Political Maneuvers in Baghdad
The Saudi-backed London daily al-Hayat [Life] [Ar.] argues that the visit (demarche would be more like it) of Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice and her British counterpart Jack Straw to Baghdad is a (succssful) attempt to break up the Shiite United Iraqi Alliance bloc in parliament and to sideline Ibrahim Jaafari. It reports that she assured Jaafari that he is a fine politician, but just isn't up to heading a government of national unity that requires gaining the trust of a wide cross-section of Iraqis.
While a visibly uncomfortable Rice met with Jaafari, wearing a frosty forced smile eerily reminiscent of the one Margeret Thatcher used to deploy in similar situations, another member of the United Iraqi Alliance, MP Jalal al-Din Saghir, called on Jaafari to step down. Saghir comes from the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI).
Saghir's public call comes after that on Saturday of Qasim Dawud. Al-Zaman says that Dawud has just defected to the United Iraqi Alliance from the Iraqi National List of Iyad Allawi, and that SCIRI leader Abdul Aziz has not only welcomed him into the fold but has spoken well of him as a possible minister of the interior. Dawud, an independent technocrat, is not linked to a militia. He served as minister of security in the interim government of Allawi, but developed a good working relationship at that time with MP from SCIRI. But it is difficult to see what good it does al-Hakim to gain one defecter from the Allawi list if he loses 64 disaffected Dawa and Sadrist coalition partners over the sidelining of Jaafari.
Also on Saturday, secular Arab nationalist leader Salih Mutlak [Ar.] of the National Dialogue Council said that Jaafari should not be eligible to be prime minister because the Iraqi constitution specifies that the post must be held by an Iraqi citizen. Jaafari has dual British and Iraqi citizenship, which Mutlak says should disqualify him. Mutlak, who has praised the Baath Party, also condemned Jaafari's government as "sectarian." (A member of the United Iraqi Alliance quipped in response that rooting out Baathists from the government was a more urgent matter than worrying about dual citizenship, thus turning the tables on Mutlak.)
But Jaafari says he will fight on to the bitter end. MP Rida Taqi Jawad of SCIRI affirmed to al-Hayat on Sunday that the United Iraqi Alliance has no intention of dropping Jaafari.
Riyad Nuri, a spokesman for young Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, told al-Hayat that if Jaafari withdrew, the Sadrist bloc would withdraw from the government and from the United Iraqi Alliance. They have 32 seats at least, and are a major component of the 130-strong coalition.
posted by Juan Cole @ 4/03/2006 12:14:00 AM
Click to join Infoco
2 Comments:
"if Jaafari withdrew, the Sadrist bloc would withdraw from the government and from the United Iraqi Alliance."
This very likely outcome is good for all concerned:
1) With the US hostility now in the open, Jaafari can rightly resign as a protest against colonialism rather than wait until being rejected.
2) Sadr, who is uncomfortable in government under US occupation, gets a lot of anti-US credit.
3) The UIA split will allay the fears of the USA and the Arabs about Iran's influence.
4) Iraq gets an Opposition in parliament, essential to check the powers of those in government.
Since the choice of the PM is no longer the privilege of the winning list, there is very little benefit from having lists anyway.
Ideally, the elected MPs should be freed from party politics and be allowed to act according to the wishes of their constituencies and their own conscience, which is far superior to the Western 'tribal' Democracy.
Have the Winners Been Talking with the Others?
With all the discussion of Jaafari and whether he will remain the candidate of the UIA, there has been little coverage of who the UIA has been talking with to round out the 2/3's vote needed to move the process forward.
What have they been offering and to whom? What has been the reaction?
Have Rice and Straw pressured other parties into working with the UIA to form a unity government, and curb whatever demands are blocking agreement?
The UIA, if it remains more or less united, has the ability to block formation of any other government, so we are at a permanent stalemate and eventual re-election with likely similar results, ad infinitum, unless the UIA can coax up some allies.
Why not sooner rather than later?
In the meantime, Jaafari remains as interim prime minister.
At some point, something is going to give--probably the insanely high hurdle of the constitutional requirements--and someone will declare a government. Then all bets will be off.
Jaafari, whom the US picked last time, may be in place for a good long while.
He does not seem to be in a hurry to invite the US to leave, even though that would presumably make 80 percent of Iraqis happy. So Jaafari must think he has much to gain by the US's staying.
Bases, spending, training, bombing power, intel payments, bribes, contracts, aid, business....a rich blend indeed. Kind of jump-starting Iraq into the modern world. And you can't make omelettes....
In the meantime, the US caught four suspected insurgents over the weekend, and managed to miss any of the 50 mobile dead sleepwalking their way through Iraq last night.
The press buzz is that the latest round of killings is somehow related to the government-formation deadlock, with the implied thought that the killings would stop if a government agreement were reached. That, though, implies that someone is killing these people to put pressure on to form a unity government, and that they would stop if one were formed. Not sure this train of "thought" has a factual basis.
The question remains, what positive effect are US troops having in Iraq? Is it worth the cost?
Post a Comment
<< Home