Informed Comment

Thoughts on the Middle East, History, and Religion

Juan Cole is President of the Global Americana Institute

Saturday, March 04, 2006

Al-Hakim, UIA back Jaafari
Sectarian Killings Raise Tension


The killing, execution-style, of some 25 Shiite workers in a brick-making plant in Nahrawan by Sunni Arab guerrillas caused renewed ethnic tensions on Friday.

Al-Zaman reports that [Ar.] Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, the leader of the United Iraqi Alliance [Shiite religious parties] informed Iraqi president Jalal Talabani and the Iraqi Accord Front and its allies that the UIA is standing by its choice of Ibrahim Jaafari as candidate for prime minister. The statement came in response to letters sent to al-Hakim by Talabani, Iyad Allawi, the Iraqi Accord Front, and Salih Mutlak of the National Dialogue Council (neo-Baathist). Jointly all of these have 135 seats in parliament, so that they could, if they united, theoretically form a ruling coalition in parliament (which requires 138 seats). In fact, al-Hakim is banking on their inability effectively to stay together as a coalition.

Al-Hakim's response came after the United Iraqi Alliance members of parliament, who number 130, met and decided to retain Jaafari.

Mahmud Osman, an independent Kurdish member of parliament, responded that the the anti-Jaafari coalition of Kurds, Sunni Arabs and secular Shiites was now free to form a coalition and to name its own prime minister. He said he was broaching the possibility theoretically, and it has not yet been studied by the anti-Jaafari forces.

Osman seems to be under the impression that they have the votes to choose a president by a 2/3s majority without needing the Shiite party as a partner. That simply is not true. Dozens of Shiite MPs would have to defect for this to happen.

Moreover, the constitution gives first right to form a government to the list that won the largest number of seats in parliament. Since the Kurds, Sunnis and secular Shiites did not run as a unified list, they cannot now turn around and maintain that they fit that description.

Communist Party of Iraq leader Hamid Majid Musa said that the UIA refusal to reconsider the Jaafari nomination would provoke a political crisis.

Al-Zaman carried a Reuters piece quoting Iraqi observers who claimed that if the new parliament did not meet by March 12, a provision of the Transitional Administrative Law--under which Iraq is still functioning until the new constitution is formally adopted by parliament-- will have been contravened.

Al-Zaman says that Friday prayer preachers called for national unity from their pulpits yesterday.

It carried an AFP article quoting Abdul Salam al-Kubaisi of the Association of Muslim Scholars [hard line Sunni] as saying that if Shiite leader Muqtada al-Sadr did not turn his Mahdi Army militia into a purely political group, he would lose all the Arab support he had gained during his recent travels abroad.

Bertus Hendriks explains clearly and concisely the current impasse in the formation of an Iraqi government, given American, Kurdish and Sunni Arab opposition to Ibrahim Jaafari as prime minister.

Abbas Kadhim , an Iraqi analyst, reflects on the Samarra atrocity and subsequent events.

3 Comments:

At 7:37 AM, Blogger JHM said...

"We Are Not Afraid -- We Tell Them This On TV"
4 March 2006


Here's one of the more bizarre straws in the whirlwind:

"On Wednesday, Interior Minister Bayan Jabr, a Shiite who has connections to one of the nation's most feared Shiite militias, appeared on national television and complained that government troops were shot by guards at the house of Harith al Dari, Iraq's most powerful hard-line Sunni cleric.

"Jabr promised to send more troops to al-Dari's house to seek justice.

"'We are coming to them very soon, God willing,' Jabr said. 'We tell them this on TV so they can understand that we are not afraid and that we are coming. We are coming.' "

( "Ethnic hatred in Iraq has become entrenched, political solutions elusive," Tom Lasseter and Nancy A. Youssef )


Does that episode mean that the former Iraq has now arrived at what might be termed the Lebanese stage of dissolution, in which the so-called "government" is only another armed gang, and by no means necessarily the strongest?

(It also sounds rather like G. W. Bush and the Republican Party comin' to grips with Usama Bin Ladin, however, and that would be a different paradigm altogether. God knows best.)

In any case, SCIRI/Badr is not entirely a television tiger, for the Knight-Ridder story concludes as follows:

"Anwar al Shimarti, a Shiite leader in the southern town of Najaf, said in a phone interview this week that the desire for revenge, and not politics, seemed to be gaining ground.

" 'We held a conference for the tribal sheiks of the middle Euphrates area and the sheiks' ... spirits were boiling inside,' said al Shimarti, of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution, a leading Shiite political party. 'They wanted to seek vengeance - their hearts are angry and full of revolt - and they want revenge.' "

 
At 1:36 PM, Blogger johnMccutchen said...

Ibrahim Jaafari is often criticized as a weak and ineffective PM. I have never thought so, indeed quite the opposite, I believe him to be a shrewd politician.

His performance as head of failed state in the middle of a civil war bears more than a second look from his many critics. He has cemented ties with Iran and now apparently is well on his way to establishing a working relationship with Turkey, his two most powerful neighbors. His ally al-Sadr has already made inroads with Syria, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Lebanon. His putative "sponsor" Al just returned from an major visit to Kuwait. It isn't that difficult to connect the dot. Jaafari has been skillfully maneuvering against the rapidly approaching end game - signaled in the recent extortionate threats of the US Ambassador - the days of US isolation in-country and our eventual withdrawal.

Another case in point from today's Los Angeles Times (for my money next to Knight Ridder the best US media source):

BAGHDAD — Faced with parliamentary insurrection, Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim Jafari is doing what politicians have done throughout the ages: He's going straight to the people.

On a recent television show, a couple pleaded with Jafari for help in caring for their two blind daughters. With equal parts efficiency and benevolence, he immediately promised money and medical treatment.

Overwhelmed by gratitude, the father fainted.


Today, al-Hakim publicly came to Jaafari's defense and threw down the gauntlet.

Ibrahim is nobody's fool. He is especially not George Bush's fool.

 
At 3:01 PM, Blogger daryoush said...

Juan,

The Bertus Hendriks article repeats the common mantra on Jaffari:

However, in addition to these factors, the US in particular believes that the current prime minister - from the Shi'ite Da'wa party - is much too inclined towards neighbouring Iran, where he and his party spent much time in political exile when Saddam Hussein still ruled Iraq. The same applies,



This is what wikipedia says on Jaffari:

He left for Iran in 1980 and became involved in the movement against Saddam Hussein there. He moved to London in 1989 where he became the al-Dawa spokesman in the UK and an important participant in the wider anti-Saddam movement. While in the UK he attended many Iraqi Events giving religious sermons.

After the 2003 invasion of Iraq he quickly returned to the country. He was picked in July 2003 as member of the U.S.-backed Iraq Interim Governing Council, and served as its first chairman and Iraq'"s first post-Saddam interim president for one month.


source



As far as I know his family is still living in London.

For Mr Jaffari to escape Saddam's regime, Iran was most likely his only choice. But the fact that he moves from Tehran to London was most likely his personal choice. If ones residence is factor on his political view, the it seems to me the length of his stay in London (14 years) should be a more critical factor than his 8 year stay in Iran.

My problem with journalist such as Hendricks is that instead using the article to explain the political stand of Mr Jaffari, they include a line that he lived in Iran, followed by a conclusion that he is close to Iran, implying he is an Iranian stooge!

In contrast to Allawi the article only introduces him as "a secular Shi'ite and former Baath-party member,". Where did he live? Allawi has connection to British and US intelligence services. But they are not mentioned.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home