 June. Mr Chalabi told the BBC on 19 May that “the IGC will clearly define what sovereignty means. It means complete control over the oil, complete control over the Development Fund for Iraq, which should be handed over to the new Iraqi government…Also control over all property in Iraq such as the presidential palace,” adding that “these are the symbols or rather what we define to be sovereignty, and the Iraqi people will insist on that.” The Americans then confirmed the end of their affair with Mr Chalabi – and the start of acrimonious divorce proceedings – by raiding the INC offices and his home in Baghdad on 20 May and seizing documents and computers. However, the withdrawal of Pentagon support does not necessarily mean that the Americans have seen the last of Mr Chalabi, who as a politician is both an opportunist and a survivor. Indeed, it appears that, having ridden into Iraq on American bayonets during the invasion, he now intends to try to reinvent himself politically – and win the public support he has never enjoyed – by turning vociferously against his former patrons. At a press conference following the raids, Mr Chalabi claimed that he had been targeted by the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) because of his doubts about the role of UN envoy Lakhdar Brahimi in forming an interim government and his investigation into allegations of corruption in the UN oil-for-food program, adding that “I am America’s best friend in Iraq. If the CPA finds it necessary to direct an armed attack against my home, you can see the state of relations between the CPA and the Iraqi people.” Accusing the CPA of having created “a safe haven” for Ba'thists in Fallujah “where they are making bombs and training terrorists,” he went on to say “my message to the CPA is let my people go, let my people be free. We are grateful to President Bush for liberating Iraq, but it is time for the Iraqi people to run their affairs.”
Violence Continues
The assassination of this month’s head of the IGC, 'Izz al-Din Salim, in a suicide car bomb attack in Baghdad on 15 May served only to underline the continuing lack of security throughout Iraq as the CPA prepares to hand sovereignty – however defined – back on 30 June. Moreover, according to US national security adviser Condoleezza Rice “it will not be surprising over the next several weeks if there are more efforts, even perhaps stepped up efforts, to try and derail the political transition.” Nor is Dr Rice the only US official trying to prepare the American public for more bad news. Gen John Abizaid, who is responsible for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, told the Senate Armed Services Committee on 19 May that “I would predict that the situation will become even more violent after sovereignty because it will remain unclear what’s going to happen between the interim government and elections [scheduled for January 2005]. So moving through the election period will be violent, and it could very well be more violent than we’re seeing today. So it’s possible that we might need more forces.”
The prospect of having to dispatch more troops to Iraq before November is one that is not likely to please the White House, but it is clear that US forces will have to stay on in Iraq in at least their present numbers until such time as the Iraqis can again take care of themselves – whenever that may be. Indeed after American administrator Paul Bremer acknowledged on 14 May that “if the provisional government asks us to leave, we will leave,” there was a scramble by Iraqis across the political spectrum to deny that any such request was under consideration. IGC spokesman Hamid Kifai said on 16 May that “nobody will be calling for a rapid withdrawal,” while a spokesman for the largest Shi'a party, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), declared that “a withdrawal would cause grave security problems. A withdrawal would not be able to take place until the security forces and army allow Iraqis to take control of their own security.” And Foreign Minster Hoshiyar Zebari painted a grim portrait of the consequences of a hasty US exit when he said on 19 May “it is very important that the coalition forces stay with us, for this time. If people want Iraq to be divided, to be disintegrated, if they want to see a civil war, if people want to see chaos spreading, humanitarian crisis happen – all this could happen.”
Israel Attacks In Gaza
The ferocity of the Israeli attack on Rafah in the Gaza Strip that began on 18 May – by 19 May 33 Palestinians had been killed, including 10 protestors demanding humanitarian assistance – was such that even the Americans felt it necessary to demur. White House spokesman Scott McClellan declared on 19 May that the campaign did not “serve the purposes of peace and security” and urged Israel “to exercise maximum restraint now.” The Americans further signaled their unhappiness for once by not deploying their veto when the Security Council on 19 May passed a resolution calling on Israel to respect its obligations under international humanitarian law and insisting on its obligation not to destroy homes contrary to that law. (According to the UN relief agency UNRWA, the Israelis have demolished 191 homes in Gaza so far this month.) However, the Israelis, as usual, brushed aside these objections and continued their assault on 20 May, with Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz saying that the raid was “vital…for the security of the state of Israel…and will continue as long as needed.”
Charles Snow