Iraq's murky future

by George S. Hishmeh

President George W. Bush just took another swipe at the US Senate, though controlled by his Republican Party, when he installed this week a controversial nominee, John Bolton, as ambassador to the United Nations. The short-tempered senior State Department official has been accused of abusing subordinates and twisting intelligence to fit his conservative ideology.

Bush used an avenue that is available to US presidents whenever the 100-member upper house of US legislators is in recess, that is, he can appoint his nominee without congressional approval as is the law. Although several presidents have taken this step in the past, it has rarely been used to name an official as high-ranking as Bolton and certainly not during critical times as is the case nowadays for US foreign policy. The only disadvantage in taking this route is that the official, Bolton in this case, will only serve until the end of this congressional term, or December 2006.

Senator Christopher Dodd, a key Democrat who is a member of the all-important Senate Foreign Relations Committee has described Bolton as "damaged goods." Another, Russ Feingold, noted that Bolton did not win the support of a majority of members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, an important step for approval by the Senate. He saw Bolton as "a polarising figure with tattered credibility," coming at a time when the US needs to be doing "our very best ... (to) nurture a rock-solid international coalition to fight terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction."

This extraordinary presidential appointment, which ended a five-month impasse between the administration and Senate Democrats, also came at an inappropriate time when democracy-seeking Iraqis are drafting a new constitution. It is very unlikely that the committee members thought highly of this inelegant American presidential manoeuvre that bypassed the normal parliamentary procedure.

Paradoxically, the Bush administration was at the same time correct in urging the 71-member committee drafting the Iraqi constitution to meet their deadline, which the committee has now agreed to do to the relief of all. By most calculations meeting this objective may save Iraq a protracted civil war. It will also most likely speed up the evacuation of a good number of foreign troops in the country starting sometime next year. These objectives will loom large at the scheduled Friday (Aug. 5) meeting of the Iraqi political leadership, which is expected to signal which way the framers of the constitution can go.

The issues that have divided the framers of the constitution to date are weighty and troublesome and will determine the shape and future of this country, which has the second largest oil reserve in the region. These thorny issues include, among others, the size of the Kurdish autonomous territory and whether it includes the oil-rich Kirkuk region, the role of Islam in the new Iraq state, the role of women and the name of the country.

The draft constitution, now expected to be completed on Aug. 15, is the first step in a six-month political process. It will be submitted to a referendum sometime in October after immediate ratification by parliament. If voters approve it, a new election will be held in mid-December, and the United States and its allied partners can begin withdrawing their armed forces by next summer.

But should the framers fail to eliminate the sticking points that have consumed the committee members to date, not an unlikely possibility, and choose to shelve them for the time being, the emerging status quo could imperil the nascent democracy. For example, the Kurdish community holds a trump card in this respect. Under the rules approved by the Iraqi interim regime last year, if a two-thirds majority in three Iraqi provinces votes against the constitution, it will be rejected. The Kurds are a majority in three provinces in northern Iraq.

Keeping the Iraqi house in order is essential in the immediate future. But a divided Iraq, coupled with possible new alliances - as was demonstrated following the eyebrow-raising visit of Iraqi Prime Minister Ali Jaafari to neighbouring Iran where he was received warmly - could still turn the tables upside down, regionally and internationally. The future remains murky.

This article was published in the Friday-Saturday, August 5-6, 2005 edition of the Jordan Times. It is used here with permission.