Now the sovereignty muddle

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2003
Now the sovereignty muddle
5
Sat, 05-29-2004 - 11:04am
"Full Sovereignity," what exactly does GWB mean. Does he mean what he says or is he going to say one thing while doing another? Will George get his way, or will the Iraqis get theirs?

Now the sovereignty muddle

By Ehsan Ahrari

The tug-and-pull over the draft resolution submitted to the United Nations regarding the power and authority of the interim Iraqi government is on. As can be expected, the United States and the United Kingdom are on one side, and France, Germany, Russia and China are on the other. The Bush administration has not stopped envisaging Iraq as a war trophy that it owns and should treat the way it pleases. The opposing countries in the world body have a starkly different perspective.

In his speech in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, this week President George W Bush used the phrase "full sovereignty" for Iraq several times. Even though within the US domestic arena few believed his earnestness over it, the Permanent Five at the UN and Germany appear adamant about holding America's feet to the fire on that issue. Ironically, British Prime Minister Tony Blair also took Bush seriously regarding that phrase and made a statement that the interim Iraqi government should have veto power over foreign forces in the country. When the media zoomed in on Blair's statement as a sign of a "first crack" in Anglo-American unity regarding Iraq, he had to backpedal his way out of it by aligning himself with the muddled US meaning of "full sovereignty".

What exactly is the US position? Maintaining purposeful ambiguity, to be sure. According to reports on behind-closed-door maneuverings at the UN Security Council, France has described the US-UK draft resolution as "a good basis for negotiation" but "not yet a good resolution". The US ambassador at the UN, John D Negroponte - who will also become America's first ambassador to post-Saddam Hussein Iraq - agreed that the draft resolution was a work in progress and was ready to be "fine-tuned"; however, he added that the US did not want to "burden" the resolution with details. France and other opponents of the current draft translated Negroponte's explanation as a US ploy to retain ample ambiguity in the final language of the resolution so that it could later implement it as it desired.

China had a better idea. Instead of complaining about the ambiguity of the Anglo-American draft resolution, it circulated a paper titled "Iraq Run by Iraqis", with suggested amendments to the resolution. This position is reportedly receiving a lot of support within the UN.

Now the Bush administration is on the defensive. There is no doubt that an important aspect of its position is that the interim Iraqi government should have no power over blocking military operations by US-led forces. At the same time, US officials in the recent past have made statements to the effect that US forces would leave Iraq if they were invited by the interim government to do so. Between these palpably contradictory positions, the fact of the matter is that the United States wishes to maintain control over any future military operations in Iraq. To agree to anything less than that, according to this perspective, is tantamount to stating that, even though Iraq has emerged as the gathering place of global terrorists, it is the interim Iraqi government that will call the shots over when and where to fight the forces of terror.

One indication of the muddle-headed US thinking over the real authority of the interim Iraqi government became apparent by the fact the no one from the US side wanted to answer the following question that was raised during the informal discussion at the UN: What happens if the Iraqi government were to oppose specific plans by US commanders to strike insurgent positions? The best the US officials could do was to say that the two sides would consult when faced with such situations. France and its partners to this discussion translated it to be a purposeful ambiguity that would only result in enhancing the maneuverability of the Americans in Iraq.

The Chinese proposal from its aforementioned paper, which was immediately endorsed by Russia, Germany and France, proposes that the interim government would have control over the Iraqi army and police, and require the multinational force to consult with the Iraqi government on all military actions except for self-defense. This proposal would also give the new Iraqi government the right to determine whether foreign forces remained in their country. Moreover, this proposal also limits the mandate of multinational forces to next January 5, the date of the expected elections for a transitional government.

The US and the UK are expected to insist on sustaining ample ambiguity in the final language of the resolution. At the same time, it is doubtful whether Washington would agree to allow the interim Iraqi government the final say about when the multinational forces should leave that country. However, the ultimate deciding factor on all these issues is whether the security situation inside Iraq deteriorates or improves. Right now, the flames of violence have already engulfed noteworthy portions of the Shi'ite population. What is still favoring the US, at least for now, is that moderate Shi'ites are determined to capture their rare moment in history and bring about a Shi'ite-dominated government. That may be one very important reason why Muqtada al-Sadr appears to have been forced by other Shi'ite leaders to back down in his present confrontation with US forces.

There is little doubt that the Shi'ite leadership is resolutely driven by the desire to see the day when their country will have a moderate Islamic democracy in which they will have a significant say. To achieve that result, they are looking at the UN with hope. They know that the lone superpower is fighting an uphill battle in their country. The US is also willing to give democracy a chance in Iraq, even a moderate Islamic democracy, as long as such a system emerges as a result of an election. That, in the final analysis, is what is driving the Shi'ites of Iraq to stay away from mounting a civil war against the United States. The UN, they hope, will resolve all the muddle-headedness involving great powers and work for the creation of democracy in their troubled country.

Ehsan Ahrari, PhD, is an Alexandria, Virginia, US-based independent strategic analyst.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FE29Ak01.html

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-15-2004
Sat, 05-29-2004 - 5:42pm
Ahhhh, once again, Bush comes up with a brand new expression that I just can't understand! What the heck does he mean by "full sovereignty"? Has any other country in the world ever pronounced themselves "fully sovereign"? I don't know. And what does he mean, specifically, when he says "weapons of mass destruction"? Aren't all weapons meant for mass destruction? Isn't that why they are weapons and not, say, mops or something? And what is this "Axis-of-Evil" stuff all about? Can I join? I can be just as evil as the next person, if I try hard enough.

I mean, I am willing to give this guy the benefit of my doubts, and really give some good thought to his policies and ideas, if anything, to be fair-minded. But every time I try, I am stymied by his creative use of the English language, and I end up languishing at Square One, trying to figure out what he's talking about.

And why, oh why, does he use "evil" as a noun so much? English professors the world over must be losing sleep.

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2003
Sat, 05-29-2004 - 9:37pm
Thanks, I needed the enlightenment. I must admit that sovereignity got me.

<>

Had to think about this for a bit. I guess I have heard evil used as a noun so long, I just accept it. You know those Christians, evil is real and lives in Texas er Washington. Really just kidding.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-15-2004
Sat, 05-29-2004 - 10:59pm
Haha! Well, really, if evil is a noun, it's a person, a place, an object, or an idea. If America is at war against "evil," as Bush tends to imply or outright state every chance he gets, what are these poor guys and gals (American troops) supposed to be shooting at? Mr. Evil? Maybe, here he means Osama. But he's not in Iraq, anyway. Maybe Evil and Iraq are synonymous, but highly unlikely for an entire country to be, literally, an evil object. You'd think that in the past couple of thousand years, someone would have noticed before now. Not exactly a needle in a haystack. If "evil" is an idea, good luck to the troops. I'm sure they are a dedicated bunch, and very good at what they do, but they'll be shooting a very long time. Let's say that evil is a behavior. Well, then there's still a problem. And it's time. You either shoot the person who may commit an evil act, which includes everybody on the planet. Not very efficient. Or you shoot people only after they commit an evil act, which doesn't do anything to decrease the evil behaviors, because they've already happened. Also not efficient. Your only chance is to shoot the evil-doer within the first split-second of commiting an evil act. That's a tall order!

And sovereignty! Don't get me started :)

OK. I'll shut up now.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2003
Sun, 05-30-2004 - 11:53am


iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2003
Sun, 05-30-2004 - 11:59am

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apmideast_story.asp?category=1107&slug=Iraq%20Politics


Sunday, May 30, 2004 · Last updated 7:04 a.m. PT


Leadership fight may slow Iraq government


By HAMZA HENDAWI
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER


BAGHDAD, Iraq -- A dispute Sunday between Iraq's Governing Council and U.S. occupation authorities over the selection of a new Iraqi president threatened to delay the appointment of a new government to take power June 30, Iraqi officials said.


A council member, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the U.S. governor of Iraq, L. Paul Bremer, and U.N. envoy Lakhdar Brahimi were exerting "massive pressure" to choose former Foreign Minister Adnan Pachachi, who supports keeping foreign troops in Iraq until the security situation stabilizes.


However, the council member said most of the 22 members favored the current head of the council, civil engineer Ghazi Mashal Ajil al-Yawer, who has been sharply critical of the U.S.-led occupation.


Both are Sunni Arab Muslims.


Bremer and President Bush's special envoy, Robert Blackwill, attended part of a five-hour council session Sunday and urged the members not to vote on the presidency, according to one council member.


The Americans threatened not to recognize the council's choice, the member said on condition of anonymity. The Coalition Provisional Authority, run by Bremer, has the final say in all policy decisions in Iraq.


Coalition spokesman Dan Senor denied the Americans were showing favoritism toward Pachachi. "We are not pressuring or urging any one candidate over another," he told reporters.


The tough stand by Bremer in support of Pachachi, an 81-year-old former exile, was unexpected because the Americans had signaled that they were primarily interested in approving the choice for prime minister, the top executive job that went to U.S.-backed Iyad Allawi, a Shiite Muslim, on Friday.


The presidency will be a largely ceremonial post with little power.


The council will meet again on Monday, but informal consultations will continue later Sunday, according to council sources.


Brahimi, who has led the process for drawing up the new government, hopes to complete selection of an interim government by Monday or Tuesday.


Other council members and officials familiar with the deliberations confirmed that the selection of a new president was the main stumbling block to an agreement on the entire Cabinet, which will hold power until elections for a national assembly next year.


Al-Yawer took over as head of the U.S.-appointed Governing Council after the assassination of the previous chief Abdel-Zahraa Othman, also known as Izzadine Saleem. He is a member of one of the largest tribes in the region and has the support of Shiite and Kurdish council members.


Pachachi fled to the United Arab Emirates after the Baath Party of Saddam Hussein seized power in 1968 and is well-connected within the United States, United Nations and pro-U.S. nations of the Gulf.


During a recent television interview, al-Yawer, who routinely wears traditional Arab robes and head gear, was sharply critical of the American occupation, blaming U.S. ineptness for the deteriorating law and order.


"We blame the United States 100 percent for the security in Iraq," al-Yawer said. "They occupied the country, disbanded the security agencies and for 10 months left Iraq's borders open for anyone to come in without a visa or even a passport."


Al-Yawer urged Iraqis to come together so they can tell the Americans to go home. However, he also has denounced violence against American and other coalition forces.


"We should resist (the occupation) with our thoughts, our positions and political work and that is the best way. Violence breeds violence." he said.


On the other hand, Pachachi, who favors business suits, has said foreign troops must remain in Iraq until the security situation has stabilized and the army and police are fully prepared to protect the nation.


Council sources said agreement has been reached on several of the 26 Cabinet posts. However, no deal is expected to be announced until agreement had been reached on the entire lineup - meaning differences over the presidency could block the whole process. (me: