Middle East Economic Survey
VOL. XLVII
No 42
18
The Political Scene (18 October 2004)
Muqtada al-Sadr’s Mahdi Army militia has started handing over its weapons in Baghdad, but negotiations on a peaceful resolution of the confrontation in Falluja have been broken off. A Kurdish leader has warned that Kirkuk is another potential flashpoint in Iraq. The conference to discuss the forthcoming Iraqi elections is still on track. President Asad of Syria has denied that Syria is seeking to dominate Lebanon as the French and Americans table a new resolution in the Security Council. Saudi women are not going to vote in the country’s first elections after all.
Mahdi Army Starts Disarming: Now For Falluja
Following last week’s recapture of Samarra from insurgents, the Americans have made some further headway in their campaign to restore security in Iraq ahead of the elections scheduled by the end of January as the deal worked out to defuse the situation in Sadr City in Baghdad, where militant cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and his Mahdi Army militia have been a major thorn in the side of the coalition, came into effect. The agreement provides for the Mahdi Army to turn in its heavy and medium weapons – in exchange for cash – over a five-day period beginning 11 October in return for the release of prisoners held by the government and the improvement of the infrastructure in Sadr City. On 12 October, the US commander for Sadr City, Col Abe Abrams, described himself as “cautiously optimistic,” since “we’ve never before had an initiative announced with the endorsement of Muqtada al-Sadr to disarm and disband,” although he warned that “we know there are elements of the militia who are not going to follow the directive.” Iraqi interim Prime Minister Ayad 'Allawi expressed a similar cautious optimism the next day when he said that “I am happy to inform you that weapons are being handed in as promised. In return we are prepared to carry out our promise by releasing prisoners and stopping military operations in Sadr City, but that does require that the other side keep its promises.”
If it was a case of “so far, so good” in Sadr City, the prospects in the next target of the anti-insurgency drive, Falluja, were a good deal more mixed. Here, too, there were reports of an imminent agreement that would allow the return of Iraqi security forces to the city – until 13 October, when interim Prime Minister Ayad 'Allawi linked
a negotiated settlement to the surrender of Jihadi Abu Musib al-Zarqawi, saying “we have asked Falluja residents to turn over Zarqawi and his group. If they don’t do it, we are ready for major operations in Falluja.” Falluja negotiator Hatim Maddab replied to this demand on the same day by saying that “we want to know what proof there is that Zarqawi is in Falluja. Zarqawi is like the weapons of mass destruction that America invaded Iraq for. We hear about that name, but he is not here,” adding that “more than 20 or 30 homes have been bombarded because of this Zarqawi and his followers, but only women, children and the elderly have been affected.” The Fallujans then broke off talks with the government, while the Americans launched intensified air and artillery strikes against the city. At the end of the week, therefore, it looked as if the Americans may have to do it the hard way after all, which could explain why Iraqi interim President Ghazi al-Yawar on 14 October became the first Iraqi or American official to suggest that the elections could be postponed. According to Mr Yawar, “the date is 31 January, but this date is not sacred…We are deploying all our efforts to meet this deadline, but if we judge that a ballot at this date – without security and conditions allowing free elections for all – will have a negative fallout on our country, then we will not hesitate to change the date.”
Barzani Warns On Kirkuk
Falluja may be in the headlines now, but there are other potential flashpoints elsewhere in Iraq, and none more explosive than the northern city of Kirkuk where an Arabization program by successive governments in Baghdad since the late fifties has created deep resentment amongst displaced Kurds and Turkomans, who were originally a majority in the city and now seek a return to the status quo ante. In a warning that highlighted the potential for conflict in Kirkuk, the leader of one of the two main Kurdish parties in Iraq, Mas'ud Barzani of the Kurdistan Democratic Party, warned on 12 October that “if anyone, if any regime or system wants to continue the Arabization or suppression of the people of Kirkuk, we will defend their rights and we are ready to fight for them.” Mr Barzani, who had just returned from meeting with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Ankara, added that the Iraqi Kurds would defend not only the Kurds of Kirkuk but “any other group or minority” in the city, presumably in an attempt to reassure the Turks that they would respect the city’s ethnic diversity. But the Turks are incurably suspicious about the intentions of Iraq’s Kurds, who they believe see Kirkuk as both Kurdish and the capital of an independent Kurdistan, which is why Mr Erdogan told the daily Aksam on 12 October that “Kirkuk is a city where all ethnic elements can settle. It is not a place where a certain party can claim control.”
France Still Wants Troop Withdrawal On Election Conference Agenda
When US Secretary of State Colin Powell first proposed an international conference to expedite the election process in Iraq at the end of September, he suggested that the French position that the withdrawal of American forces should be on the agenda was not a precondition for French participation. That may well be so, but the French have by no means dropped the idea. On 13 October, during a visit to Paris by Egyptian President Husni Mubarak (Cairo is the venue for the conference, which is now scheduled for 25 November), a spokesman for President Jacques Chirac said that the two leaders agreed that “all the questions to do with the future of Iraq,” should be discussed, including “the implementation of Resolution 1546.” Inconveniently for the Americans, Security Council Resolution 1546, passed on 8 June, provides, inter alia, that “the mandate for the multinational force shall be reviewed at the request of the Government of Iraq or twelve months from the date of this resolution, and that this mandate shall expire upon completion of the political process set out in paragraph four above” (which culminates in a constitutionally elected government by 31 December 2005).
Asad Defends Syrian Role In Lebanon
Following last month’s Security Council resolution demanding that “foreign forces withdraw without delay from Lebanon,” Syrian President Bashar al-Asad has vigorously rebutted American and French claims that Syria is seeking hegemony over Lebanon. In a rare public speech broadcast on television on 9 October, Mr Asad said that “certain forces speak of Syrian domination of Lebanon. We have no interest in such domination,” and went to charge the Americans and French with hypocrisy: “What did these forces which have been expressing their attachment to Lebanon do for this country? Where were these forces at the start of the war when some Lebanese were being massacred…Where were they…in 1982 when thousands of Lebanese were killed and when Syria lost thousands (during the Israeli invasion). Their attachment to Lebanon and its democracy appeared suddenly.”
Hypocrites or not, France and the US are evidently not about to give up on their campaign against Syria in the Security Council, where on 14 October they put forward a draft resolution that “urges relevant parties to implement fully” the earlier resolution. However, it is open to question whether the French and Americans will get their way, since the Council last week failed to reach a consensus on a statement urging Syrian compliance and no date has been set for a vote on the new resolution.
Saudi Women Not To Vote
When Saudi Arabia announced in early August that it planned to hold its first ever elections – in which half the members of 178 municipal councils will be elected in three stages from 10 February to 21 April – it was unclear from the published regulatory framework whether women would be allowed to participate. That question has now been cleared up, and the answer is anything but a surprise. According to the Saudi Interior Minister, Prince Nayyif ibn 'Abd al-'Aziz, on 10 October, “I don’t think the participation of women is on the cards.” However, that does not necessarily mean that Saudi women will have to abandon all hope of ever getting the vote, since the head of the election committee, Prince Mansur ibn Mut'ab ibn 'Abd al-'Aziz, said on 12 October that “I expect women to participate in elections in future stages, after conducting studies to assess whether it is useful or not.”
Charles Snow