Middle East Economic Survey
VOL. XLVII
No 39
The Political Scene (27 September 2004)
Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad 'Allawi’s visit to Washington occasioned a rather limited debate as to whether elections in Iraq will be held on schedule and whether more troops will be needed for this to happen. The Americans and Europeans have reached a compromise at the International Atomic Energy Agency on Iran’s nuclear activities, but this does not mean the issue has been resolved. Relations between the US and Syria have warmed slightly after a meeting of their foreign ministers. Even its sponsors admit that the international road map to regional peace is dead in the water.
Elections And Troop Levels
It would not be accurate to say that the question of whether Iraqi elections can be held as scheduled by the end of January was the sole topic discussed during Iraqi Prime Minister Ayad 'Allawi’s visit to Washington last week, but it certainly attracted a fair amount of attention. And Mr 'Allawi equally certainly said what his hosts wanted to hear when he told a press conference at the White House on 23 September that “I know that some have speculated, even doubted, whether this date can be met. So let me be absolutely clear. Elections will occur in Iraq on time in January because Iraqis want elections on time.” President George W Bush also insisted the elections would go ahead on time, although he warned that “terrorist violence may well escalate as the January elections draw near,” because “the terrorists know that events in Iraq are reaching a decisive moment. If elections go forward, democracy in Iraq will put down permanent roots and terrorists will suffer a dramatic defeat.” It was left to the bull in the current administration’s china shop, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, to suggest that matters were not proceeding entirely on schedule in Iraq when he said on 23 September “let’s say you tried to have an election and you could have it in three-quarters or four-fifths of the country, but some places you couldn’t, because the violence was too great. Well, so be it. You have an election that’s not quite perfect. Is it better than not having an election? You bet.”
For full elections to be held on time, the security situation in Iraq has to be brought under control, and the obvious way to do this is to send in more troops. But that idea is, of course, a non-starter in a presidential election year in the US, which has led to some interesting contortions in Washington. The head of the army’s Central Command, Gen John Abizaid, on 22 September came up with the interesting idea that while more troops might be required, they would not necessarily have to be American. “I think we will need more troops than we currently have to secure the elections process in Iraq that will probably take place in the end of January,” he said (the general is apparently not entirely sure that the elections will take place on time). “But it is our belief that those troops will be Iraqi troops. And they may be additional international troops that arrive to help out, as well, as part of the UN mission. And so I don’t foresee a need for more American troops, but we can’t discount it…We think that a combination of Iraqi forces that are being built and our own forces that are currently there will be able to handle the security situation as it will most likely exist in January. But, as you know, the enemy has a vote.” The next day Mr Rumsfeld reacted to these comments with characteristic candor, saying that “in the event General Abizaid decides he needs more forces to assist in the elections, like he has for example in Afghanistan, he’ll ask and he’ll get it.” But Mr Bush ostentatiously avoided committing himself to meeting such a request, saying only on the same day that “if our commanders on the ground feel it’s in the interest of the Iraqi citizens to provide more troops, we’ll talk about it. If he were to say that I’d listen to him.” To be fair to Mr Bush, his opponent in the presidential election, Sen John Kerry, also (and perhaps unwisely) ruled out raising US troop levels in Iraq when he said on 22 September that “I do not intend to increase troops.”
Compromise At The IAEA
In the long-running saga of Iran’s nuclear program and aspirations, the UN’s International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has now adopted a resolution representing a compromise between the US and European positions. The Americans wanted an ultimatum incorporated in the resolution setting a 31 October deadline for Iran to suspend uranium enrichment and report on its other nuclear activities, after which the issue would be automatically referred to the Security Council for possible sanctions if Tehran failed to do so. However, at the insistence of Britain, France and Germany, which favor a less confrontational approach, the resolution adopted on 18 September instead set a 25 November deadline for a full review of Iran’s nuclear program and called on the Iranians to suspend all enrichment activities “immediately.” This did not mean, however, that either the Iranians or Americans were backing off. In Tehran the next day Iran’s top nuclear official, Hassan Rowhani, was openly defiant, declaring that “Iran will not accept any obligations concerning the suspension of enrichment,” although he left the door open a crack by adding that the Iranians could accept a suspension “through negotiations” if it was a “voluntary decision.” Meanwhile US Undersecretary of State John Bolton suggested that the US might take diplomatic action in the interim, saying that “we have the option to do something before November. We are not now going to sleep until November.” Nor, apparently, were diplomatic options the only ones being considered, since it was probably no coincidence at all that at this juncture (on 21 September) the Israeli daily Haaretz published a report that the US is planning to sell 500 laser/satellite guided ‘bunker-busting’ bombs which could be used against Iran’s alleged underground nuclear facilities. The Americans might think it impolitic at this point to attack Iran themselves, but it is a safe bet that they would not object too strenuously were the Israelis to do it for them. And Israeli Foreign Minster Silvan Shalom was certainly defining Israel’s new agenda – and perhaps even setting the stage for such an attack – when he told the General Assembly on 23 September that “Iran has replaced Saddam Husain as the world’s number one exporter of terror, hate and instability.”
Powell Meets Shara'
Syria’s redeployment of some 3,000 troops from the outskirts of Beirut in the general direction of the Syrian border on 21 September was widely seen as a rather perfunctory response to American (and UN) pressure to withdraw from Lebanon altogether. However, in a sign that Syrian-American relations are perhaps bottoming out, US Secretary of State Colin Powell described the move as “a positive step” after meeting with Syrian Foreign Minister Faruq al-Shara' in New York on 22 September. Mr Powell also described his talks with Mr Shara' as “rather positive” and claimed that “I sensed a new attitude from the Syrians,” particularly as far as policing the Iraqi frontier is concerned. “We discussed…their actions along the Syrian-Iraqi border and the need for all of us to do more,” Mr Powell told reporters. “I think the Syrians are anxious to do more working with the coalition and especially, and more importantly, working with the Iraqi government. I hope the Syrians now understand the need for all of us to do as much as we can in a tripartite manner – Syria, the Iraqi interim government and the coalition – to stop illicit, improper traffic across that border.” The Syrians, for their part, appeared to be equally satisfied with the outcome of the meeting. Indeed, Syrian state radio was, by its own standards, positively effusive when it reported on 23 September that the talks took place in a “positive atmosphere” which has “led to a marked improvement in Syrian-American relations.” By that the Syrians presumably mean that the temperature of relations between Damascus and Washington is now hovering a few degrees above absolute zero.
Road Map Stalled
For the first time in quite a few months, President George Bush actually referred to the Israeli-Arab conflict during his speech to the UN General Assembly on 21 September and even had some relatively stern words for the Israelis when he said that “Israel should impose a settlement freeze, dismantle unauthorized outposts, end the daily humiliation of the Palestinian people and avoid any actions that prejudice final negotiations.” Unfortunately, these remarks enjoyed about the same credibility as Mr Bush’s assertion that “today the Iraqi and Afghan people are on the path to democracy and freedom,” as the quartet behind the international “road map” to peace (the UN, US, EU and Russia) acknowledged the next day when they met at ministerial level for only the second time this year and issued a statement admitting bleakly that “no significant progress has been achieved on the road map.”
Charles Snow