World reacts to Iraq's vote

President Bush declared Iraq's landmark elections " a resounding success" in a brief White House appearance hours after polls closed Sunday.

"Today, the people of Iraq have spoken to the world, and the world is hearing the voice of freedom from the center of the Middle East," Mr. Bush said. He said the voters had rejected "the anti-democratic ideology of the terrorists."

"They have refused to be intimidated by thugs and assassins. ... And they have demonstrated the kind of courage that is always the foundation of self-government."

01/28/05 FBI expands its role in domestic spying 01/27/05 European carrot, American stick 01/26/05 Is Russia rebuilding its Mideast role?

Sign up to be notified daily: Find out more.

Mr. Bush also sounded a note of caution, however.

Terrorists and insurgents will continue to wage their war against democracy, and we will support the Iraqi people in their fight against them. ... There is more distance to travel on the road to democracy, yet Iraqis are proving they are equal to the challenge.

Most reactions to the election, which was closely watched around the world, seemed to hit the same notes as Bush.

Praise for the bravery of Iraqi voters was universal, as was acknowledgment of the hardships ahead. The differences came in the arrangement and interpretation of the notes.

Reactions to the election dominated editorial pages of newspapers in Europe, reports Deutsche Welle.

"Should we celebrate these elections in Iraq?" asked the French daily Le Monde. "Yes, without a doubt, as there have never been free elections in this country," it replied. But, the paper wondered how the elections could possibly reflect the political realities of modern Iraqi society, given the fact that they took place under the pressure of the occupation and the threat of terrorism.

Bush can be satisfied for at least three reasons, opines Italy's Il Messaggero. He "made progress against the threat of terrorism; proved to the world that democracy and freedom can also be created with weapons; but most of all, paved the way for America's exit strategy out of Iraq."

"The latter is the true goal of the American government, [Il Messaggero] said, since it has proved incapable of bringing security to Iraq after its swift military victory," according to Deutsche Welle's roundup.

In England, the responses were mixed as well. The Guardian writes that "the most obvious message to draw from yesterday's elections in Iraq is that it will be a long time before it becomes clear who the real winners are."

In many respects it is difficult to be confident that this was a free or fair election, given the violence and intimidation surrounding it.

The Times of London emphasized both the bravery of Iraqi voters and the higher-than-expected turnout.

Everyone knew the price of voting would be an ink-blackened forefinger that would prevent them voting twice – but could also have invited an assassin's bullet. It was a price they paid. ...

The great question to be answered by Iraq's first free election in half a century was not who won but how many people voted.The answer must be: enough.

History has yet to rule on the net effect on global security of ousting Saddam Hussein. But this much is clear: Yesterday's election would not have happened were he still in power. It gave cause for celebration in most of Iraq, and should do so everywhere.

In an English-language roundup of German newspapers' reactions to the Iraq election, the website of the weekly magazine Der Spiegel reports that the vote was "full of contrasts."

You could easily make the case that they were a victory for democracy, with voter turnout estimated at 60 percent. Save for one major caveat: the country's minority Sunni population mostly boycotted the poll, meaning the new government won't be a representative one. And while Al Qaeda lieutenant Abu Musab al-Zarqawi has been promising spectacular election-day terrorist attacks for weeks, they never materialized. Still, at least 36 people died in smaller scale election day bombings and attacks.

According to Der Spiegel, the center-left Sueddeutsche Zeitung lauds the bravery of Iraqi voters in the face of violent threats, but criticizes Bush's "overhasty" analysis that this is a turning point for Iraq.

The election will not improve the Iraqi's everyday situation ... there are still shortages of electricity, water and gas, and, according to Washington's own estimates, the security situation will remain just as bad as it was before the election. ... After this election, Iraq will have a democratically legitimate government ... but it will not have representative leadership. This will offer the extremists a new, broader base from which to attack.

They weren't free because they took place in a state of emergency and under the threat of violence. They weren't fair because the candidates hand-picked by the occupier almost had a TV monopoly. And they weren't democratic because the names of most candidates were kept secret right up to the last minute."

The Christian Science Monitor reports that the mood was triumphant in the mostly Shiite city of Najaf.

While Iraq's majority Shiite Arabs also hope for better government and a share of power that reflects their status as Iraq's majority, there seemed to be something cathartic in the act of voting, which combined a rejection of the past with hopes for a safer future.

Fred Kaplan points out in Slate the glaring difference between turnout in Shiite versus Sunni areas of the country.

"Nearly all of the moving TV footage was taken in southern Iraq, the stronghold of Shiite Muslims, where Sunni insurgents lack a base of operation and where, therefore, turnout was expected to be high." The picture was more mixed in Baghdad (though, according to some reports, many more people voted than had been anticipated) and quite dismal in Sunni-dominated areas. (Just 5 percent voted in Fallujah, and commentators were surprised the number wasn't lower still.)

The Saudi Arabian English-language daily Arab News reports that reactions among academics and business executives in the kingdom are mixed. An editorial in the paper acknowledges flaws in the election, but asks the question: "Was it really better than no election at all?"

We think so. We welcome the elections. It surely had flaws – but what election doesn't? All the people may not have spoken. The threatened Sunni boycott may result in an assembly where Sunni representation will be much below what it should be. But a great number had their say. Those who become members of the assembly and form the government will do so on the strength of a mandate given by the people of Iraq. This is what we have been waiting for – not appointments but an election by and for the people in which the people choose. It is what so many all over the world have died for and that should not be forgotten.

The Dubai-based Gulf News pays "tribute to the people of Iraq" in an editorial that ends with a query about the future of US-led occupying forces.

What will be interesting to see is, will the new government demand that the occupying forces vacate Iraq, as many of the candidates were threatening to do. And, if they do ask, will the United States, and others, really go?

Writing in the Australian daily The Sydney Morning Herald, executive director of the Sydney Institute Gerard Henderson lauds the election as a victory for the "real resistance" in Iraq.

On Sunday, the real resistance in Iraq revealed itself. Namely, the resistance of courageous Iraqi men and women to the prevailing terror of Saddam Hussein loyalists and the Al Qaeda-aligned terrorist forces led by the Jordanian-born Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

Also...
• Kerry blames defeat on Bin Laden ( BBC)
• Iraq: Unmasking the insurgents ( Newsweek)
• Britain's shattered morals ( Haaretz)
• America's Jihad ( Al-Ahram, Egypt)

• Feedback appreciated. E-mail Matthew Clark.