Who's running the Iraqi elections?
From AP's Jason Straziuso in Baghdad, this morning, writing about the official complaints that have been filed about the conduct of last Thursday's election:
- U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad said there had been 20 "red" — or serious — complaints as of Monday that could affect the outcome.
"Final results will not be announced until those red complaints are looked at," he said.
This is, of course, the same picture that prevails across the entire gamut of governance responsibilities inside US-and-UK-occupied Iraq. In the conduct of the elections. In the conduct of the Saddam trial. In the conduct of "security" and military policy. In the allocation of budgets... The occupying power is in fact-- and indeed, still also under international law-- in charge. But this occupying power (the US) likes to make it appear that it's the Iraqi collaborators who are calling the shots...
Just until things get tough, and then Big Brother Khalilzad steps in immediately to call the shots.
I encourage all to read the entire linked story. This looks like a replay of the "detention center" speculation of last week (where an entire conspiracy theory was generated by a single, ambiguous sentence a the end of an article).
The article clearly states that "An electoral commission official said more than 1,000 complaints from the Dec. 15 vote were being investigated, but only 20 were "very serious," and were not expected to change the overall outcome. Final results will be announced in early January, he said, which would delay formation of a new government...", and later identifies that official as Adel al-Lami, who is reported as saying that "officials didn't announce the results of the remaining 11 percent because of complaints of irregularities."
The US ambassador is only quoted later in the article, and it is very likely that he is just repeating what he heard from the election commission. I think that it is a bit of a stretch from that to asserting that the US is "running" the elections.
I think you may be reading a too much into a rather innocuous soundbite. Khalilzad is clearly employing the passive voice. It would mean the same thing spoken by anyone.
re: "collaborators"
http://www.unfoundation.org/media_center/press/2005/wirth_statement_012605.asp
The United Nations, since the end of the war in 2003, has been actively engaged in supporting the Iraqi-administered Independent Electoral Commission of Iraq (IECI) as it prepares for the election of the 275 Members of the National Assembly on January 30.
http://www.un.org/apps/sg/sgstats.asp?nid=1841
"I also offer my congratulations to the Independent Electoral Commission of Iraq for having organized and carried out the election in such challenging circumstances. I am very pleased that my UN electoral team in Baghdad was able to make a contribution to the electoral process and I am proud of the role they have played in supporting the Iraqis."
The IECI has the backing of the UN; I can't imagine why it should elicit such scorn. 'Collaborators' is a very charged term, Helena. It implies treasonous behavior. Is your suggestion that members of the IECI are traitors?