Iraq: New Government Takes Over
Juan Cole
Professor of Modern Middle Eastern History, University of Michigan and Author, Informed Comment, Weblog on Iraq
Tuesday, June 01, 2004; 2:00 p.m ET
A new caretaker government assumed temporary authority from the Iraqi Governing Council Tuesday after a month of wrangling.
Full Coverage: Iraqi Caretaker Government Takes Temporary Authority (Post, June 1)
Ghazi Yawar, a U.S. educated tribal sheik and council member, was chosen as the president of the interim government after the U.S. favorite, Adnan Pachachi, turned down the job because he lacked support from council members. The presidency is supposed to be a symbolic or ceremonial office.
The actual political leader of the government will be the interim prime minister, Ayad Allawi. Tuesday Allawi appointed the cabinet that will oversee the transition to what President Bush has called "full sovereignty" on June 30.
Juan Cole, professor of Modern Middle Eastern History at the University of Michigan and author of Informed Comment, a weblog about Iraq and the Middle East, was online Tuesday, June 1 at 2 p.m. ET, to discuss the new leaders of the interim Iraqi government, the politics and parties involved and what the implications are for Iraq, the Middle East and the rest of the world.
A transcript follows.
Editor's Note: washingtonpost.com moderators retain editorial control
over Live Online discussions and choose the most relevant questions for guests and hosts; guests and hosts can decline to answer questions.
Juan Cole: Special UN envoy Lakhdar Brahimi announced the members of the new Iraqi caretaker government on Tuesday. This news was expected (it was actually a day late), but there were several surprises. The announced president, Adnan Pachachi, withdrew, and was replaced by Ghazi al-Yawar, a Sunni civil engineer of the younger generation from a prominent northern clan. He had been backed by the Interim Governing Council, but the US and the Americans had preferred Pachachi. I've been following the IGC for the past year and am glad to take questions on these and other developments.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.:
Are the functions and players of the interim government significantly different than the previous governing council?
Juan Cole: The previous interim governing council acted as a sort of senate/ executive for the cabinet, which it appointed. The new caretaker government is less of a collective, with a prime minister and a president, and two vice presidents. Most of the appointees to these posts and to the cabinet, however, either served in the previous interim government or represent parties that had seats in it. So there are not a lot of really fresh faces.
_______________________
Arlington, Va:
Aren't the Iraqis proving they are no more able to put together a government than the Americans are? Last week, the Americans float the name of physicist Sharstani, then the council floats Allawi, then they pick Yawar, this month's acting president of the governing council, which is now disbanded. Can't we just send them John Ashcroft?
Juan Cole:
The Americans are very weak in Iraq now. The siege of Fallujah, the siege of Najaf and Karbala, and the Abu Ghuraib prison torture scandal have left them with relatively little street credibility. As a result, the US has not been in a position to dictate the political appointments to Mr. Brahimi or to the Interim Governing Council. The Americans favored Shahristani, but the IGC did not want him and so was able to see that Iyad Allawi got the job instead. Likewise, the IGC wanted al-Yawar rather than Adnan Pachachi, the favored American candidate, and got its way. Some of the IGC members have genuine grass roots parties (the Kurds, Shiites like al-Da`wa and SCIRI), and cannot be ignored by the US.
_______________________
New York:
How many of the new cabinet ministers are former exiles? Considering that some (notably the new prime minister) have been outside Iraq for decades and are considered close to the U.S., will they have any legitimacy, or will this govt. share the same fate as the Governing Council?
Juan Cole:
Iyad Allawi, the new prime minister, is an old-time exile who worked with ex-Baathist officers and politicians to overthrow Saddam from London and later northern Iraq. Because of the Baathist background of many in his party, he is distrusted by a lot of Shiites and Kurds. In the Iraqi street, people call him "Iyad al-Baathi," "Iyad the Baathist." He is known to be a long-time partner for the US Central Intelligence Agency and the Department of State. I don't see how he can gain much legitimacy. He was not elected to anything by any Iraqis. So, yes, I think the new government he heads will have legitimacy problems. Only when elections are held will there by anything like a legitimate government from the point of view of most Iraqis.
_______________________
Houston, Tex.:
Am I reading too much into this, or does it seem that the IGC stepped up and took control of the naming of the interim government from Brahimi and the U.S? It can only be a positive development if they really are trying to take control of their future.
Juan Cole: Yes, Lakhdar Brahimi initially wanted to appoint technocrats with no grass roots parties at their command to the caretaker government. He reasoned that this government is mainly for the purpose of preparing for elections, and he was afraid that politicians might use the advantages of incumbency to propel themselves into permanent power. But the Interim Governing Council members were not willing to give up those advantages, and insisted on filling key posts. Brahimi appears to have been unable to resist them in this regard, and the weakness of his American partners undermined his ability to act independently. So, Ibrahim Jaafari, head of the al-Da`wa Party and a likely candidate for elected prime minister next winter, is vice president. Other potential elected leaders serve on the cabinet. Although this assertiveness of Iraqi politicians is, as you say, not a bad thing, Brahimi's original point that they would be better off campaigning for office while technocrats made the arrangments for them also has much to recommend it.
_______________________
North Bay, Ontario. Canada:
Given the current disorder, how good are the chances that the new interim government leaders will be able to exercise any authority, or even avoid assassination?
Juan Cole:
The great German sociologist Max Weber defined "authority" as "the likelihood that a command will be obeyed." The new government will have some authority, especially over the various ministries it heads (health, finance, interior, defense, etc.) and over the police and other security forces. But I'm not sure how many ordinary Iraqis will really respect its authority. Likewise, many of the police and other forces have dual loyalties, to local or sectarian leaders as well as to the government, and in a pinch they have tended to go over to local leaders. Almost all the Najaf police, for instance, defected to Muqtada al-Sadr when the Americans came after him. The new government will have the same problem, and will inevitably be seen as an American imposition. Until a new and effective army is built, a lot of the government's orders will not be obeyed.
_______________________
Fairfax, Va.:
Al-Yawar, in his first press conference, called for full sovereignty on June 30, including control of American troops. Will the White House give in to having Iraqis calling the shots for our troops?
Juan Cole:
Control of US troop movements is likely to be a contentious issue between the Americans and the new Iraqi government. Al-Yawar was very upset by the US siege of Fallujah, and helped negotiate a settlement. He was not happy about the siege of Najaf, either. He does not want the US just deciding on its own to launch major military initiatives on Iraqi soil without getting the permission of the Iraqi government. Today in his news conference, President Bush seemed to say that he was mainly concerned with US troops retaining the right to defend themselves when attacked, without having to waste time seeking permission to do so. If that is really the only American concern, I should think it can be worked out. But if the Bush administration wants to use the US military as an instrument to shape Iraqi politics (as it did when it besieged Fallujah and then went after Muqtada al-Sadr), then I think there is a big conflict brewing. I suppose it is possible that President Bush's political advisers will not want a Fallujah going on during the fall campaign, anyway. Of course, it is difficult to see why they would have wanted a Fallujah going on this spring, either. The Bush administration has a tendency to over-estimate the advantages of the use of main force in a place like Iraq, where symbolic politics is often just as important. If it goes on making this mistake, there will be trouble.
_______________________
Gaithersburg, Md.:
Who will control the Iraqi oil fields under a new regime? Will they continue to be protected from attack by U.S. forces?
Juan Cole: The full control of how Iraqi petroleum receipts are spent by the new Iraqi government is still a contentious issue that has not been explicitly spelled out in the resolution presented to the United Nations Security Council by the US and the UK. Al-Yawar has insisted that the resolution be tightened up and that such issues be explicitly addressed. The US military is trying to protect the oil fields and pipelines, but two spectacular bombings took a million barrels a day offline in May. When the exports can return reliably to pre-war levels or more is still unclear.
_______________________
Washington, D.C.:
Is it too early to be investing in Iraq currency?
Juan Cole: The value of Iraqi currency will depend largely on Iraq's petroleum exports. Since these are placed in constant danger by bombings of pipelines and facilities, that source of a "hardening" of the currency cannot be counted on in the short term at least. It would be a highly risky and speculative move.
_______________________
Cabin John, Md.:
Short of Moqtada Sadr being elected prime minister in Jan. 2005, what events should we look for to determine whether the political process is succeeding or failing during the rest of 2004? For example, the Post article says there will be a 1000-person assembly next month. (News to me.) Is this a sure thing? If it actually happens, is that a good sign?
Juan Cole: The measure of the success of the caretaker government will be steady and inexorable progress toward the January elections. If those elections are not held on time, in my view this will be a highly dangerous development. Obviously, holding elections will require good voter rolls, the necessary laws and regulations, political campaigns, and good turnout. In turn, these developments depend on better security. Unfortunately, there is little the new government can do about security at the moment, since it has no effective army. Weighing in about the need to jump-start that process and accelerate it will be another sign of success. And, of course they have to run the ministries under their control in a way that pleases their constituents--including health, electricity, planning, and so forth.
_______________________
Chicago, Ill.:
What is the likelihood of the new Iraqi interim government asking the American military to leave Iraq? I imagine that this would be incredibly popular with the Iraqi people and would prove that they are not American puppets. Also, which individual do you see winning the upcoming elections?
Juan Cole: Since the Americans dissolved the Iraqi military and no new such force has been built, the caretaker government is dependent on the Americans for security. This sword is two-edged, since the American troop presence in the country probably causes a good deal of the instability, in itself. But it is hard to see how these politicians would want the US to leave just yet. Remember that two members of the Interim Governing Council were assassinated, and the leader of the SCIRI party, who had his brother occupy the actual seat on the IGC, was also blown up. Any Iraqi government at this point would also want something of an American security umbrella lest neighbors such as Turkey, Iran and Syria decide to try to meddle. I am not saying they are necessarily happy with the US presence--most Iraqis are probably not. I am saying that the Iraqi government is probably stuck until a new army can be formed.
_______________________
"A new Caretaker govt.":
Juan, how is this in any way a new govt? All that's happened is the IGC, sans Chalabi has swapped deck chairs while hijacking the transition. No new figures of any note. No removals of any note, sans Chalabi.
This would be like Bush declaring a "new focus" in his FP team by losing one person, and then swapping everyone else around, while giving them more power than ever.
It would be nice iff we stopped this phony meme now.
Juan Cole: This is a fair comment and I don't really disagree. I think the exclusion of Chalabi and his powerful clique, however, does make the new set-up substantially different. Likewise, the old IGC was congenitally unable to form a single-office executive, which was why you had that cumbersome one-month rotating presidency. Having a prime minister, especially a hard-headed one like Allawi, seems enough of a change to justify the word "new." But, it is like "new and improved soap detergent." It is not as if the basic ingredients are that different.
_______________________
Irvine, Calif.:
Mr. Cole:
The following question was not taken up by Mr. Bennett. Could you help?
Why is the U.S. in Iraq?
Juan Cole: The purposes for which the Iraq war was fought remain opaque to most Americans outside the inner circle of the Bush administration. It is quite alarming that the supposedly democratic US government can be essentially hijacked by about 8 key officials under the right circumstances, especially with regard to foreign policy. Until, like Robert McNamara, these 8 officials repent in their old ages and come completely clean, we can only speculate. Paul O'Neill suggests that Dick Cheney saw lots of opportunities for US companies to explore, drill and refine Iraqi petroleum (in the long term, Iraq's daily capacity could be 10 million barrels a day, something close to that of Saudi Arabia. Although the US cannot hope to own the petroleum or the receipts for it, there is a lot of money to be made in development and refining). Some think that the old Cold War hawks wanted to finally kill off the Vietname Syndrome and give back to the US government the ability to fight "small wars" at will, especially given that the US is now the only superpower. Iraq would be their test case. It may be that some Department of Defense officials were tired of the stand-off in the Persian Gulf and the lack of a security architecture after the British withdrawal in 1969. Two-thirds of the world's proven petroleum reserves are in this region, and it lacked any real security. An Americanized Iraq with a division or two permanently stationed there would solve the problem. For a handful of Neocons, this move may have been seen as a way to improve Israel's security posture. It was complex, with a lot of different strands coming together. I don't believe anyone seriously believed in Washington that Saddam posed a military threat to the US.
_______________________
Rockville, Md.:
I think a clarification should be made regarding your response to Fairfax, Va. Fallujah was where four American contractors were violently killed and mutilated and hung in the streets. The Iraqi Governing Council was not doing anything to try to catch those responsible and that is why the American military was brought in, to try to find those responsible and bring them to justice. I do not believe the military was brought in to influence politics as you said.
Juan Cole:
Only three of the four private security guards that were killed at Fallujah were Americans. One was South African. The guerrillas who killed them then left the city. President Bush appears to have personally ordered that "heads must roll." Besieging an entire city, bombing it, and killing 600 persons, some proportion of them women and children, is clearly a disproportionate response, and was political in nature. All Iraqis understood this, and it turned them against the US presence, decisively. It was probably a contravention of the 4th Geneva Convention, which forbids Occupying Powers to engage in collective punishment. Even Adnan Pachachi said this.
_______________________
McLean, Va.:
This all reminds me of the whole Mahmoud fiasco in Isreal/Palestine. How long will it be until this new guy in Iraq realizes that he too is supposed to just be a puppet?
Juan Cole: The US in Iraq is far weaker than the Israelis in the Occupied Territories. The US will not find it easy to simply ignore Mr. Allawi or the caretaker government (this is already clear from the appointment process!) The danger seems to me not that the caretaker government will act as a mere puppet. These individuals seem to me hungry for their own role. The danger is that they will not move to early elections, and may inadvertently provoke a revolution against themselves and their American backers. If 300,000 Iraqis start coming out into the street regularly, the US would just have to leave.
_______________________
Juan Cole: That's my time. Thanks so much for the great questions. See you in cyberspace!
cheers
Juan Cole
_______________________
Automatically Update Page
Get New Responses
Submit Question
|
