You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Iraq
U.S. Joins Iraqis to Seek U.N. Role in Interim Rule
2004-01-16
Here we go again
The Bush administration, trying to rescue its troubled plan to restore sovereignty to Iraq, is joining Iraqi leaders to press the United Nations to play a role in choosing an interim government in Baghdad, administration officials said Thursday. L. Paul Bremer III, the American administrator in Baghdad, and an Iraqi delegation led by Adnan Pachachi, the current chairman of the Iraqi Governing Council, will make an urgent appeal on Monday for greater United Nations involvement, the officials said.

In Iraq on Thursday, tens of thousands of demonstrators put pressure on the United States to change its plans, marching in Basra to support calls by Iraq’s leading Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, for direct elections. The new move involved yet another change in strategy for an administration under pressure from shifting events in Iraq. From the start of planning the war to oust Saddam Hussein, the administration has had an ambivalent attitude toward the United Nations.
And rightly so
Ambivalence? Would that be like revulsion on one hand, disgust on the other?
As it begins to reach out for help, and as European nations indicate that they may provide some, the administration is also considering reversing itself and allowing businesses in countries that opposed the war, including France, Germany and Russia, to bid on contracts to rebuild Iraq. In recent months, the administration has said it wanted the United Nations to take part in building Iraqi democracy after the transition to self-rule. But the administration’s intention was disrupted when Ayatollah Sistani criticized as undemocratic the American plan for caucuses to select an interim government.
An Ayatollah would know about democracy now wouldn’t he?
Sistani's an important figure among the Shiites, and he's been cautiously friendly toward us. I've been saying all along that we'll work something out with him. If it was Moqtada Sadr (haven't heard from him lately) then it would be different...
There were few details of what the United Nations was being asked to do to help the caucus plan, but administration officials said it could involve helping organize and perhaps certifying the legitimacy of the meetings.
Just an observer job, then...
The caucuses, to be held in each of Iraq’s 18 states, are to choose delegations to a national assembly that will sit while a permanent constitution is written and elections are planned for 2005. The plan is so complex that some of its supporters confess to bewilderment about carrying it out. "It’s clear we want the United Nations to be involved," an administration official said. "It’s clear the Iraqis want them. It’s clear the security situation has improved, and we’re willing to help with their security. But there are many stages we have to go through to get an agreement."
"Besides we need to change our order of battle because as everyone knows, Syria is on deck"!
At the United Nations, Secretary General Kofi Annan is said to be highly reluctant to give his blessing to what is widely seen as a jerry-built process in effect concocted to let the United States hand over sovereignty to Iraq by June 30, as the American elections get under way. "This meeting, for us, is a step along the way," an aide to Mr. Annan said. "It’s not a meeting where there will be a decision on our part Because we are incapable of making decisions We’re going to listen to what they have to say, reflect on what they expect of us and get more detail on exactly how these caucuses are going to run."
My personal opinion is that they should go with some sort of direct vote, even though it'll be flawed. Georgia dumped Shevardnadze and managed to vote, and they've got more parliamentary elections coming up in March. We should be able to manage something.
Mr. Bremer left for Washington on Thursday to meet with President Bush on Friday. The circumstances of his sudden departure put pressure on Mr. Annan, whose reluctance to send a team back to Iraq is shared by colleagues still grieving over the bomb attack last summer on United Nations headquarters in Baghdad. People close to Mr. Annan say he has rarely been in a more uncomfortable position.
I seem to remember him bent over the security council table by the US not long ago
For months, he has wanted the United Nations to oversee Iraq’s transition to self-government. But he did not want it to be seen as merely giving in to an American plan worked out with Iraqis chosen by Mr. Bremer. In Baghdad, Mr. Pachachi said that as the Iraqi Governing Council tries to refine the mechanics of the caucuses, the United Nations would be of great help. "If the United Nations is unable or unwilling to play a big role, that would be a matter of great regret for us," he said.
"But we'll survive the experience..."
What may persuade Mr. Annan to involve the United Nations, American officials said, is the urgent situation in Iraq, and the fact that Mr. Bremer and Mr. Pachachi are coming with a request for help endorsed implicitly by Ayatollah Sistani. Administration officials took pains to say the effort to get Mr. Annan and the United Nations involved began with the Iraqis. This was in keeping with the American insistence that it is the Iraqis who are working out their governing problems. One administration official said Mr. Pachachi, a former foreign minister, and a handful of other Iraqis on the Governing Council have borne the brunt of the work by leading the effort to write an interim Iraqi law that would determine the nation’s federal structure, the role of Islam and many other issues. "This is an Iraqi process," an American official insisted. "It’s an Iraqi generated initiative. These guys in the Governing Council are trying to deal with their constituencies, including one very vocal constituent group that had 10,000 people in the streets of Basra this morning." He was referring to the demonstration in the heart of Shiite territory backing the ayatollah’s demands for a democratically elected interim government.
On the other hand, Shiite pressure on us would cause me to reflexively dig in my heels. Luckily, I'm not in charge...
Since the beginning of the American occupation of Iraq, the United States has had difficulties dealing with the country’s three biggest groups: Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites. Now those problems are reaching full boil, according to some administration officials, with Kurds demanding their own semiautonomous state, Sunnis feeling frozen out because of a campaign to rid Iraq’s leadership of anyone associated with Mr. Hussein and now Shiites demanding a more democratic transition.
Growng pains
American officials say the Nov. 15 plan, with its caucus process, is "holy writ" in the administration. The tough question is likely to be whether the United Nations takes part in the caucuses, perhaps even conducting ballots at the caucus meetings. But aides to Mr. Annan say they fear signing on to something that only looks democratic. "Are we supposed to have an advisory role or to have people in each of Iraq’s 18 provinces?" a United Nations official asked. "What would they do if they are out in the provinces? Who handles their security? Are we being asked to do something where we have no real authority? These are very difficult questions that need to be answered." More than one official noted the coincidence that the session to discuss the legitimacy of caucuses would occur on the very day of the Iowa caucuses, which are also notorious for their complexity.
The adminstrations plan for elections does seem overly complicated, but I’m convinced that the UN is nothing more than an impotent debating society incapable of actual action. It sounds like some more radical Iraqis want the UN in there because they would be easier to take advantage of
Posted by:JerseyMike

#4  I think both liberalhawk and B are correct -- the UN thing must be viewed, like everything else, as one more element in the jockeying by all parties for what they think is the best outcome for them. Or in the case of the Sunnis, the least-worst -- though I'm not sure how much they can do for themselves given the realities.

John Cullinan's occasional National Review Online columns on the internal political wrangling and strategies in Iraq have been very substantive and worthwhile, and I commend them to those interested in the topic.

I've wondered since it was announced whether/how the Rube Goldberg caucus/prov. legislature/con. convention scheme actually advanced our interest in a successful Iraqi transition. I understand buffering the pure ethnic/regional arithmetic dynamics through complexity and layers, but it's a bit ridiculous in its complexity.
Posted by: IceCold   2004-1-16 12:43:14 PM  

#3  Wait a minute, this looks like blatant propaganda to me. The article pretends that we are just begging the UN to get involved - but Kofi, worried about his still grieving unichs UN staff, will have to think about it and get back to us.

"In recent months, the administration has said it wanted the United Nations to take part in building Iraqi democracy after the transition to self-rule. But the administration’s intention was disrupted when Ayatollah Sistani criticized as undemocratic the American plan for caucuses to select an interim government."

"There were few details of what the United Nations was being asked to do to help the caucus plan, but administration officials said it could involve helping organize and perhaps certifying the legitimacy of the meetings. "

I think what this article really says is that the Bush administration told Kofi, hey, it would be nice if you would lend a little verbal support to efforts to prevent direct elections, which will be unacceptable to the Kurds and other minorities. And then Kofi came out of the meeting and told the reporters that the Americans were begging him to get involved and without him, all was lost.

It's careful wording all based on "administration officials". There's no meat to the argument that anyone - especially the Iraqi's - really want the UN to do anything other than provide a little lip service to support their cause.
Posted by: B   2004-1-16 11:37:19 AM  

#2  i think the moderate Iraqis want the UN in so that when Sistani calls for immediate direct elections, and they say no, they can cite Annan for backup, which should help with the elements in the Shia community that have less trust for the US. The risk would be that Kofi would undermine them - but to do that hed have to call FOR early direct elections - which the Sunni Arabs dont particularly care for, and theyre the ones tied to the Saudis and Jordanians, and indirectly to the French et al. So Kofi cant side WITH Sistani, but to side AGAINST them helps the IGC and the Americans. Thats why he will try to avoid being brought in at all, and why WE will pressure him to get involved.
Posted by: liberalhawk   2004-1-16 9:11:20 AM  

#1  Only a moron like a NYT reporter couldn't see that one person one vote = civil war.

There has to be a process of accomodation over some period of time. Caucuses are the right answer and who gives a f*** whether the UN agrees or not!
Posted by: phil_b   2004-1-16 8:12:25 AM  

00:00