HANDING OFF POWER—BUT TO WHOM?

 Artículo de  “The Economist” del 21-5-04

Por su interés y relevancia, he seleccionado el artículo que sigue para incluirlo en este sitio web. (L. B.-B.)

It has been a dismal stretch for the coalition in Iraq, leaving America and Britain keener than ever to find an exit strategy. But after a police raid on America’s former favourite Iraqi, the future is cloudier than ever

FOR some, Ahmed Chalabi has come to symbolise everything that is wrong with the invasion of Iraq. The head of the Iraqi National Congress (INC), a group that campaigned against Saddam Hussein’s rule from abroad, assured his American friends (and paymasters) that the dictator had stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. He told them that Iraqis would greet the coalition gratefully as liberators. And he positioned himself as one of the best people to run Iraq after Saddam.

All of this turned out to be, to put it mildly, rather optimistic. No stockpiles of banned weapons have been found. Nine out of ten Iraqis now see the coalition as occupiers, and Muqtada al-Sadr, an anti-American Shia cleric, has rocketed in popularity. Mr Chalabi still lacks a local power base, and has distanced himself from the Americans, probably in an attempt to shore up his credibility with Iraqis. But it was the Americans who pulled abruptly away from him on Thursday May 20th, when Iraqi police backed by American soldiers raided the offices of the INC, taking computers and files. The Americans insisted, improbably, that the operation was an Iraqi one, merely supported by American troops. Elsewhere, coalition officials said that the raids had to do with alleged fraud, kidnapping and passing sensitive information to Iran. Mr Chalabi grandstanded in response, saying: “Let my people go…It is time for the Iraqi people to run their affairs.”

On this, it would seem, Mr Chalabi and President George Bush are in full agreement. The news from Iraq remains mostly bad. Earlier this week, American troops bombed what they insisted was a terrorist safe house in western Iraq, but Arab television showed pictures of dead women and children, and some witnesses claimed that those killed were part of a wedding celebration. And sporadic fighting continues in the south between American troops and Mr Sadr’s militiamen—on Friday, six hours of fighting in Karbala left at least 18 dead, including an Iraqi driver for al-Jazeera, an Arabic television station.

Adding to American discomfort, this week saw the release of yet more photos, mostly in the Washington Post, of abuse in the Abu Ghraib prison. These show soldiers smiling cheerily next to a corpse packed in ice, prisoners shackled in tortuous positions, and one standing naked and chained at the ankles, covered in mud or excrement. The Post also featured on its website the first videos of abuse to be seen publicly—in one of the shaky shorts, soldiers seem to be preparing naked prisoners to form a pyramid. Other stories emerged of prisoners being groped by female guards, ridden like animals and forced to eat pork and drink alcohol, contrary to their religious beliefs, according to sworn statements obtained by the Post.

With support for the Iraq war falling, Mr Bush’s approval rating at home has slipped to the low-40% range, and he remains tied in polls with the so-far lacklustre John Kerry, his Democratic rival in November’s election. With Republicans in Congress beginning to worry, Mr Bush gave them a pep talk on Thursday, reportedly comparing the advent of Iraqi democracy with learning to ride a bicycle and saying that it was “time to take the training wheels off”. He is also reported as saying that John Negroponte, who will be the first American ambassador to post-Saddam Iraq, will not replace Paul Bremer—in other words, Mr Negroponte will not call the shots (at least officially). Next week, in a televised speech, Mr Bush will describe in detail his plans for the handover of limited power to an interim Iraqi administration on June 30th. He hopes that the interim prime minister and president will be chosen in the next two weeks.

At the United Nations, diplomats on the Security Council have reported that they are near a compromise resolution on Iraq’s future. It would give Iraq “full” sovereignty, but would allow coalition troops to remain for an as-yet unspecified time. Iraqi security forces would remain under coalition commanders but could choose not to obey certain orders. All of Iraq’s oil money would be under Iraqi control, with a foreign monitoring body looking out for corruption. Lakhdar Brahimi, the UN’s special envoy to Iraq, is said to be nearly finished choosing (with coalition help, of course) a government to run Iraq until elections in 2005. Mr Chalabi, like other members of the current Governing Council, is not expected to be on the list, which is likely to contain technocrats rather than politicians—the latter will be expected to prepare for elections.

But good news on the diplomatic front may not be enough to overcome the bad news on the ground in Iraq. With no sign of lasting peace in sight, and many gruesome photos and videos showing the abuse of prisoners yet to be released, a handover of sovereignty may seem, at best, a damage-limiting strategic withdrawal. At worst, it may be portrayed as a shame-faced retreat. If, as seems likely, violence continues to plague the new government in Iraq after June 30th, any credit Mr Bush then claims for having handed power back to Iraqis will ring hollow as he fights for re-election at home.