Chalabi switching from UIA to Allawists?
I hadn't seen this elsewhere yet. IWPR's very well connected Kamran Karadaghi is reporting that:
- Ibrahim Al-Ja’afari is under pressure from leading Shia to withdraw as their candidate for post of premier because of his slowing progress on forming a new government and concerns over his Islamist orientation.
- Kurdish sources confirmed that a week ago Ayatollah Hussein Al-Sadr, a leading Shia clergy and a member of The [Allawist] Iraqi List, hosted a meeting at his Baghdad house between the leader of the grouping Ayad Allawi and Chalabi.
Many press reports suggested that Chalabi was now considering linking up with Allawi and the Kurds to propose their own candidate for premier.
But then, three or so weeks ago, when it looked as though the UIA had nailed down a deal with the Kurds-- h'mm; I guess that was then and now is now, eh? -- well, at that point the UIA folks figured they no longer really "needed" Chala as much. So that was when they went "firm" on Jaafari as their PM candidate.
But I guess Chala just loves to be needed. So here he is again.
God help the Iraqi people.
I was wondering whether this wasn't old news ? In case it's on the table again, may be that the hand of the US stays behind it ?
Aka :
step 1 : allow the Kurds to claim Kirkuk and in exchange ask them to support a secular republic and oppose an islamic one. (Rumsfeld accusation against Turkey, seems to prepare for such in favor of the Kurds.
step 2 : allow the deadlock created by the Kurdish demands to last for quite a long time, untill the Iraqis are all pissed off.
step 3 : put pressure on the UIA, whose nominated prime minister wasn't able to form a government. Try to get some more pallatable prime minister, like for instance Al Mahdi who seems to be an avid supporter of the neoliberal free market theories, unlike others.
step 4 : pressure the UIA to make a government of national union, including Allawi (the surest US ally).
step 5 : if that doesn't work, hope that the stall will drive some parties out of the UIA and try to get a completely US friendly government, with Allawi, the Kurds and the ex-UIA dissatisfied members, like Chalabi (as far as he can be a friend to anyone but himself) .
step 6 : pressure the assembly to adopt a constitution in two-three months without real discussion, so as to keep most of the TAL unchanged.
I firmly hope that the Iraqi assembly will resist to that last move and set its own time table. At least two years would be needed to prepare a constitution which would be discussed largely in the country so as to be accepted by the Iraqis afterward.
Sistani should send the his supporters in the streets again. Or the UIA will be robbed it's success in the elections. There are persistent rumors stating that the UIA had about 60% of the vote, but that after that long and untransparent period of recount they were unduly left with only 48%.
I have also been wondering how the UIA did so poorly in the "elections." I also wonder why can't the Assembly meet, pass a law by majority vote that the new government can be chosen by a simple majority and then form a government. Why do the Iraqis feel they are bound by a "law" conceived and implemented by the occupation. Why hasn't the UN said something about Bremer's dysfunctional and undemocratic TAL? I doubt there are very many countries in the world who use this 2/3 supermajority plan. It is a recipe for delay, which I guess is exactly what the US wants. I hope Sistani soon realizes he's been had by the neocons.
When I read about these deadlocks I often think of a comment a UN envoy (Brahimi?) from Algeria made to the parties in Iraq not to be "selfish". He blamed the civil war in his country on selfishness.
"I hope Sistani soon realizes he's been had by the neocons."
Time will tell who has and who has not been had. For a "quietist" Sistani appears to be very politically astute, particularly when it comes to timing.
This is probably not realistic but maybe there should be a call for a second round of elections. This would give the Sunnis another opportunity to vote and might break the deadlock. The UIA does not seem very keen on working with the Sunnis, however.
You talking about these politician figures as a real and they up to the job come on Helena, these are puppets for US, and they are so small in there thinking so they didn't have the courage to lead, simply because they are puppets.
Thomas Friedman in few of his columnists stated this "WE BREAK IT, WE OWN IT" &"You break it, you own it. We break Iraq, we own Iraq"
US role in Iraq is to keep Iraq broken, so they will own it as long as they could, forgot all these goals set by Bush administration as they repeatedly saying
Building Democracy In Iraq, Rebuilding The Country, To Work Out A Constitutional Arrangement That Makes Sense Of Iraq's Social And Cultural Mosaic, Transforming Diversity Into An Agent For Positive.
Why should we believe in this administration after we found all the build to war were lies, more over after two years of occupation it's a definite proves of those lies?
The Iraqi election was an American-brokered event: (http://www.gnn.tv/headlines/1592/Scott_Ritter_Hijacking_Democracy_in_Iraq), I believe in this, the only thing makes me change my believe when US take her force out of Iraq and helping Iraqis to build there country.
God help the Iraqi people.
Helena, I put it like this God help the Iraqi to finish US occupation, you are so optimistic by keep see US so friendly and genuine to build Iraq.
I would generally agree with Salah: the U.S. is not planning finally to leave Iraq. Look at the size and cost of the new embassy: apprently a political and military command center for the entire Middle East, it is, no less and probably much, much more. The U.S. is building bases. Or aren't they? No one knows for sure, curiously enough. Just as no one seems to know what is going on Iraq regarding other issues (see Rory Stewart, London Review of Books, 31 March). Why were the election results so long in coming? Why does a government look as far away as ever? Even if the national assembly tries to overthrow the TAL, as Diana comments above, the U.S. would not allow it. It has long been obvious that the U.S. has never planned to give Iraq freedom beyond the limits set by the U.S. itself. Recently I saw a diary on Kos about how 'we' must now demand an exit strategy. No one in Washington has even begun to think of any such thing, and I'd tend to include most Democrats. I guess I think that many of us are living in cloud-cuckoo-land about U.S. intentions and are being taken for a huge ride. My other pet theory is that the Kurds are overplaying their hand.
What follows is an accurate chronology of United States involvement in the arming of Iraq during the Iraq-Iran war 1980-88. It is a powerful indictment of the president Bush administration attempt to sell war as a component of his war on terrorism. It reveals US ambitions in Iraq to be just another chapter in the attempt to regain a foothold in the Mideast following the fall of the Shah of Iran.
From
Arming Iraq: A Chronology of U.S. Involvement
Whatever his complexes, Khomeini had no qualms about sending his followers, including young boys, off to their deaths for his greater glory. This callous disregard for human life was no less characteristic of Saddam Hussein..
And, for that matter, it was also no less characteristic of much of the world community, which not only couldn't be bothered by a few hundred thousand Third World corpses, but tried to profit from the conflict.
I think Allawi's threat about religion in politics yesterday means that lines are being drawn in the sand vis a vis the new Iraqi Govt.
Blair has no election date yet!!!! Go figure; a turdstorm is brewing in the Shi'a camp; never mind the Sunni.
Friendly Fire, you may be right.. for a time, Allawi looked like the big looser of the elections, with only 13% of the votes. But he seems to be back in the game, while some are speaking of a national unity government ?
There was also the UN envoy who visited Sistani and came back stating that he would only express himself in case of crisis and for general advice on moral questions. The first part of the statement is really interesting. Did the UN envoy request Sistani's intervention and meet a refusal ? Did he just want Sistani to reassure the secularists ? Or was he pressing him to get concessions from the UIA ? Anyway, are there any new political figures after the elections ?
It seems that we are only hearing about the same leaders who participated in the former provisional government or council ?
Meanwhile the Sadrists have brutally interrupted a student pic-nic in Basra : the women were wearing sexy dresses, males and females weren't separated and they were listening music. Two students have died in this punitive raid, but neither the Iraqis police, nor the Brittish came to rescue.