| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| Rooters analysis of the Iraqi elections |
| 2005-12-16 |
| Iraqis elected a representative parliament on Thursday, completing a U.S. timetable to install democracy, but much hard work lies ahead if it is to survive its own bitter divisions to produce stability and prosperity. Like a prototype aircraft preparing for its maiden flight, the requisite components appear to be in place, with Iraq's various sectarian and ethnic groups sharing in the legislature -- but structural tensions mean no one can be sure it will fly. Rebellious Sunni Arabs laid down their arms to vote in the hope of winning concessions in parliament; but disappointment for them -- or other groups -- could bring yet more violence. "People will have to make compromises," the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, told Reuters, noting that weeks of negotiation will begin soon to form a governing coalition. "There's many other steps to come. It's important to keep up the momentum," said the envoy, who said he will remain ready to play the go-between role he has undertaken so far this year. A crucial test will be how far Shi'ite Islamists, likely to remain by far the biggest parliamentary group, and the Kurds with whom they allied in this year's interim assembly, will make concessions to Sunnis in negotiations to amend the constitution. The charter was forced through parliament and ratified by an October referendum despite fierce opposition from Sunnis whose boycott of January's ballot left them few seats in the assembly. U.S. President George W. Bush has promised Sunnis a review. "I'm not over-optimistic," said Joost Hilterman of the International Crisis Group in Amman, who follows Iraqi affairs. "It's going to be very hard to change the constitution. "Sunnis have supported this not because they are converted to the electoral process but because they hope for influence to roll back what they see as an Iranian advance in Iraq," he said, referring to Tehran's support for fellow Shi'ite clerics. "And if they don't, they're going to go back to what got them here in the first place, the insurgency. And that's going to make it very difficult for American troops to leave." Arab Sunni Muslims, a 20-percent minority that dominated under Saddam Hussein, complain that the new constitution's emphasis on regional autonomy within a federal state gives too much power, and control of Iraq's vast oil reserves, to Kurds in the north and the Shi'ite majority in the south. Another senior Western official working in Baghdad's Green Zone government compound acknowledged rebellious Sunnis would maintain a twin-track approach, keeping violence in reserve: "There will be people out there who will still be hedging their bets," he said. "The challenge ahead will be to make sure that those who prefer violence get marginalised." "Compromise is going to be the order of the day." Only that way would the threat of civil war that is keeping 160,000 U.S., British and other troops in Iraq be averted. Also critical will be forming a competent, honest administration that can quickly deliver on voters' expectations that security and the economy will improve, Khalilzad and other Western diplomats said. Disappointment is dangerous in Iraq. First indications of how strong the spirit of compromise is will come in negotiations on forming a government over the coming weeks and, probably, months. For Rajaa al-Bhayesh, a political scientist at Baghdad's Mustansiriya University, fear of wider civil conflict -- beyond the likely continuation of violence by fringe groups like al Qaeda -- is likely to promote the spirit of compromise. "There will be compromises and a sharing out of jobs because of the general and security situation," he said. Having tasted the dominant position of a slim absolute majority in parliament, however, the Shi'ite bloc, which seems likely to have lost ground in relative terms thanks to a big turnout among Sunnis, is unlikely to give up power easily. But though U.S. officials deny having favourites, analysts see them as keen to rein in the Islamist Alliance, which they criticise for dithering on the economy, favouring ties with U.S. enemies in Iran and alienating Sunnis with rights abuses. "Since no single party will have a majority there will be a need for a very broad-based coalition," Khalilzad said, in a clear signal Washington expects a more diverse government. A straw poll through hundreds of interviews by Reuters reporters across Iraq indicated that secular Shi'ite Iyad Allawi had cut into the Islamist vote in the south and Baghdad as well as picking up Sunni votes in the capital and the north. Mustafa Alani, an Iraqi analyst with the Gulf Research Center, believes U.S. diplomats may try to push for a government under former premier Allawi, with the Kurds and Sunnis, that forces the Shi'ite Islamists to give up some key ministries. "If there's an (Islamist) government, the U.S. government will stay in a damage limitation strategy," he said. "The Americans will be happy to have Shi'ite participation but not in key administrations ... They don't want to see ... people with strong links to Iran in control of the decision-making process." Rivals are particularly critical of the present Interior Ministry, which is accused of running militia death squads, and there may be special pressure for a change of leadership there. "The question is whether the Shi'ite parties will take that lying down," Hilterman said. "There have been hints they will fight ... They need to have a sense of still being in power." Khalilzad, he said, would have his work cut out mediating any such deal, but with voters expectantly waiting rapid action on improving security and public services speed was important. "At this very dangerous stage," Hilterman said, such a grand coalition "is maybe going to be the best solution." |
| Posted by:Dan Darling |
| #5 "â¦completing a U.S. timetable to install democracyâ¦" The US administration, from the beginning, has pushed to meet the mutually agreed upon timeframe but make no mistake the process has always been âcondition basedâ not âtime basedâ. To characterize the installation of the Iraqi government in terms of a âtimetableâ is an attempt to lend credence for setting a timetable for troop withdrawal. "Having a timetable for the transfer of sovereignty and having a timetable for Iraqi elections have resulted in real political and strategic advantages for the U.S. Having a timetable for the withdrawal of troops should be no different." Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) |
| Posted by: DepotGuy 2005-12-16 15:08 |
| #4 I'm routing for the Iraqis but realistically this is still a work in progress. The Islamists and Baathists will be killing as many people as they can, the militia will be killing people too and the liberals and international press will be hyping every setback and downplaying every achievement. |
| Posted by: mhw 2005-12-16 11:36 |
| #3 Sunnis need to get it through their thick-ass skulls, they are a minority. Life is going to be very disappointing for a long time to come. NO more running amok. As for the asswads at reuters, the U.S. constitution took from July 4, 1776 to June 21,1788 to get ratified. So they can stick it up their ass it they don't "bloody well" like it. |
| Posted by: Glomoting Slavins9400 2005-12-16 09:37 |
| #2 Oooh, justified snobbery -- it makes me feel all warm inside! But then, if Rantburgers didn't have higher standards, we would still be reading the New York Times. ;-) |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2005-12-16 07:08 |
| #1 A visit to their website indicates all that the International Crisis Group does is issue press releases that bring a new meaning to the word 'banal'. Their 'analysis' wouldn't good enough to cut it at the Burg nor most other places in the blogosphere. Iraq is now a democracy and Sunni's demands don't need to be addressed, nor does the constitution need to be changed. All they can expect in a democracy is to be treated as equals and that means equal before the law. Sunnis aint special any more in Iraq. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2005-12-16 02:35 |