E-MAIL THIS LINK
To: 

Letting Iraq Save Itself (Opinion)
By David Ignatius
Friday, September 5, 2003
Heavily Edited
Ghassan Salame, a Lebanese political scientist who was senior political adviser to the U.N.’s chief in Iraq, Sergio Vieira de Mello, and who narrowly escaped when Vieira de Mello was killed by a truck bomb on Aug. 19 has a personal plan - not a UN proposal. Salame’s basic argument is that Iraqis have to take more responsibility for their country, and the only way to achieve this goal is to give them the political power they have been demanding. To that end, Salame proposes that three steps be taken immediately:
• First, a provisional government should be created. The easiest way to do this would be to merge the existing Governing Council and cabinet. The two 25-member interim bodies are duplicative, with the heads of key political factions sitting on the council and their deputies typically serving as ministers. The merged body would be reduced to 20 to 25 people, and the United Nations would then recognize it as Iraq’s legitimate government. "The present political situation is not tenable," says Salame. Instead of "creeping" gradually toward eventual Iraqi control, America and its allies should agree to "go straight to the Iraqis."

• Second, Iraq should quickly regain control of its national budget, so that the provisional government is forced to make hard decisions about where to spend limited money. Rather than give Iraqis this power of the purse, the United Nations is currently planning to replace its cumbersome "oil for food" program with a jury-rigged "development fund." Bremer would sign checks, in consultation with a monitoring group drawn from international organizations such as the World Bank. But if Iraqis controlled the budget, they would have to negotiate the compromises that are the essence of politics. Instead of blithely calling for 1,500 new schools, as the interim Governing Council recently did, the new provisional government would have to set priorities.

• Third, a constitutional conference should begin work now on a document that will provide a democratic political structure for the new Iraq. Its membership should include the 25 members of the constitutional committee already named, plus another 100 or so members to be selected by the provisional government. The goal would be to have a new constitution ready for a nationwide referendum in January, with elections to follow in March or April.
Salame says he is worried that in its efforts to stabilize Iraq, the United States is turning back the clock by transferring power to tribal and religious leaders. "It’s a Lebanization of Iraq, and I regret that," he says. "The country is becoming less secular, and reverting to its old cleavages." He hopes the new constitution will not mirror Lebanon’s religious spoils system but will create something more modern and stable. What makes Salame’s proposals compelling is that they are quick and clean, and they place responsibility where it has always belonged, with the Iraqi people themselves. To those who wonder if the United States can risk moving so fast, Salame would probably answer: Can it risk moving more slowly?
After reading it through twice, I decided not to play smartass with inline comments. One point is certainly well-taken: the Lebanization / non-secular arrangements that the US is allowing (even encouraging, it seems) in the mistaken belief (IMO) that this is all the Iraqis will accept and the most peaceful way to get to a stable "democratic" government, is not anywhere near the ideals we, ourselves, believe in, it’s merely expedient. Is that enough? Is anything less than a purpose-built democratic republic based upon the same principles we rely upon worthy of the effort? There’s a reason why people line up all around the world, sometimes risking everything, to try to come to the US. I don’t think half-baked expediency is it.

If we stipulate a non-negotialble framework defining an absolute set of principles and then take Salame’s approach and hand it off - retaining an oversight veto, it seems to make more sense than what we’re doing now. Just as they will have to live within a budget, they will have to define their goverment within the framework. It should be obvious that we mean business and are willing to fight for this -- So: Can the ideas be combined as a means of moving forward both sooner and toward a worthy end? Is anything less an acceptable outcome given our effort and blood and treasure? And, I hope it’s obvious, we should NOT care who doesn’t like the principles we endorse, they don’t have a say in Iraq. We do. Let’s make the most of this one shot to get it right.
Posted by: .com 2003-09-05
http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?ID=18341