Kurds, Sunnis Attempting to Dump Jaafari
Violence Leaves 30 Dead
Guerrilla violence killed 30 in Iraq on Wednesday.
The Financial Times says
"bloodshed in central Iraq continued into its third day on Wednesday, with at least 30 killed in bombings and mortar attacks in Baghdad and neighboring regions. In the worst of Wednesday’s attacks, 23 people were killed in a car bomb in a mostly-Shia district of Baghdad. Tuesday’s death toll meanwhile was at least 76, feeding fears that the February 21 bombing of a Shia shrine and the subsequent wave of reprisals may produce a sustained surge in political and sectarian killings."
The Kurdistan Alliance and the Sunni fundamentalist Iraqi Accord Front are attempting to block Ibrahim Jaafari from becoming prime minister. The United Iraqi Alliance, the largest bloc in parliament, has the right to nominate the PM, and an internal party vote resulted in Jaafari's victory. Jaafari is, however, unacceptable to the United States because of his close ties to Iran and his socialist tendencies (he recently expressed admiration for Noam Chomsky and wondered if Noam would come visit Baghdad). The US appears to be working with the Kurds and the Sunnis behind the scenes to make Jaafari's candidacy collapse. The United Iraqi Alliance has 132 votes in the 275-strong parliament, but 184 are needed to choose a president. It therefore needs partners from either the Kurds or Sunni Arabs or both, and these two can essentially filibuster and prevent the formation of a government unless the UIA goes along with them.
Personally, I think that given the parlous security situation in Iraq, it is absolutely crazy to be playing these political games. In the wake of the destruction of the Askariyah Shrine in Samarra, you want to go to the Shiite community and say, 'you cannot have your choice of prime minister and there is going to be a tyranny of the minorities'? Oh, that will calm things right down.
There is no guarantee that the United Iraqi Alliance will give the Americans, the Kurds and the Sunnis a candidate who they like better. Apparently the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq cannot muster the 66 votes within the 130-strong UIA that it would need to put in its own candidate, Adil Abdul Mahdi. SCIRI has better relations with the Kurds than does Jaafari's Da`wa Party (Jaafari was also backed by Muqtada al-Sadr's faction).
The Kurds and the Americans, who are spear-heading this effort to sideline Jaafari, don't appear to have considered another possible outcome, which is a hung parliament, leading to new elections and extending the period of political gridlock as security deteriorates further.
Al-Zaman also reports on the attempt to dump Jaafari. It says,
'A prominent Sunni political source said that the National Accord Front [Sunni Arab religious parties] will not participate in the government if it is decided that Jaafari will lead it. He said, "It is impossible to work with him," adding, "The Shiites knew this. We had informed them of it. We believe that for them to nominate him again is a sign that they are ignoring us." He said that the Sunni Arabs just could not work with Jaafari. '
The anti-Jaafari forces are still dreaming of a Sunni-Kurd-secular coalition that could outmaneuver the Shiite United Iraqi Alliance. Since it has more than a third of the seats in parliament, however, they could only select a president without the UIA if they managed to get dozens of its members of parliament to desert it and join an assortment of Baathists and Salafis instead. I don't find this outcome plausible. Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani has, according to al-Zaman, been intervening behind the scenes to keep the UIA united.
Although earlier the Fadhila or Virtue Party was cited as an element within the UIA that might bolt, taking its 15 seats with it, its leaders appear to have reconsidered. Al-Zaman says that Virtue staged a demonstration in Nasiriyah on Wednesday demanding of the Kurdistan Alliance that it not attempt to sideline the will of the nation (which had made the UIA the biggest bloc).
Al-Zaman/ DPA also report that Prime Minister Jaafari is denying the charges made yesterday by Jalal Talabani that his trip to Ankara was unconstitutional. Jaafari said it was perfectly legal.
posted by Juan Cole @ 3/02/2006 07:22:00 AM
Click to join Infoco
13 Comments:
very nice writing. i resally enjoyed it. look forward to reading more in the future.
Salam
The real puzzle for me is why the Americans prefer Adil Abdul Mahdi over Jaafari.
Possible answers:
1)They think that SCIRI is less philopersian than Dawa (I don't think so).
2)They think that Mahdi is the neoliberal pro-american troyan horse inside SCIRI (could he?).
3)They want to create friction with the Shia, and that is one of the ways to do it.
4)They prefer SCIRI and Iran (middle class shia, rational Khomeinists) than the Sadrists (luben working class, irrational meshianic Khmomeinism).
UIA for a Touchdown?
If 50 or so Sunnis walk out of parliament, what would prevent the Shiites, who would then constitute something like 75 percent of the remaining members, from electing a president and prime minister to their liking? With more posts to spread around within the UIA and smaller parties, perhaps enough could be persuaded to fall in line to back this?
Unconstitutional? Well, Jaafari could argue it's a national emergency, and the Sunnis let him do it by their absence. The Kurds could take it or leave it.
Are the Americans going to withhold their aid? None is coming anyway. Prying Chalabi's dead, cold fingers away from the oil spigot is a task many a Shiite would relish.
Will the US military intervene to stop a majority of the elected parliament from acting in a desperate situation? Jaafari can offer new elections down the line, after the situation has stabilized.
Whether the resulting government could hold together for a month is another question--which could make the whole scenario moot. But hey, we are just killing time anyway, right?
The US is betting that 130,000 troops on the ground gives it a veto on most important political developments. The Shiites appear to be considering testing that proposition. It may be that both can be patient.
Over the longer near term, the question is whether any "Shiite" or "coalition" government that gave in to such pressure could continue to hold office. Or would be worth supporting from the outside.
The Bush Administration has made the wrong move at every opportunity.
Iran supported Mahdi over Jaafari. Was that a compromise with the Americans - which Sadr vetoed?
One thing that I have not seen anything about is what specific levers the US holds over the Iraqi government.
Are there intelligence or consular agents with suitcases of cash openly bribing Iraqi politicians to vote their way - there must be now that Iraq has been transformed into reportedly the most corrupt place on Earth, but does everyone in the world know this except for the domestic US population? It is not spoken about in the US.
Hung governments lead to coups. But the Iraqis - smartly it's turning out - ensured that the armed forces and police are loyal to local parties and not the occupation.
The US cannot be hoping for new elections that the Shiites will win again but does the US have good options for a coup? Allawi has no personal following and no loyal troops except the Americans so a coup would either replace the Sunnis with the Shiites as the base of the insurgency or worse, add the Shiites to the Sunnis as the base of the insurgency. The US didn't want that by late 2003. Does the US want it now that it is clear how much power Iran will have in the alternative?
A last thought is that if dismissing and attempting to reverse the results of the democratic elections in Palestine discredited the US, doing so in Iraq by coordinating a hung government to prevent Jaafari would move the US up a few notches to just behind the Mongols as the most anti-democratic outside force to to ever enter the Middle East.
Prof Cole wrote "Personally, I think that given the parlous security situation in Iraq, it is absolutely crazy to be playing these political games."
How right you are sir. However, I do not think we should take the FT's "According to senior politicians and western diplomats." too seriously. Are we to buy that Ja'fari is closer to Iran than SCIRI and that he is more responsible for SCIRI's death squads than SCIRI?
What the US is trying to do is to give more weight to Allowi, somehow.
The Green Zone should be renamed the Red Line District, with every group flashing Non Negotiable all the time as a matter of course.
Or perhaps it should be classified as a children playground. Bizzare alliances and fights are round the clock now. If that is worth 100,000 lives and trillions of dollars then we should all move to Beyond the Stars where Bush lives.
"bloodshed in central Iraq continued into its third day"
third day? we will be finishing up three YEARS of bloodshed come March 20, 2006.
And, I think we should take the position that everything the Bush administration does - no matter how counterproductive or stupid - they are doing on purpose.
yes, bombing innocents and fermenting civil war - on purpose.
There really is no other rational explanation.
We now have an American goverment that stands for optional war for bogus reasons, kidnapping, holding people for years without due process or trials or even evidence, torture, rape, murder and next -wait for it - genocide.
One of he biggest mysteries, or least covered aspects of the goings on in Iraq is the new 230,000 man army the US is creating from scratch. We hear lots about how many battalions are combat ready, and how many are sort-of but not quite ready. But there is little in the news about the leadership structure or the personalities that hold leadership positions.
There seems to be a very tight connection between the US forces and this new army. Doesn't it seem strange that its up to us to decide whether or not a battalion can operate on its own? I mean, Iraq is "sovereign".
This a country chock full of combat hardened militias, guerillas, and next door neighbors. Why is it that the Iraqi army, after a couple of years of training, can't join the fray without our permission?
Khalizad's statements imply the the new Iraqi army is a US asset that will be put to work when the elected government meets our specifications.
Conspiracy theory anyone?
like spin proof says, do they think that jafari is closer to iran than Mahdi? ridiculous.
They know that Jafari wont bow to the mafia kurdish demands and want him out.
Jafari has more integrity than anyone else in Iraq, notice how corruption (on a large hazem shallan scale anyway) doesnt happen under him. Ali Allawi is a really good finance minister, he has set up a committee to review EVERY contract that comes his way.
Who was finance minister when shallan and allawi made with billions i wonder.
Thats right, it was Adel Abdel Mahdi.
and they want HIM in the top job?
get out of here zalmay.
Eisa Ali
Professor Cole,
In Robert Fisk's recent interview he asks "Who are these people who are trying to provoke the civil war?" Notable: Many of the death squads work for the Ministry of Interior. Who runs the Ministry of Interior in Baghdad? Who pays the Ministry of the Interior? Who pays the militia men who make up the death squads? We do, the occupation authorities.
I'm wondering about your thoughts on the present mayhem befalling Iraqis and occupation accountability for same.
I don't know why the US is going to get involved in this... I would think one of these days our government would learn that squabbling in local politics is a bad idea. If a country wants to go socialist, that's their right. It hasn't made for many successful governments, but if that's what the people vote for, then that's what the people vote for. I'm rather sick of our government overthrowing popularly elected foreign governments.
The Iraqi political system seems to have been designed to create a period of political gridlock after each election. Electing the prime minister requires 2/3 of the vote, but after that, everything is done on the basis of a simple majority. So if minority parties want to get concessions in return for their votes, they have to demand and receive those consessions before the prime minister is selected.
I think that it would have been better to allow the prime minister to be elected by a simple majority, and to require a 2/3 vote to cut off debate. That approach to protecting minority rights would allow a minority to filibuster specific legislation rather than to block the formation of the government.
This is Chinatown
General common sense says that:
-- It makes sense for Jaafari to go because his rule cannot be called successful.
-- If Jaafari remains in power after all that happened on his weatch, he looks like a dictator.
But, as one as one of the characters of Polanski's movie says, "this is Chinatown" which basically means "it is always like this over here".
Post a Comment
<< Home