World>Terrorism & Security
posted June 2, 2004, updated 1:15 p.m.

Transition countdown

Can a free Iraq flourish? The pundit battles begin.

by Jim Bencivenga | csmonitor.com

The clock is ticking.

With the announcement of Iraq's transitional government on Tuesday, "the final countdown toward the transfer of sovereignty from the US-led coalition at the end of the month," begins, reports The Christian Science Monitor.

What that countdown portends was premium grist for editorial writers Wednesday.

Most pundits agreed with the tentative position taken by The Wall Street Journal, that "it is too early to tell." But after that obvious acknowledgment, a sharp divide exists.

Editorials ranged from the assertion that a corner has been turned,( WSJ), to holding out little hope for the transitional government faulting it for being "pro-American and manipulated by exiles who owe their position to US patronage," ( Arab News).

A Cincinnati Post editorial fixed on the words of US national security adviser Condoleezza Rice as she characterized the new Iraqi interim government: "These are not America's puppets."

No, they are not. In a display of independence that might be a portent of things to come, the Iraqis rejected US attempts to install a puppet. In a show of independence, the old US-appointed governing council dissolved itself as soon as the new leaders were named. And therein might be both problem and promise for the Bush White House.


06/01/04 Sectarian violence flares in Pakistan 05/28/04 New reports question war on terror 05/27/04 Terror's chill summer wind

Sign up to be notified daily: Find out more.

The Post concluded:

There are no guarantees, but the creation of the interim government holds out hope, however faint, that Iraq one day will be permanently ruled by a truly representative elected government.

Decidedly more optimistic, The Times of London (subscription) saw the interim government as "an achievement that should not be underrated in Iraq, the wider Muslim world, or in America itself."

In its lead editorial the Times wrote:

The announcement yesterday of the new Iraqi President and the naming of a 26-man Cabinet to serve under the new interim Prime Minister, Iyad Allawi, confounds the critics almost willing chaos at the end of the month. After days of difficult talks, brinkmanship, and skillful behind-the-scenes lobbying, Iraqis of all factions, tribes and religious affiliation have united in the interests of a stable, independent and democratic country. Their readiness to compromise is of genuine significance. For the first time since the end of Saddam Hussein's dictatorship, Iraqis can look forward realistically to a new political order.

Flying in the face of such optimism, another British paper, the Guardian, found there was only the smallest silver lining amid precious little progress in Iraq:

The only good news yesterday was that top US commanders were reported to be shifting their mission from combat to defensive operations, realizing that they have failed in Najaf and Fallujah. The ban on senior officials from the old regime is being relaxed and local deals are being struck. It may not be democracy, but it is better than making more enemies.

In a hard-nosed editorial, Arab News asked and answered the question: "How can you accept people who came with the occupiers?" You can't, wrote the Saudi Arabian English-language daily as it identified sentiment from the Iraqi street as the only answer: "The people who were tortured and suffered inside Iraq deserve these positions." Its editorial continued:

... the earlier it dawns on the White House that any politician who receives its support is automatically suspect, if not discredited, in the eyes of the majority of Iraqis the better it will be for Iraq, America, and the world.

Shifting the discussion from the interim government to the UN, an analysis by Al Jazeera cast a spotlight on a revised resolution on post-occupation Iraq currently being circulated by the US and the UK.

Al Jazeera holds two concerns about the initial draft: "The absence of a termination date for the US-led multinational force and the failure to state that the new Iraqi government will have authority over its security forces."

For Al Jazeera, the sticking point is:

[even though]the new draft notes for the first time 'that the presence of the multinational force in Iraq is at the request of the incoming interim government,' ... it doesn't specifically give the new leaders the right to ask the force to leave though US and British leaders have said they will go if asked. Instead, [the draft] anticipates that the incoming government will make a formal request 'to retain the presence of the multinational force' and leaves room for the date of that letter to be included in the resolution.

Picking up where Al Jazeera left off, the San Francisco Chronicle editorialized: "The real fate of the interim Iraqi regime, and the extent of its sovereignty after June 30 with 138,000 US troops in effective control, could be determined by the UN response to a US bid for a major international force to assume the security burden."

In his regular column in the Washington Post, Fareed Zakaraia, editor of Newsweek International, spelled out the interim government's need for international legitimacy. He wrote:

There will almost certainly be a UN resolution on Iraq in the next few weeks. But what is needed is a strong resolution, endorsing the new government and inviting countries to help it in all possible ways. So far Washington has been unable to get much by way of troop commitments. It has asked 12 countries for help, and only two have responded positively. Countries will be more likely to help if the United Nations is given greater control and authority going forward. The symbolism should be that on July 1 a new Iraq rejoins the international community.