Lose-Lose

23 February 2004


UN Backs US on Iraqi Elections - Not Before Hand-Over

The UN has given its stamp of approval to the idea that there can be no proper elections in Iraq before the election-dictated hand over of sovereignty to . . . well, some Iraqis. While Secretary-General Kofi Annan's man on the ground, Lakhdar Brahimi, undoubtedly got it right, that doesn't mean that there is smooth sailing ahead. In fact, the lack of a hand over to something like a democracy will make the job of the US troops in Iraq more dangerous.

Like much of the Bush administration Iraqi policy once Baghdad had fallen, the hand-over has been arranged in a ham-fisted and clumsy way. Before creating a local regime and providing it with the resources to administer the nation effective, a date was set for American rule to end. Then, a caucus system was drafted (full of the sort of gerrymandering opportunities and other useful shenanigans) as an alternative to direct elections for a transitional regime. The argument was that it would not be logistically feasible to organize a fair balloting system until late 2005. The only problem with the proposal was the Iraqi resistance to being fettered with an undemocracy.

The UN, by agreeing with the American government, has given some political cover to the Bush administration in its timetable. However, the Iraqis were promised a democracy by the world's most powerful democracy, and it looks like they are getting something else. This plays into the hands of the Iraqi bandits who would like to be thought of as the resistance. They can now say truthfully that the US is leaving its hand-picked satraps in place rather than a real democracy, and therefore, the interim government lacks legitimacy.

Logically, the next step will be to resist that illegitimate regime, and perhaps even to reject the elections it organizes on the grounds that they will be rigged. And there are 130,000 American troops in Iraq on whom the rejectionists can express their disappointment lethally.

There doesn't seem to be a way out of this particular mess now, either. Delaying the hand-over was always difficult because of the US presidential elections in November, but now with the UN weighing in, favoring the 30 June deadline, changing it is impossible. A snap election was never in the cards because the creation of an electoral role takes time, and establishment of the rules under which any election would be held only slows that process further. Anything less than democratic elections, though, makes the interim Iraqi regime look like puppets of the US. The only thing worse than an imperial policy is a bad imperial policy, which is what the Bush administration is pursuing.

Home