ANOTHER TRY IN IRAQ

 

 Editorial de   “The Washington Post” del 24/02/2004

THE REPORT of the United Nations' fact-finding mission on Iraq yesterday returned the Bush administration to the drawing board. The U.N. report endorsed the administration's preferred deadline of June 30 for transferring sovereignty but vetoed its plan for creating a transitional government through a caucus system. Another U.S. goal, the negotiation of a bilateral agreement on the continued presence of U.S. troops in the country, has been put off, while a third, the drafting of a temporary constitution by the end of this week, may or may not be reached. Either way, the administration faces a scramble to settle on a new and more workable political and military strategy. The good news is that it is now clearer what a successful transition will require -- and there remains a reasonable chance of success.

The first element in a new policy must be the continued participation of the United Nations, which may prove more capable than the United States of forging a consensus among Iraqis and their political leaders. So far, Shiite leader Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, who refused to believe U.S. assertions that elections were not possible before June 30, has not challenged the similar judgment of U.N. envoy Lakhdar Brahimi -- who, unlike U.S. administrator L. Paul Bremer, was able to meet the cleric in person. Mr. Brahimi, who helped to broker the formula for political transition in Afghanistan, should be encouraged to do the same in Iraq. Administration officials say they are prepared to accept such an active U.N. role and also a new U.N. Security Council resolution to support it, if that is what Secretary General Kofi Annan wants. That is the right course.

A trip to the Security Council might mean negotiations with members such as Russia and France, which remain at odds with the United States over Iraq. But another lesson of recent months has been that a successful Iraqi transition will require broader support outside as well as inside the country. France and other governments that opposed the war now say they recognize that stabilizing Iraq is vital to their interests. If so, they should be prepared to get behind a U.N.-led effort to set up a provisional government, organize elections and write a new constitution. Broad international support, in turn, would help persuade Iraq's political and ethnic factions to agree on a plan and win over those who resist anything that appears to have U.S. sponsorship.

The administration has repeatedly attempted to move forward without forging a broad consensus or seeking a popular mandate -- partly for logistical reasons, but also in the hope of ensuring that liberal principles and pro-Western leaders prevail in the postwar order. It should now be obvious that such shortcuts won't work. The appointed Iraqi Governing Council lacks the practical political authority to approve an agreement on U.S. forces, as many of its own members have acknowledged. Any interim constitution it writes also risks rejection, though administration officials argue that that initiative is still worth trying. But the council almost certainly would be unable to effectively govern the country, even for a short period. While preserving its relationships with Iraq's secular democrats, the Bush administration must focus on how to quickly draw more Iraqi leaders into the process of deciding on a transitional administration. It can and should continue to insist on upholding basic principles of democracy and human rights; but, the more it does so as part of a coalition, and in partnership with the United Nations, the greater the chances of success.