June 8, 2004
IRAQ'S NEW INTERIM GOVERNMENT FACES AN UPHILL
STRUGGLE
KEY FINDINGS
** Many hail new government
as a "hopeful sign" but others denounce it as a U.S.
"puppet."
** The security situation
will be "decisive" to the interim government's success or failure.
** Skeptics call the
transfer of power a "cover" for continued occupation.
MAJOR THEMES
'At last, some good news from Iraq'-- Editorialists called the formation of a new
Iraqi interim government "an achievement that should not be
underrated" and said it would "open a new chapter" in Iraq's
future. Norway's newspaper-of-record Aftenposten
remarked that "Iraq has taken what may--may--be the first step towards a
better life." It was "worth
singing the praises of" the selection of Iraq's new leaders, declared the
conservative Australian, even if the process "came out of weeks of
hard bargaining, and in many respects" diverged from what CPA chief Bremer
and UN envoy Brahimi had wanted. Other
analysts less charitably referred to the selection process as a
"charade" and a "coup" by members of Iraq's Governing
Council. "This is not democracy but
rather a redefinition of it," complained a Turkish Islamist outlet.
Government faces 'daunting challenges'-- Writers agreed that the new government faces
"an uphill struggle" and that the real test will occur after the June
30 transfer of sovereignty. "The
overwhelming challenge of the interim government," said Britain's
conservative Times, "is security." Unless Iraqis feel safer, "the new
cabinet will struggle to obtain the respect it deserves." The government also will need to prove its
legitimacy "by proving that it has full sovereign authority" and
establish that its members are not "American lackeys." The transitional government will have to
balance the need for close relations with Washington against the need to prove
to Iraqis that it is not another American "puppet." Algeria's highly influential Le Quotidien
d'Oran was pessimistic, commenting that "nobody" in Iraq believes
things will change after June 30; led by PM Allawi, "an honorable
correspondent of the CIA," the government "seems already doomed to
fail."
Focus now turns to the UN-- With the interim government
announced, analysts turned their attention to the negotiations over a new UNSC
resolution to determine the new government's powers. If Iraq is to have a genuine transition based
on elections in eight months' time, stated the center-left Irish Times,
the "crucial requirement...is that the UN resolution should guarantee its
independence." Like others, the
paper noted this runs "up against the determination of the U.S. to
maintain direct control of military security" and have a
"determining" policy influence in Iraq. The still-unclear relationship between the
new government and the multinational force "must be resolved" if the
UN is to take on more responsibilities in the transition. Leftist and Muslim skeptics, like Tehran's
pro-Khatami Iran Daily, maintained that the notion of Iraqi sovereignty
"is very close to nonsense" and that "the so-called handover of
power will be occupation under a different name until the invading armies are
out."
EDITOR: Steven Wangsness
EDITOR'S NOTE: Media
Reaction reporting conveys the spectrum of foreign press sentiment. Posts select commentary to provide a
representative picture of local editorial opinion. This report summarizes and interprets foreign
editorial opinion and does not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S.
Government. This analysis was based on
81 reports from 34 countries June 1- 8, 2004.
Editorial excerpts from each country are listed from the most recent
date.
EUROPE
BRITAIN: "Iraq Has A New
Government"
The center-left Independent editorialized (6/2): "It is easy to accuse the Americans of
trying to hold on to the reins behind the scenes. That would be unfair. President Bush desperately wants to get the
Iraqi problem off his back before the November elections.... That no one yesterday disowned the interim
government, even among the Shia clergy, marks a success of sorts.... This is a process which will require many
more steps, some backward as well as forward, before Iraq can emerge as a fully
sovereign and independent country."
"Into The Unknown"
The left-of-center Guardian remarked (6/2): "George Bush's grand plan to bring
democracy to Iraq underwent a shambolic start with the charade that accompanied
the selection of a new Iraqi president yesterday.... The only good news was that top U.S.
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."
"A Corner Turned"
The conservative Times commented (6/2): "For the first time since the end of
Saddam Hussein's dictatorship, Iraqis can look forward realistically to a new
political order. It is an achievement
that should not be underrated in Iraq, the wider Muslim world or in America
itself.... The overwhelming challenge of
the interim government, even before it assumes office formally next month, is
security.... Unless the violence
subsides, reconstruction can be accelerated and ordinary Iraqis feel safer on
the streets, the new cabinet will struggle to obtain the respect it
deserves."
FRANCE: "Sovereign
Iraq?"
Left-of-center Le Monde judged (6/3): "President Bush has stated that the new Iraqi
government is a success.... Good news is
scarce these days for Washington, where the talk is about terrorism.... In this context, the Baghdad government,
which practically self-proclaimed itself with the support of Paul Bremer and
the UN's special envoy, will be welcome news.
President Bush expects this will boost his popularity at home and
abroad. But this is not a 'full transfer
of sovereignty' like President Bush says.
Iraq is an occupied country and the Iraqis do not yet control their
destiny.... As he prepares for a
difficult test of diplomacy in Europe, President Bush can feel relatively
serene (about the future of the UN draft resolution). But everything will depend on what happens in
Iraq.... The transitional government
must prove to the Iraqis that it is not another puppet in the hands of the
Americans.... It will be navigating in
uncharted waters.... It will need to
establish close relations with Washington, while the Iraqi population is
violently set against an occupier accused of brutal reprisals against the Iraqi
resistance. At the same time Washington
needs to find diplomatic, financial and military support. To this end it will have to set a definite
date for the departure of U.S. troops from Iraq.... It will also need to show discretion and
modesty...attributes which President Bush has lacked.... All of this will be all the more difficult
because Washington is not in the habit of sharing power with its allies, and
even less control over its Army."
"Good Advice"
Jean-Michel Thenard noted in left-of-center Liberation
(6/3): "We will always applaud the
'boys' who staked their youth on the beaches of Normandy.... Our gratitude will be eternal. When the veterans have left, our feelings
will remain.... But George Bush needs to
take France's message of friendship as a tribute to America and not to his
policy. The Second World War and Iraq
are not the same 'battle for freedom.' If only because the first was morally
unchallengeable, while the other is founded on lies.... For the Iraqis to be really free they must
regain full sovereignty; the U.S. Army must not become an army of occupation
where torture prevails. Roosevelt abandoned
a planned military administration for France because of de Gaulle's popularity. Iraq may be in need of a de Gaulle. But mainly President Bush needs to have a
loftier vision. He has been influenced
by a foursome of neo-conservatives who have distanced him from a Europe which
has good advice to offer when it comes to democratic reconstruction."
GERMANY: "The Blessing
Of The Ayatollah"
Peter Muench noted in center-left Sueddeutsche Zeitung of
Munich (6/4): "Despite the chaos
and political disputes, heaven also sends a positive signal from Iraq: Ayatollah al-Sistani...gave the transition
government his blessing, but everything else would have been a
disaster.... Sistani acts in the
background and it is he who drove the United States with his demands into the
arms of the United Nations...and if he now approves the...government, this will
make the work of the government much easier....
The religious leader...again proved that he is a moderate leader who
should be strengthened in his struggle against violent, Shiite hotspurs like
al-Sadr. He has now done a great service
to the United States and the UN. But at
the same time he made clear that he did not do it for free. He linked his blessing to demands for full
sovereignty and early elections. If
negotiations on a new UN resolution now go on in New York then all sides involved
should also keep al-Sistani and the distant Najaf in mind."
"The UN Cannot Heal The Damage The U.S. Inflicted On
Iraq"
Stefan Ulrich concluded in an editorial in center-left Sueddeutsche
Zeitung of Munich (6/3):
"Lakhdar Brahimi, one of the best men of the United Nations, lost
his magic during the composition process of the Iraqi transition
government. It was not he, but the
Americans and the Governing Council they installed that determined this
process. The result was not an
effective, politically unbiased government of technocrats, as the UN had in
mind, but a cabinet that looks like a recycling product of the Governing
Council, which is discredited among Iraqis....
As long as the United Nations has the impression that it can help the
Iraqi patient even a little bit, it should do so. But it should always make clear who is
responsible for the current state of Iraq.
If the therapy fails, the country will finally go down in violence, but
then it was not the United Nations that failed, but George W. Bush who screwed
it."
"Not Head Over Heals"
Left-of-center Berliner Zeitung editorialized (6/3):
"The interim government that will be installed with UN support on June 30
does not have any sovereignty. It must
demonstrate that it has the legitimacy and the capability to unify, pacify and
govern the country. In order to do this,
it remains dependent on the United States.
And the more freedom it gets from the American proconsuls in Iraq, the
better for both. Only if this
experiments succeeds and only if the elections next year produce a democratic
government that is capable of acting, can one seriously think about how much
power the Americans give up, how many forces will be withdrawn, and when they
leave the country. Nobody can relieve
the Americans from this burden."
"Bush Striking More Conciliatory Tones With Europe"
Right-of-center Pforzheimer Zeitung argued (6/3): "It is remarkable that George W. Bush
has struck more conciliatory tones when he now asks the Europeans--with Germany
at the helm--for greater understanding of the sluggish introduction of democracy
in Iraq. Obviously, the president had to
realize that without the participation of the 'old Europe' his Iraq and Middle
East policy cannot be successful. This
is a late insight that indicates the arrogance with which the United States
pursues its global policy. Democracy
cannot be exported according to one's own discretion, especially not to
countries in which religion dominates the political system. It is time to allow an independent Iraq
together.... This would stress the
responsibility that is part of a Western democracy."
"Transition Government"
S. Wagner commented on regional radio station Suedwestrundfunk
of Stuttgart (6/2): "It is good
that the Iraqis themselves and the United Nations are assuming greater
responsibility in Iraq. And this is also
in the interest of the Bush administration, which is realizing how unpopular
this war is becoming in the United States with every day in which U.S. soldiers
die in Iraq. The future of Iraq,
however, will become insignificant for the Bush administration as soon as it
must fear its own survival. So it will
praise everything as great progress that can be presented as a halfway
success. Bush has no other choice.. If he does not want to be a interim
president, Bush must wish the Iraqi transition government success and do
everything he can to help it. And this
could mean that the United States could have no more control in Iraq sooner
than expected."
"The Bedouin"
Wolfgang Guenter Lerch opined in a front-page editorial in
center-right Frankfurter Allgemeine (6/2): "Accommodation and reconciliation. These words could be used to describe Ghazi
Mashal al-Yawar's appointment as Iraqi transitional president.... In the past, he strongly criticized the
American occupiers but also his own compatriots.... But many also consider it an advantage that
the new president is not affiliated with any party and does not back a clear
ideology. Following his first
statements, al-Yawar aims at creating a new national feeling in Iraq, and he wants
to achieve the goal of enabling the people to take their fate into their own
hands. But all those who do not like
this direction will try to denounce this president as an 'American
lackey.' And al-Yawar will continue to
live dangerously.... If all sides
involved, including the domestic security agencies and the Iraqi armed forces,
succeeded in promoting the pacification of the country...this would be a great
step forward."
"A Bitter Farce In Baghdad"
Peter Muench penned the following editorial in center-left Sueddeutsche
Zeitung of Munich (6/2): "The
haste [in Baghdad] is not an expression of sudden vigor but of increasing
confusion. Unfortunately, it seems to
have moved from the U.S. civil administrators to the honorable UN envoy
Brahimi, who is trying to give this more than embarrassing political farce the
tinge of an orderly transfer of power.
But the international community and the Iraqis in particular must
recognize as outside observers that such erratic actions will hardly meet any
of the promises for the transfer of power on June 30. The new leadership, like the old one, is not
democratically legitimized. Its
composition is not the result of a quality check, but the accidental result of
an unfathomable power struggle. The
heads of the new transition government are well known from the worn-out
Governing Council. These new
developments that were carried out with great haste, only guarantee that one
constant will remain in Iraq even after the U.S. troop withdrawal: chaos in the country."
"Coup Of The Incumbents"
Business daily Financial Times Deutschland of Hamburg
opined (6/2): "The provisional
incumbents simply continue to occupy their positions. Neither the Americans nor UN envoy Brahimi
can do anything about it with their plans for a new beginning. The fact that the Chairman of the Governing
Council, al-Yawar, will take over the position of president, shows above all
how small the possibilities have become to shape the country's future from the
outside.... This coup was only possible,
because the Americans, following the Abu Ghraib scandal and the nationwide
revolts of the past weeks, are in a weakened position. They can hardly risk any more unease among
the Iraqis if the transfer of power is not to end in chaos. The Governing Council used its instinct and
took advantage of this situation. By
collectively stepping down and by quickly taking the oath of the new
government, it has created irrevocable facts.
U.S. control is rapidly dwindling.
A quick Iraqi independence is now surfacing. An important demand of the critics of the
U.S. policy in Iraq has now been met--but in a less structured way than was
hoped for. Thus the chances are very
good that transatlantic tensions will be overcome in the Iraq policy."
ITALY: "The Search For
Lost Allies"
Maurizio Molinari opined in centrist, influential daily La
Stampa (6/2): "The formation of the
Iraqi interim government under the auspices of the UN gives way to what could
be George W. Bush's longest month....
The U.S. president will begin his race in Rome on Friday, a race that is
filled with old risks as well as with new opportunities. The White House is seeking to prompt
international cooperation.... The stakes
couldn't be higher. If the diplomatic
marathon is successful, the international community will come together on the
transition in Iraq, as is already the case in Afghanistan, and will take both
former terrorist countries to their first free elections.... Two elements will decide the outcome of a
crucial month for Iraq and for transatlantic relations, as well as Bush's
re-election in November. One: Washington's flexibility regarding command of
the multinational forces.... Two: the military ability of the Iraqi guerrillas
and of terrorist organizations like al-Qaida to derail the transition by
carrying out attacks against the Alawi government and coalition countries."
"The American Gift"
Vittorio Zucconi commented in left-leaning, influential La
Repubblica (6/2): "Being the
well-mannered guest that he is, George Bush will not be empty-handed when he
shows up at the meeting with the Europe that counts and with the one that
pretends to count. To France, Italy and
the G8 summit in Georgia, the president will bring the present of the new Iraqi
provisional government that will allow him to boast about the progress toward
democracy that is being made with the UN imprimatur and to save the uncertain
electoral fortunes of the satellite governments. Giving an 'Iraqi face' and the semblance of
UN legitimacy to the occupation was a result that Bush had to obtain in a hurry
to gain back dissident governments, to comfort nervous satellite governments
and, above all, to protect his wavering popularity at home.... The success that so exhilarated Bush
yesterday and that his European disciples applauded was such only because the
'tough and pure' president of the last 14 months has gone back to being the
cautious pragmatist of the reawakening American tradition, when idealistic ambitions
collide with reality. Following the
'mission accomplished' proclamation, nothing has gone according to the plans of
the radical ideologists.... The
provisional Iraqi government is what Bush needs to claim that 'progress is
being made in Iraq,' to get more support from the uncertain and to take away
from the recalcitrant others the alibi for not giving the UN go-ahead.... Bush can obtain what he really wants and what
the European satellite governments are also in need of in order to gain support
for their own political future tied to him."
"Something New In Baghdad"
Leading business daily Il Sole-24 Ore noted
(6/2): "The nomination of an interim
government in Iraq means a radical change in strategy on the part of the
Americans. The U.S. will be asked to
remain...but Washington has given up trying to fight the revolt in the south
with weapons, and is leaving it up to the Iraqis to reach an agreement among
themselves.... What does this all mean? The Americans and the coalition forces, as
yesterday's bloody attacks in Baghdad and Baji show, must put their military
efforts into protecting the new government and the infrastructures. A second important objective is to set up
more reliable military and police units....
If the Americans really want to find an exit strategy from Iraq, then
the key word is credibility."
RUSSIA: "President
Ghazi Yawar Is Skeptical"
Georgiy Stepanov wrote for reformist Izvestiya (6/3): "The [UN resolution] says that Iraq will
be in full control of its natural resources after June 30. The country's new President Ghazi Yawar
disagrees because the resolution speaks of a need for international monitoring
over oil and gas exports. Ghazi Yawar is
skeptical. He does not trust
Americans. Prime Minister Allawi is far
more loyal and had George Bush in raptures when he thanked the United States
for its sacrifices, as the two were speaking on the phone."
"How Long Will It Last?"
Mikhail Zygar said in business-oriented Kommersant
(6/2): "Yesterday will surely go
down in Iraqi history, as that country, for the first time since the fall of
Saddam Hussein's regime, got a president and government of its own.... The title of the chief kingmaker goes to
Algerian diplomat Lakhdar Brahimia, not America's Paul Bremer.... Even so, the new government is a U.S.
accomplishment. The question is how long
it will last."
"IGC No More"
Yelena Suponina wrote in reformist Vremya Novostey
(6/2): "At last Iraq has a cabinet
and even president again.... There are
questions not so much about the new government's makeup as the way it was
formed, with the United States and neighbors engaging in back-stage
politics.... The government needs
legitimacy in the eyes of the public within and without."
BELGIUM:
"Americans Are In Trouble In Iraq"
Paul De Bruyn remarked in conservative
Christian-Democrat Gazet van Antwerpen
(6/3): "The future of
Iraq...is not very promising. With their
maneuvers the Americans and Brahimi not only put spokes in each other's wheels,
but they have also damaged the credibility of the new government. Furthermore, many Iraqis consider that
government a puppet regime of the Americans.
That means that Alawi, Yawar and their team will have problems. An additional setback is that the United
Nations are not capable of taking over control should the situation run out of
hand. Everybody knows that the coming weeks will be crucial for Iraq and that
it will be a gamble. How dangerous,
however, will be really clear after June 30."
IRELAND: "Iraq's Interim
Government"
The center-left Irish Times remarked (6/2): "Yesterday's announcement of Iraq's new
interim government...opens the way for an intensive set of negotiations at the
United Nations Security Council on a resolution to determine the new government's
powers. Despite well-founded suspicions
that the U.S. has dominated this process, it would be wrong to prejudge these
negotiations.... The crucial requirement
now, if Iraq is genuinely to make a political transition based on elections in
eight months time, is that the UN resolution should guarantee its
independence. That comes straight up
against the determination of the U.S. to maintain direct control of military
security and, through a huge presence continuing after June 30th, to have a
determining influence on the interim administration's political and economic
policies.... These contrasting interests
and approaches could set the scene for a hard-nosed, yet constructive, attempt
to ensure a successful transition. This
objective is well worth the effort. The
more clearly the interim government's independence is guaranteed the more
likely it is to succeed."
NORWAY: "New Iraqi
Government Must Be Given A Chance"
The newspaper of record Aftenposten held (6/2): "War-torn Iraq has taken what
may--may--be the first step towards a better life.... A new administration...has been appointed in
cooperation between the U.S. and the UN....
The plans tell us that democracy is now being launched in Iraq. Whether it will succeed, nobody
knows.... The security situation in the
country will be decisive... Mr. Brahimi
yesterday commented that it is the Americans who are 'de facto' governing the
country.... In this case it is the U.S.
that must show flexibility and patience and political wisdom. Not least of all because it is in its own
best interest. For the last year has
shown that a strictly military occupation alone will not bring security and
stability to Iraq."
"Coup In Baghdad"
The independent Dagbladet commented (6/2): "Iraq has gotten a new temporary
government, appointed by the Iraqi governing council and the U.S. It happened surprisingly fast, and
accomplished frighteningly little....
And in light of the negotiations in the UNSC, it was a small coup that
occurred in Baghdad. The new government
appears more or less like the old governing council.... Maybe the UN's plan was naïve, but the result
is tragic. The occupying power in
Baghdad staged a coup in the process, and reproduced itself. The new government will continue to be
considered a provocation for all Iraqis who are opposing the occupier and its
Iraqi allies.... An important part of
the rationale for keeping Norwegian officers in Iraq was to ready the UN's
role. That role has now been
torpedoed."
POLAND: "A Good
Beginning In Iraq"
Bogumil Luft wrote in centrist Rzeczpospolita (6/2): "Political developments in Iraq gained
momentum yesterday. The interim Iraqi
Governing Council...decided to dissolve itself and transfer its powers to the
interim government of Iyad Allawi. It
wasn't Adnan Pachachi--former foreign minister favored by the Americans--who
was appointed president, but Ghazi Ajil al-Yawar, who criticizes the occupation
of Iraq. Most of Allawi's cabinet
ministers are people beyond the Governing Council cooperating with the
coalition, and the president called for restoring full sovereignty in Iraq when
he announced the building of a 'democratic, federal, and united' country. This is good news as it proves that the elite
of a potential democratic Iraq have shaken off their lethargy. It seems to be a genuine elite. Keeping a distance from the Americans, as
manifested by the prime minister and the president, is in line with the mood of
the Iraqi people."
"Americans Are Not Learning"
Tomasz Bielecki remarked in liberal Gazeta Wyborcza (6/2): "Cooperation with the Americans, or rather
submissiveness toward them, is like original sin in Iraq. The Governing Council, established by the
Americans, has just burdened the new government with that sin, and there is a
threat the government will pass it on.
The Governing Council, compromised by lack of independence, was replaced
by a prime minister--a former CIA collaborator, and a president, who headed the
council until yesterday. The most
important ministerial posts are occupied by people who also come from the
council or are closely tied to the U.S. ...
Unfortunately, the Americans are not learning from their own mistakes."
SERBIA & MONTENEGRO:
"Limited Sovereignty"
Belgrade weekly Vreme noted (6/3): "Instead of celebrating the election of
a transitional government, on the first day after decades of Saddam's
dictatorship, Baghdad is counting the dead.
The capital has been shaken by strong explosions killing over 35 people. By electing a transitional government, Iraq
is regaining its sovereignty after more than a year of occupation under the
coalition forces headed by the U.S.
However, 130,000 American soldiers will remain in Iraq and even
President Bush is hesitating to declare the date of their withdrawal. So, Iraq will be in a state of limited
sovereignty for months, maybe years....
The American administration supported Allawi's election and he is well
respected in Washington. America and the
UK are hoping that election of the transitional government will give some
relaxation to the soldiers in the field.
However, the newly elected government is facing serious challenges and
the situation in Iraq is getting worse.
The extremists' attacks are getting stronger by the day and are taking a
toll in human lives and jeopardizing efforts for the reconstruction of Iraq's
infrastructure and economy."
SPAIN: "Iraq Has A
President"
Left-of-center El País remarked (6/2): "The new appointees [to the Iraqi
government] are going to have difficulty establishing their legitimacy in the
eyes of a country bathed in blood, where a formidable occupation force still
remains to highlight their lack of authority.... The violence in Iraq is presumably going to
increase.... In order to escape from
their this terrible vortex, the Iraqis need a government they can consider
their own with the real capacity to use its own judgment, and that is not the
case with what Washington just finished cooking up with the resigned consent of
the UN. The nearest hope for radical
change are the elections planned for next year.
But today, and with the events in Iraq governed by the political
calendar of the United States, Bush lacks a serious plan to negotiate a
Constitution and create the conditions of security that would permit those elections."
"All The President Bush's Men"
Independent El Mundo held (6/2): "The main pitfall for getting a secure
and stable Iraq is, at this moment, the struggle that the Pentagon, the
Department of Defense and the CIA insist on waging for this territory.... But it was not until the outbreak of the
'Chalabi case' when it got out to what extent these disagreements are at the
origin of the erratic, contradictory and one may even say schizophrenic policy
that Bush is carrying out in Iraq....
Chalabi's dramatic fall...was...a rising by the 'doves' of the
Administration, who would now be trying to give the message that political and
economic power in post-Saddam Iraq falls to the Iraqis themselves and not to
the President Bush's men.... The
pressing need felt by Iraqi politicians for putting some distance between them and
the White House in order to gain credibility has also been clear in the process
of appointing Iraq's new president....
But let nobody be deceived: both [Al Yawar] and Prime Minister Allawi
are, to a greater or a lesser extent, also men of the Bush administration.... The speech [Yawar] made after his
appointment, in which he demanded 'full sovereignty' for Iraq, has then a lot
of show to it. In order to stop the
spiral of violence...the new Iraqi Executive will have to really break with the
one that still pulls strings."
TURKEY: "A New Face
for the New Colonialism: Iraqi Interim
Government"
Akif Emre argued in the Islamist, influential Yeni Safak
(6/3): "The Iraqi interim government
begins a new era for the region, but this does not mean a democratic and free
Iraq. It is indeed the beginning of the
first act in the Greater Middle East Project.
The composition of the interim government has been portrayed as
representing the mosaic of Iraq. In
fact, it only creates more distortion than before, because the representation
system does not have any clear reference to either ethnic or religious
balances. The Kurds are treated as
privileged allies, and were placed in the critical positions. Given the current cooperation between Kurdish
groups and U.S.forces, one might easily guess who will be the collaborators of
the colonial power in the future.. The U.S. intention is not to achieve a fair
distribution of Iraq's natural, political, and cultural resources among the
people of Iraq. The U.S. is beginning a
new colonialism based on military supremacy.
Iraq is the pilot project."
"Iraq For The Iraqis"
Sami Kohen noted in the mass-appeal Milliyet (6/2): "The administration of Iraq is going into the
hands of Iraqis. The newly established
Iraqi [government] is an important step toward the self-administration of
Iraq.... The [government] seems to pave
the way for a political restructuring in Iraq by Iraqis. President Al-Yawar has already voiced his
determination to end the current occupation regime and carry out a transition
to a multinational United Nations security force. The new [government] has also set goals for a
united and democratic Iraq. Yet it is
too early to talk about the achievement of these goals, because it remains to
be seen whether the interim administration will be able to follow the vision
outlined by the new Iraqi president and prime minister. We must also wait and see whether the new
Iraqi administration is going to have a full mandate or work under the U.S.
shadow after the formal handover of authority on June 30."
"People In Darkness"
Fehmi Koru argued in the Islamist, influential Yeni Safak
(6/2): "It seems that Washington, having
failed to bring democracy to Iraq, has now decided to redefine the
concept. The efforts to establish an
interim administration in Iraq are completely against democratic principles, to
the point that even the staunchest supporters of the Iraq war might be
amazed. Those appointed to the new
governing council are not the choices of the people. In fact, nobody bothers to ask the Iraqis for
their opinions. A representative of the
UN is working to 'choose names' for Iraq under U.S. authorization.... The whole process is a clear violation of
democracy and stands as more proof of the failure of the argument that the
occupation is about 'bringing democracy' to Iraq. This is not democracy, but rather a
redefinition of it."
MIDDLE EAST
IRAQ: "The President
Was Chosen By An Election Not By A Tank"
Mohamed al-Asadi had this to say in Al-Adala,
issued by the Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (6/3, IWPR
translation): "It is a really
unique and distinguished step that took place in the last few days as the
president, the prime minister and the cabinet were chosen in a democratic
way. It happened on the ground and not
in dreams. We have started to follow the
international example in choosing the president by means of an election and not
by means of a tank. The president along
with the cabinet feel they are strong because they came to power through the
will of others. As a result, they should
work to express the people's ambitions, and they should work to meet the
people's expectations. Their
responsibility is huge in the difficult and dangerous situation of building a
democratic Iraq composed of freedom, peace and stability. What happened is the first step of getting
rid of the inferiority complex of keeping hold of power forever."
"Iraqi People Were Marginalized"
Islamic Dawa Party daily al-Da'wah
editorialized (6/3, IWPR translation):
"The Iraqi people's role in selecting the government has been
marginalized. The occupation forces have
flagrantly intervened to impose whoever pleases Washington and London.... This means a plan has been cooked up well in
advance for marketing through the United Nations.... We therefore reject this formation, believing
that such a method of selection in no way serves our people's interests and
legitimate aspirations."
"Yawar Will Prove A Capable Leader"
Ismail Zayer remarked in independent Al-Sabah
al-Jadeed (6/2, IWPR translation):
"At last, U.S. administrator L. Paul Bremer III surrendered to the
Iraqi will and pulled out his nominees after 24 tense hours during which the
Governing Council expressed its unity in choosing al-Yawar as president of Iraq
for the transitional period. Bremer was
astonished at the united stance of the Iraqi side as represented by the
Governing Council members to enhance their democratic choice. The democratic practice of the GC revealed
the strong ties between Kurds and Arabs, Sunni and Shia and all different
elements of the Iraqi people. They
discovered the moral values in being united to stop Bremer from penetrating
them to re-arrange things. This is a new
dawn for Iraq, full of hopes for the leadership that holds control of complete
sovereignty to solve the problems our people and economy have been suffering
from and to rebuild a democratic, modern and federal state. Yawar, supported by different elements of
Iraqis, will lead in order to guarantee a permanent constitution, to organize a
comprehensive national conference and to end the transitional period
well."
"Unfair To Keep The People From
Participating In The Decisions"
Saleem Rasool opined in thrice-weekly, Islamic
Dawa Party-issued Al-Bayan (6/1, IWPR translation): "The nomination of the prime minister
does not come out of the agreement among all Iraqi political bodies represented
by the Occupation, the Governing Council, the United Nations and the political
powers outside the Governing council. I
don't want to belittle anybody, and I don't want my words to be taken against
the prime minister or his government.
But I deal with the process and the mechanism of the nomination. Unfortunately, the process was blessed by
only two bodies: UN envoy Lakhdar
Brahimi and the Occupation Forces--regardless of the Governing Council and
other political forces. The transitional
government needs the support of all the forces, otherwise public coherence
around it will stay weak. Isolating the
experts and bringing those who are preferred by the Occupation will not satisfy
demands of Iraqis because the issue is related to the Iraqi people and to the
Occupation. What we need is a government
that will work to serve the people and not change the people into servants dependent
on the aid it gets from the superpower.
It is not fair to absent the people from taking part in the
decisions."
ISRAEL:
"New Iraqi Council Warns U.S."
Senior Middle East affairs analyst Zvi Bar'el wrote in
independent, left-leaning Ha'aretz (6/2): "Because the [Iraqi] presidency is
mostly symbolic, it was important for the Governing Council to demonstrate
independence and refusal to surrender to dictates.... Yawar as president and Iyad Allawi as prime
minister are not anti-Americans, and some of the members of the temporary
government are professionals. But the
important thing is the message sent by the temporary ruling council to the
Americans: to stop trying to name
'American' candidates to government positions, and that the 'new order' in Iraq
will come from inside the country and not outside. Meanwhile, Washington understands the
message. Bush gave his blessings to the
new appointments--and lowered expectations."
SAUDI ARABIA: "Proof
Of Good Will"
Jeddah's conservative Al-Madina editorialized
(6/5): "It is difficult to imagine
how the interim government in Iraq could be effective with all the American
restrictions. Even UN envoy Lakhdar
Brahimi went as far as describing Paul Bremer as Iraq's new dictator. What is needed is to convince Iraqis that the
interim government is a model of what a future government should be. At this time, it is also important to
overcome the economic and security challenges that face this government. The U.S. must demonstrate goodwill towards
Iraq's future."
"A New Iraq"
Riyadh's conservative Al-Riyadh editorialized (6/3): "President Ghazi Al-Yawar is an Arab
Iraqi citizen who represents no religious sect, but represents a tribe that
spreads all over Iraq. That is contrary
with perspectives of foreign circles, which believe that it is next to
impossible to unite Iraq under one leadership."
"A New Chapter"
Dammam's moderate Al-Yaum editorialized (6/3): "The new Iraqi leadership has opened a
new chapter full of hope, and that it would bring to a final end those black
days in the history of Iraq. The people
of Iraq will embark on writing a new chapter that is full of confidence and
would overcome those horrible tragedies and crisis. A new Iraq is really emerging now."
The UN And Iraq"
Jeddah's moderate Okaz judged (6/3): "The way we see it, the UN must play an
effective role in Iraq. The U.S. also
has to show its good intentions by supporting international efforts to bring peace
and stability back to Iraq and end the occupation. The interim government in Iraq must not
become just a cover for another phase of occupation; otherwise we will have
another disaster as in Palestine. If
this were the case, we would enter a whirlpool-like situation searching for
peace until we lose Iraq like we lost Palestine."
ALGERIA: "Doomed To
Fail"
Largest-circulation, highly influential, French-language Le
Quotidien d'Oran commented (6/2):
"In Iraq where in the end nobody believes there will be anything
different on June 30th, the government that will be managed by an honorable
correspondent of the CIA, Iyad Allawi, seems already doomed to fail."
"Almost Insurmountable Task"
Small but increasingly influential, French-language L'Expression
editorialized (6/2): "The new (Iraqi)
interim government is faced with a quasi, insurmountable mission: to restore
order and security. A whole
program! The list of names stating the
new president in Iraq and the two vice-presidents presented by the U.N. special
envoy, Lakhdar Brahimi, yesterday (June 1), does not correspond to the original
program designed by the UN emissary. It
has been, in some way, manipulated by the head of the American administration
in Iraq."
"Pro-U.S. Government"
Influential, strongly anti-Bouteflika Le Matin remarked
(6/2): "After several days of
bargaining, the composition of the new Iraqi government is finally known. As expected, it is pro-American, and the
United Nations was not involved in its formation."
JORDAN: "The Governing
Council Reproduces Itself"
Daily columnist Fahd Fanek concluded in semi-official, influential
Al-Rai (6/3): "At least on the surface, the last word was not for
America or the United Nations. However,
we will soon hear the word of the Iraqi people, the people concerned: will the resistance stop to give the new government
a chance or will the security situation become worse?"
"Allawi And Al-Yawar:
Further Reading"
Columnist Moufaq Mahadeen opined in independent, mass-appeal Al-Arab
Al-Yawm (6/3): "The American
occupation appointed two presidents in Iraq, one for the government and one for
the state. The first is Dr. Iyad Allawi,
who is from Baghdad and former Baathist.
The second is engineer Ghazi Al-Yawar, who is from Mosul and whose
father was close to President Saddam Hussein.
This means that the American occupation has reached the conclusion that
the complete isolation of the Baath party and its representatives and the
regime of Saddam Hussein from the political scene is impossible, and that it
would be better for the occupation to inherit that regime in new form and names
rather than to eliminate.... The other
issue has to do with Al-Yawar. Despite
political hints about the years that this engineer spent in Saudi Arabia, the American
occupation wanted to deliver a different message by choosing him for this
position. Al-Yawar belongs to the tribe
of Shammar, which is the tribe that competes with the tribe of Anza to which
the royal Saudi family belongs. This
means that the American occupation is more likely preparing to surround Saudi
Arabia, limit its influence and drown it in new problems that could reach
Syria, where the Shammar tribe is present as well, and which is considered a
strong ally of Riyadh."
"Not Only Incomplete But Non-Existent Sovereignty"
Columnist Haydar Rasheed remarked in independent, mass-appeal Al-Arab
Al-Yawm (6/3): "With different
names and some different faces, what happened in Iraq complements the formula
of the interim governing council. It was
done by American will and desire, and the worst thing about it is the continued
allocation of seats on sectarian and ethnic bases and frail party
representation. While this gives the
coalition forces the ability to pass new resolutions at the United Nations
without referring to its presence in Iraq as an occupation force, it also highlights
the marginal role that the United Nations is playing in Iraq.... All this shows that the sovereignty that the
Iraqis are enjoying is not only incomplete but completely absent."
LEBANON: "Bush
Congratulates Iraq For Dictator Bremer's Government"
Talal Salman editorialized in Arab nationalist As-Safir
(6/3): "We only had to wait for twenty
four hours to confirm that the scene, which was too beautiful to be true...of
the new Government in Baghdad...was only similar to sound and image effects
that paved the way for the speech on terrorizing terrorism which was delivered
by President George Bush.... In his
speech, President Bush spoke about the new Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi,
'the respectable man' who praised the American sacrifices for freedom and
democracy in Iraq'.... Bush warned his
pilots that they should shell every wedding they see...to help democracy in
Iraq.... It has become easier for us to
understand the statements that were delivered...by the UN envoy Lakhdar Brahimi
during his press conference in Baghdad, in which he stated that the Americans
are ruling Iraq and that Bremer does not mind him describing him as the
dictator of Iraq.... Finally, we have to
highlight that Bush confirmed in his speech...that Iraq has entered a new phase,
that might be the most violent.... It
seems that more blood will flow in Iraq."
TUNISIA:
"UN Main Role"
Chokri Baccouche wrote in independent French-language daily Le
Quotidien (6/1): "On paper, Iraq now
has a government and a president ready to lead the country, but in reality, it
is confusion and chaos that are prevailing....
Anarchy is prevailing simply because Iraqis do not believe Washington's
scenario. Everything is carefully
prepared and elaborated by Washington.
Iyad Allawi will replace Paul Bremer; only the name will change, but the
content remains the same. It will always
be the coalition forces that govern and lay down the law.... The American leaders should have understood
that their policy would only generate a hemorrhage of human potential and
further damage the infrastructure of a country already bruised by fourteen
years of wars. A return to reason on the
part of the U.S. and its allies, characterized by ceding a main role to the UN,
will have definitely the advantage of involving the international community and
rebuilding the trust of a people hungry for freedom, normalcy and a daily
peaceful existence."
"Puppet Show"
Jamel Karmaoui commented in independent Arabic-language Ash-Shourouq
(6/3): "After the Iraqi Governing Council...comes
the temporary government...whose condition will not be better than that of the
imprisoned Saddam Hussein.... The new
government will live behind barriers as well.... Its power will not go beyond the rooms they
meet in.... It will not go into the
streets.... It will not make
decisions.... Its mail will be subject
to severe control undermining its sovereignty.... Its trust in the American security guards
will be stronger than its trust in the Iraqi guards.... The government members came to Iraq after
decades of absence.... Their exile will
be long even when they are the leaders....
This time, it will not be a geographic exile, but one that pertains to
people.... How can they congratulate
themselves on a forced wedding between a rapist and its victim? How can we bless a wedding with Bremer as a
legal witness?!"
EAST ASIA AND PACIFIC
AUSTRALIA:
"Iraqis Taking Charge Of Their Own Destiny"
The national conservative Australian
stated (6/3): "It has been hard to hear
any of the good news emanating from Iraq in recent weeks. Everything has been drowned out by the noise
of bombs, by the genuine howls of outrage over Abu Ghraib, and by the tawdry
victory cries of those in the West who opposed the war in the first place, and
now glory in every setback. Yet, there
have been whispers of better things.
Iraq's free press continues to flourish.
The education system has been rebuilt.
The insurrection of militant Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr appears to
have been contained. And oil is flowing
again to the tune of nearly $20 billion a year.
But now there is something bigger that, if not quite worth trumpeting,
is worth singing the praises of: Iraq
has an interim government ready to assume control of the country in less than
four weeks. The team that replaced the
Iraqi Governing Council on Tuesday came out of weeks of hard bargaining, and in
many respects is not what either U.S. proconsul Paul Bremer, or UN envoy
Lakhdar Brahimi, wanted. And a good
thing too. At no stage of the progress
towards a fully independent Iraq, right up to the election of a parliament
under a new constitution in late 2005, will the leadership be accepted if seen
as a mere stooge of the U.S. and its allies."
"Iraq And Democracy: Another Search"
The liberal Melbourne Age editorialized (6/2): "As the June 30 deadline for a transfer of
power approaches, both the U.S. and the United Nations remain committed to the
ideal of a democratic transition in Iraq.
Yet both appear to have stumbled at the very first hurdle in this process--the
nomination of an interim president....
The U.S. and the UN say they are committed to building a real democracy
in Iraq. In the absence of a clear
explanation of their initial refusal to accept the Governing Council's
preferred candidate, the maneuvering could be enough to arouse deep suspicion
on the part of Iraqis as to just how genuine are those sentiments. It is a strange approach indeed to building a
democracy that will reflect the wishes and aspirations of the Iraqi people, let
alone one that will serve as an example to other countries in the Middle
East. The acceptance of Sheikh Yawar as
president is a sensible outcome. If the
new Iraqi government is to enjoy legitimacy, let alone survive in a hostile and
suspicious environment, it must ultimately be acceptable to the Iraqi
people. Had Sheikh Yawar been rejected,
it would not have been a step towards democracy, but possibly in another
direction altogether."
CHINA: "What
Difficulties Will The U.S. Still Face In Iraq"
Zhang Xinghui commented in the official
Communist Youth League China Youth Daily (Zhongguo Qingnianbao)
(6/3): "After June 30, with the
operation of the new Iraqi government and the participation of the UN, known as
the 'multilateral solution,' the U.S.' future predicament will face even more
complications.... For example, even if
members of Iraq's interim government have gained U.S. and UN support, if it
wants to a smooth operation, it still must earn the support of local Iraqi
forces. What will the U.S. do if the
local Iraqi forces refuse the new interim government? According to American officials, the U.S. and
its allies don't at present have a contingency plan. If this happens, the peaceful handover of
Iraqi sovereignty will fall into a dilemma."
"Iraqi Government Faces Daunting
Challenges"
Wu Yixue commented in the official
English-language newspaper China Daily (6/3): "For Iraqis and foreigners who earnestly
aspire for a return to stability in the war-ravaged country, the formation of
an Iraqi government wholly controlled by the Iraqis themselves serves as an
important step. Thus, the formation of
the nation's new interim government on Tuesday, although fraught with obvious
signs of compromises between various parties involved, was encouraging.... The establishment of an interim government
signals a step forward in the country's bumpy reconstruction process, although
it will have a nominal rather than decisive role.... Tough security questions, such as whether
Iraqi forces can refuse to join a U.S. military operation, are left for future
negotiations. It's still unclear whether
or not the Iraqis can really master their own fate at their own will after the
new government is sworn in.... U.S.
President George W. Bush hailed the formation of the interim government as 'one
step closer' to democracy. Bush also
said the United States had not involved itself in the creation of the new
government and that the government was being given full sovereignty. Maybe no one in the world but Bush himself
believed his words. The suicide attack
that took place at the 'Green Zone' compound where the U.S.-led administration
in Baghdad is based almost at the same moment the interim government was
nominating candidates could give Bush the best answer....
