THE
SOVEREIGNTY SHELL GAME
US Pretends To ‘Hand
Over Power’ To The Iraqis
3 December 2003
|
|
ENDING THE OCCUPATION?
On 16 Nov., the Washington Post hailed ‘a radical new plan
for [Iraq’s] political transition that would end the U.S.-led
occupation by July 1 and could facilitate a significant withdrawal
of U.S. troops next year’.
In a ‘major revision’ of US policy,
‘the new plan authorizes the creation of a provisional national
assembly that would assume sovereignty and serve as Iraq’s
interim government until a constitution is written and elections
are held’. Previously, the US had demanded that a constitution
be drafted and elections held before a transfer of power, ‘a
process that could have stretched stretched into 2005'. ('Plan
to End Occupation Could Trim U.S. Force', WP, 16 Nov.)
But ‘sovereignty’ is not being
transferred. The ‘radical new plan’ is merely a change
in the method of US domination.
‘SELECTION’ NOT ‘ELECTION’
There is to be a three stage process: by 29 Feb. 2004, the Governing
Council is to approve a new ‘fundamental law’ to rule
during the period of the transitional government. By 31 May, a
provisional legislative assembly is to be selected by regional
“caucus” meetings. By 30 June, a provisional Iraqi government
is to be elected from this assembly so that on 1 July, the US-UK
occupation is to formally come to an end, and ‘sovereignty’
is to transfer to the new provisional government.
(There are two further stages being floated
by the US by 30 Mar. 2005, elections for a constitutional convention,
to be followed by a referendum on the new constitution; and by
31 Dec. 2005, elections for a new Iraqi government.)
So there are to be indirect elections from
the provincial caucuses to the assembly, and then from the assembly
to the government.
The most troubling aspect, however, is the
first stage: the construction of the provincial caucuses. ‘The
new arrangements are an awkward compromise for the coalition.
The “caucus” process to select the provisional legislature
will be far from democratic, and could undermine the legitimacy
of the interim government.' (Anton La Guardia, Diplomatic Correspondent,
Telegraph, 26 Nov., p. 18)
‘As the law is being drafted, the council
will set up 15-person committees in each province that will be
responsible for selecting participants for the caucuses where
members of the transitional assembly will be chosen… In an
attempt to ensure the process does not get hijacked by religious
extremists or former Baathists, participants in the meetings will
be restricted to political, religious, tribal, academic and labor
union leaders, as well as other influential figures, who have
been vetted by the selection committees.’ (‘Plan to
End Occupation’, Washington Post, 16 Nov.)
THE BUILDING BLOCKS OF ‘DEMOCRACY’
Then ‘Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, the highest-ranking religious
figure among Iraq’s Shia, objected to the mechanism foreseen
by the coalition to choose the transitional assembly, a “selected
election” by pro-coalition notables. Mr Sistani told Governing
Council members the assembly should be elected.’ (FT, 1 Dec.,
p. 8)
‘Qutab Talabani, son of Jalal Talabani,
the current head of the council who met Mr Sistani [told the FT]
the “mechanism” for choosing the transitional assembly
had been contested by Mr Sistani, whose support is crucial…
Mr Sistani wants some form of direct election for the assembly
and has questioned in particular the role of the provincial councils
in nominating caucus members.
‘Mr. Talabani said other Iraqi leaders
also had misgivings about the councils formed in Iraq’s 18
provinces. He cited one example where a tribal council head had
included more than 20 members of his own family in the council.’
(FT, 29 Nov., p. 9)
This is one of the building blocks of the
new Iraqi ‘democracy’ that the US and UK have been building.
A FIERCE BUT HIDDEN CONTEST
A struggle is raging in Iraq as to whether the provincial caucuses
will be selected by the US or elected by the Iraqi people. ‘The
coalition and Iraqi officials insist that some creative way will
be found to appease Mr Sistani without holding an election, and
a committee is now looking at options.
‘One Shia council member says the grand
ayatollah “is a very reasonable guy so if you can show him
that this is a way forward with people’s participation I’m
sure he’ll buy it.”
But the FT warns that ‘the assumption
that Mr Sistani will sign off on a compromise was the attitude
adopted by the [US-appointed governing] council in the summer,
when a committee to study the constitution was set up. Several
weeks of discussions produced only deadlock and, as Mr Sistani
held firm on his demands, the stalemate eventually provoked an
overhaul of the whole transition strategy.’ (FT, 3 Dec.,
p. 13) A warning sign: confrontation may be approaching.
THE US U-TURN
Why did this plan suddenly appear, upsetting the previous US timetable?
‘About 10 days ago [5 Nov.], leaders of the Governing Council
[cohered around the Sistani position and] insisted to Bremer that
the only popularly acceptable way to draft a constitution would
be to hold an election to select the authors.’ The US was
horrified. The Council wouldn’t budge. ‘They reached
an impasse,’ a US official said. (‘Plan to End Occupation’,
Washington Post, 16 Nov.)
The news out of Iraq was also serious. US
Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez spoke of a ‘turning point’
in the conflict. ‘Dispensing with euphemisms favored by many
Bush administration officials in recent months, General Sanchez,
commander of the 130,000 American troops in Iraq, described what
they were facing as a war... Aides to General Sanchez said the
choice of the word “war” was part of a conscious effort
by senior military officers to inject realism into debates in
Washington.’ (New York Times, 12 Nov., p. A8)
Furthermore, Britain was ‘pressing the
United States to hand over power to an Iraqi government within
a year or risk a full-scale uprising against the military occupation…
They say the transfer of power must be speeded up even if it means
tearing up America’s step-by-step plan for a return to Iraqi
sovereignty.’ ‘Their view has support from elements
of the US administration and is thought to have the backing of
Paul Bremer, Washington’s pro-consul in Iraq. The issue is
certain to be close to the top of the agenda at next week’s
state visit by President George W Bush to London... British officials
are convinced that they will enjoy only a short period of tolerance
from mainstream Iraqis, who may be grateful for the removal of
Saddam Hussein, but have no desire to live under foreign rule.’
(Telegraph, 11 Nov., p. 12) Same warnings from US intelligence:
‘the insurgency is costing the occupation support among Iraqis,
according to a CIA report leaked last week to The Philadelphia
Inquirer and endorsed by Bremer.’ (Newsweek, 24 Nov., p.
25)
‘There’s no mystery behind the
Bushies’ new eagerness to hand things over to the Iraqis...
More Americans are dying. Iraqi support for the occupation is
plummeting... Attacks have jumped from fewer than 10 a day in
May to about 30 to 35 a day. Worse, they have gotten more deadly
and sophisticated…’ (Newsweek, 24 Nov., p. 24)
Earth to GWB: ‘do something radical,
or face an eruption from the Shia majority, a major escalation
of the insurgency (and the crumbling of your hopes for re-election).’
The US was determined to avoid free elections
in the next year – because the ‘wrong people’ (people
who might not take orders) would win. The US also refused to transfer
sovereignty immediately to the Governing Council, as Iraqi political
parties of all colours were demanding. The solution: delay and
deception.
‘Our presence here will change from
an occupation to an invited presence,’ Paul Bremer. (FT,
17 Nov., p. 1, emphasis added) The new government will have no
choice. ‘Senior British officials said a handover of power
depended on the interim government inviting America to continue
leading a multi-national force in Iraq. This would probably require
a further Security Council resolution.’ (Telegraph, 26 Nov.,
p. 18)
THE GAMBLE
A senior US official said of the new plan, ‘It’s a gamble,
a huge gamble. But it’s easy to overestimate the degree of
control over events we have now and to underestimate how much
we will retain.’ Another senior official said that even after
1 July, ‘We’ll have more levers than you think, and
maybe more than the Iraqis think.’ (‘America’s
Gamble: A Quick Exit Plan for Iraq’, New York Times, 16 Nov.)
Among the levers: the US military presence
itself; the $20bn US reconstruction budget; and the requirements
of US investors. Means of undermining sovereignty, and ensuring
US dominance in the new era.
[For more background, also see Regime
Unchanged by Milan Rai (Pluto, September 2003).]
PLEASE SUPPORT JNV (Justice Not Vengeance) 0845 458 9571
We are making as many briefings as we can. Please help with printing/distribution
by sending cheques to 'JNV', 29 Gensing Rd, St Leonards-on-Sea,
East Sussex TN38 0HE.
JNV
^ back to the top
|
