No one with an ounce of political sense and an unbiased outlook would disagree with the message that US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw took to Baghdad yesterday — that Iraq’s politicians have to stop their squabbling, that the three months since the elections has been long enough to form a government of national unity, that the Iraqi public is tired of the impasse and that until a credible government is appointed, there is no chance of ensuring security and ending the insurrection there.
Whether going in person to deliver the message will make any difference is, however, open to serious doubt. There is no sign, even at this late date, that Iraq’s political leaders are in the mood to make the compromises that are obvious, not just to the outside world but to ordinary Iraqis as well.
They do not look to Iraq’s best interest, only to those of their own individual communities. Take the case of the United Iraqi Alliance (UIA) which hopes to hold on to its choice for prime minister, current incumbent Ibrahim Al-Jaafari, despite the total opposition of all other parties — and yet include the other parties in a government of national unity. That is not all. The UIA has not been above manipulating events in the past few days in order to try and embarrass the US into being more amenable as well as to ensure that all Iraqi security is in its hands in the new government. Its principles seem to be it should have all power and everyone else’s job is to slavishly support it.
This is not politically possible. There can be no government of national unity on such a basis.
Given the political intransigence and the consequent vacuum, it is hardly surprising that Rice and Straw took what looks suspiciously like a “spur of the moment” decision during the former’s visit to the UK to go together to Baghdad in the hope of bringing the parties together.
This was clearly a visit born of exasperation, even desperation, because both Washington and London know that it will look as if Rice and Straw flew in to lay down the law. That could play straight into the hands of their opponents in Iraq, worldwide and at home. It could be presented as undermining the very democracy that the Americans and British claim to want to build in Iraq.
Where is the democracy if Washington and London are busy telling the winners of the elections that they cannot have the prime minister they want nor complete control of the security forces? That certainly is the UIA’s argument.
In fact it does not hold water. Even in a stable democracy, there have to be compromises when no party wins an outright majority in an election — and the UIA did not win an outright majority. But Iraq is anything but stable. As Rice and Straw rightly say, there has to be a government of national unity — and that of necessity means sharing power. Until the UIA understands that simple fact, a government of national unity will remain a mirage — and violence will increase.
