Global News : Passport : Ricks : Drezner : Walt : Rothkopf : Lynch
The Cable : The AfPak Blog : Net Effect : Shadow Govt. : Madam Secretary : The Call
Iraqi election law passes
It seems that the Iraqi Parliament has finally reached an agreement on an election law, after a succession of missed deadlines which jeopardized the scheduled January date and added a few more white hairs to the collective heads of American military planners and diplomats. The law reportedly features the "open list" and multiple district system favored by most American analysts. For more details, check in soon with Reider Visser, who has been following the details of the talks as closely as anyone. The major breakthrough was an agreement on how to handle the hotly contested area of Kirkuk -- using the 2009 electoral rolls, with the awesome idea that the election will be rerun in a year if sufficient fraud is discovered. That should make for a whole year's worth of fun political gamesmanship!
But that aside, the deal getting done is clearly good news -- and demonstrates that overall Obama's Iraqi strategy is going well even if it doesn't get much attention. The election law deal has obvious implications for Obama's commitment to withdraw combat forces. The American withdrawal timeline was long ago pegged to the elections, with force levels kept relatively high in order to provide for security during the elections and in the immediate aftermath. If the elections had been postponed, it would have posed a major problem for the withdrawal planning. So from that narrow perspective, getting the elections done in January under any laws was really important - and Obama today affirmed that the deal keeps the withdrawal on schedule. Getting a law which seems to include most of what the U.S. wanted substantively is a bonus.
The long delay in passing the law had costs, of course. The Iraqi Higher Election Commission has already warned repeatedly that it can not guarantee a fair and clean election in January because of the missed deadline for drafting a law. This will throw a shadow of doubt over the proceedings, no doubt. But I expect that with help from the UN and US, the technical issues will get resolved in time for the election. And those costs arguably pale beside the larger point that Iraqis largely reached this deal on their own, without intense American micro-management, under the shadow of a clear commitment to U.S. military withdrawal.
Ambassador Christopher Hill has come under a lot of criticism for not throwing himself into the daily nuts and bolts of Iraqi politics the way his revered predecessor Ryan Crocker did. I hear that US officials got more involved in recent weeks in pushing for an election deal, but still not at anything like the levels of the past. And despite that, the deal got done. That's an extremely important, positive lesson which needs to be internalized in this new era of reduced American presence and influence. Hill's less hands-on approach is basically the right one, as much as it bothers those nostalgiac for the old ways. The U.S. should not be as actively involved in the details of Iraqi politics as in the past, because its influence and resources are declining, and Iraqi politics carry on well enough without American micro-management. Not everything happens as the U.S. would like, and there's not nearly as much progress on a range of political issues as American analysts would hope, but what else is new? As the U.S. moves towards withdrawal, without Iraq really unravelling, this kind of development is exactly what needs to happen.
Advertisement
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the Slate Group,
a division of Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC.
All contents ©2009 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC. All rights reserved.
What is
Abu Aardvark?
Writing under this pseudonym, Marc Lynch began his influential Middle East politics blog Abu Aardvark in 2002...
Contact me at:
abuaardvark [at]
gmail.com
Follow me on Twitter, @abuaardvark
Follow me on
:
@abuaardvark
Good news for Iraq & President Obama.
This is certainly a piece of good news for the Iraqis, because it is an important step further, on the path of stability, and represnts in no uncertain terms, a blow to extremism. At the same time, it is good news for President Obama also, and represents a bonus if he intends to shift more troops to Afghanistan.
As for Ambassador Hill, I hear he has done his homework very well, as he has spent the whole of Sunday, running around between the various Iraqi groups, lobbying them to agree on the elections formula. This is as good as it gets for an Ambassador, who is not a proconcil.
khairi janbek.paris/france
Elections Overrode Kirkuk
It appears that the pressure to have elections by Jan. 2010 finally outweighed the never ending dispute over Kirkuk. In the end the Kurds seemed to have won that round as they got their position through. The idea of compensatory seats for Arabs and Turkmen were dropped, and Tamim will use the 2009 voter roles. If the commission that's set up to go through the voter roles afterward does find any irregularities, it's likely to drag out, and go nowhere.
While the generalities are
While the generalities are known, it would be nice if some blogger or news site would be kind enough to provide the text of the agreement in English.
Iraqi-Afghan correlation
I have to wonder if Iraqi lawmakers were glued to their television-sets during the two-month Afghan election-fiasco. It seems like a pretty big coincidence that Iraqis were able to strike a deal on such complex and divisive issues (status of Kirkuk and election laws) immediately after President Hamid Karzai was declared the winner in Afghanistan a few days earlier. Perhaps it was just a matter of timing. Or, perhaps Prime Minister Maliki and the rest of the Iraqi Government were frightened over the very same scenario that symbolically destroyed the credibility of the Afghan political process. With such conclusive gains in security, and with national institutions finally doing their jobs- providing Iraqis with basic needs and services- the last thing Baghdad needed was an election marred by fraud.
Did the chaos that usually accompanies a fraud election prompt Iraqi lawmakers to cooperate, thereby passing an historic election law for 2010? Just something to consider.
http://depetris.wordpress.com
Not related to Afghanistan
The election law in Iraq and the discussion over it had nothing to do with Afghanistan. Kirkuk has been a long-standing thorn in the side of Iraqi politics because no one can agree upon it. It delayed the provincial election from their original date of Oct. 08 to Jan. 09, and almost delayed the parliamentary vote as well. The other big issue was whether to have a closed or open list. From what I've read the major parties all gave into the Kurds demand to use the current voter roles so that elections could move forward, otherwise the election was going to have to happen after January, which is unconstitutional.
While there are fraud claims in every Iraqi election, it has not been one of the main issues.
P.S. - Iraqi institutions barely provide services. They do not meet demand for electricity and clean water for example.
The prolonged, detailed
The prolonged, detailed discussions and examination of the Kirkuk issue/elections by all points of view in the Iraqi polity with eventual resolution by a three quarter consensus majority in the democratically elected parliament stands in contrast to Iraq's arab neighbours. Eg Egypt and Jordan, Prof Lynch, of whom you have much to complain about? Not to mention its Iranian neighbour!
How long before the rest of the arab and ME world will be asking for the same rights and the same democratic process that the Iraqis have?
Very fitting for the cradle of civilisation to be leading the way, at last, don't you think?.
Good Question Actually.
But that would depend by and large, on whether the US intends to invade those countries your good self has mentioned, and re-design their political systems. I am not aware of any requests by the peoples of those countries; formal or otherwise, made to the Washington administration to this effect. At the same time, I am not aware also of the fluctuations in flower and rose prices, or hoarding of pettals and rose buds, in order to shower the the US troops once they come to democratise the peoples of those countries.
khairi janbek.paris/france
That depends on whether or
That depends on whether or not the current Iraqi government manages to survive a few decades, something which is never guaranteed there.
Turkey's Role
I think Turkey's role cannot be underestimated, in settling the question of vote when it comes to Kerkuk. The marked improvement of bi-lateral relations between Turkey and Iraq, and the success of confidence-building measures with Iraqi-Kurdistan's leadership, have contributed to the re-definition of Kerkuk's status, as a red line as far as Turkey is concerned.
khairi janbek.paris/france
US President talks to Bibi Today.
It is interesting to see how the talks will go betwen them. Will they metaphorically of course, kiss and forget about the lover's tiff between the US and Israel, or, will they just re-iterate their political positions and leave it at that?. Which is also likely. However, is it likely by some odd chance, that President Obama will consider with Bibi, the Arab request for the Palestinians and Israelis to go straight into the final status negotiations, in order to void the settlements freeze issue?.
I must admit that, I thought the Arab request was rather reasonable, because it means the return of Abu Mazen to the negotiations without losing face, and the return of Bibi also without seeming to have compromised his stand. However, I discovered at the same time, that the Arab leaders have demanded written guarantees, from the UN as well as the US, for a time-line for those requested negotiations which should end with the establishment of a Palestinian state, after the issues of the future of Jerusalem, the right of return of Palestinian refugees, as well as the settlments have been settled.
What is difficult to understand for a lesser mortal like yours sincerely, is that, if Bibi does not want to discuss the freeze of settlements, is he likely to discuss their future?. Moreover, what is he going to discuss about Jerusalem if neither nor any other Israeli politician will aceept its division, let alone accept the right of return which ahs been already over-rejected.
One is sad because the crisis is deepening by the day, and the door to peace is getting closed.
khairi janbek.paris/france
OOooops.
Sorry faulks, sent the above message to the worng folder. Too late I guess. Hard to be a hammer and chizel man.
khairi janbek.paris/france
Re" Good Question Actually
Ah, Mr JanBekster, the circumstances of the invasion of Iraq was unique to the time and the unrelenting totalitarian nature of the leadership of that country and the threat it posed to US interests. What was always significant then was not that the US would seize the opportunity provided by 9/11 to finally remove the Iraqi regime but what would replace it? Another dictatorship, but US friendly? Instead, in a 180 reversal of Kissingerism, Iraq got a consensus, representative democracy which now is standing in stark contrast to its neighbours.
Today the arab media, like Al Jazeera, finds itself reporting extensively on the doings of a democratically elected Arab parliament passing election laws! Whoever would have thought?
Indeed Ah.
One adds one's voice to your good self's as well as to that of al Jazira. I think what is going on in Iraq is rather exciting, nevertheless, I don't feel that the invasion of the country , stands as the correct paradigm for the democratisation process of its nieghbours. Just as the US invasion was a peculiar occurence, so is the so-called Iraqi democracy up till now.
khairi janbek.paris/france
It's quite a change from
It's quite a change from broadcasting suicide bombing videos! Myself, have always been a fan of Al Jazeera and believe their suicide-bombings ratings bonanza and interviews with ranting jihadis is what helped turn muslim opinion so dramatically against islamic terrorism.
fair and balanced?
Mr. Lynch,
You are a great analyst of regional affairs and I have been following you for years but sometimes your political biases get out of hand. They have been noticeable and obvious for quite some time, which is fine and understandable but does not reflect well on serious policy analysts. I mention this now because I can recall clearly your commentary during the Bush administration. Whenever there was a political breakthrough, deal cut, or progress made, your analysis could be summarized as: "Yes, they've managed to proceed with (insert said event here) BUT violence is X, political progress is still stymied by Y" and then you'd go on to point out every flaw and potential hurdle to accomplishing said goal. Now, however, a political deal happens and it "demonstrates that overall Obama's Iraqi strategy is going well." Perhaps my memory isnt serving me correctly and you can produce several occasions in which a breakthrough "demonstrated that overall the Bush administration's Iraqi strategy is going well" but somehow I doubt it.
what jms180 said
jms180: You hit the nail on the head. It's great that Professor Lynch, at long last, is finally warming up to the incredible progress that has been made in Iraq. Less impressive, however, that his epiphany appears to have been triggered almost exclusively by a certain event that took place in Washington, D.C., at the stroke of noon on January 20, 2009, rather than what has been happening on the ground some 6000 miles away ever since the surge succeeded beyond the "wildest dreams" of the President he supports.