Exit blocked?

UN Secretary General Kofi Annan agreed Thursday with the US that holding elections in Iraq is not possible before June 30. His decison followed a briefing by his special envoy to Iraq, Algerian Lakhdar Brahimi.

Two questions immediately surfaced: Will the United States, as promised, hand over power to Iraqis on June 30? If so, to whom will it actually grant authority?

Iraqi administrator Paul Bremer quickly confronted the first question. Yes, he told a Baghdad press conference following Mr. Annan's announcement, coalition forces will honor the June 30 transfer of power.

The second question is more puzzling. The US is effectively back at square one on how to create a provisional government to assume sovereignty, writes The Washington Post.

02/19/04 More than enough enemies 02/18/04 Will Afghan turmoil postpone elections? 02/17/04 Will US delay Iraq sovereignty transfer?

Sign up to be notified daily: Find out more.

Because Iraqis have rejected other ideas, the challenge for the United States, the United Nations and Iraqi leaders will be to find a formula – quickly – that will provide political stability and be regarded as legitimate by the majority of Iraqis.

Mr. Annan made no recommendation on how to form a transitional government. However, as The Globe and Mail reports, he urged the US to respect its pledge to transfer sovereignty June 30.

Annan plans to travel to Japan Friday and is expected to present US and Iraqi leaders with recommendations after he returns Feb. 25.

"The Security Council would probably have to adopt a new resolution in the months ahead, to support his plans for political transition," says Annan. One issue still to be sorted out, reports the Post, is "the interim constitution, popularly known as the basic law. It is due to be concluded by Feb. 28 but has snagged on issues of religion and federalism. It was supposed to include provisions for a new provisional government."

All parties agree that direct elections, are the only way forward, reports the BBC. Timing now becomes a critically sensitive issue. So far, the UN has played a key role as a neutral arbiter on the decision to hold elections June 30, buffering Grand Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani, the majority Shia Muslim group's most senior spiritual leader, who otherwise would not go along with a delay in direct elections.

Sistani's role cannot be underestimated Mr. Brahimi told the Guardian.

'Ayatollah Sistani and I had a very, very good discussion, and I think he, like everybody else, realizes that the United Nations has no agenda except to help them, and that if we tell them something it is because we strongly believe it is in the interests of Iraq.'

Brutal acts of violence clearly tempered the UN's decision to delay the vote says the BBC:

On the fourth day of their visit, a bomb killed 53 people in the town of Iskandariya, south of Baghdad. On the fifth day, a suicide bomber killed at least 46 people in Baghdad itself. Many of the victims were queuing outside buildings .The similarity with what could happen outside polling stations in a national election is difficult to ignore. It probably was not a deciding factor for the UN. But it would have made even the most fervent fan of early direct elections think twice.

Al Jazeera outlines the leading proposals leading proposals for power transfer: a national conference to choose a caretaker administration, [similar to what occurred in Afghanistan], partial elections, or a handover of power to the Governing Council [which could either be expanded or downsized].

Because what Annan proposed wasn't entirely clear, the country's Shia majority, which had threatened civil disobedience if polls were not held, are planning their next move carefully, reports Al Jazeera

Iraqi politicians said Friday they would await formal notification of the UN decision recommending against early elections before deciding how best to form a new government.

A working majority of the 25-member General Council appeared to accept Annan's finding and said they would discuss alternatives after receiving a formal report. "Elections are a must, but it is impossible right now," Nasser al-Chadechi, a Sunni Arab council member, told the Independent Online. "Now, we have many options to look at with the UN and the Iraqi people."

Critics say that the council, which includes many Iraqi expatriates, lacks credibility.

The council or any new body to which authority is transferred should have limited powers, most Iraqis agree. The sticking issue is that a non-elected body would not have the same powers as an elected body.

For example, the new assembly may be prohibited from making law regarding hot-button issues, such as the role of religion in government or boundaries of disputed regions, such as Kurdistan, reports the Post.

There is no small irony in the fact that less than a year ago, the UN refusal to back the war in Iraq was viewed by Bush administration officials as a sign of the world body's growing irrelevance. Now the future of the occupation may hinge on what the UN leadership proposes.

Also...
• Iraq debate shifts to expanding the US-appointed council ( The New York Times)
• France, Germany Want a UN Resolution on Iraq ( Los Angeles Times)
• Along Came Sharia ( National Review Online)
• Annan discounts June election in Iraq, may anger Shiite majority ( Channelnewsasia.com)

• Feedback appreciated. E-mail Jim Bencivenga .