Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiIraqis Pass Election Law Crucial to US Withdrawal Plans
BAGHDAD — After nearly a dozen delays and a final, rowdy session, Iraq's parliament on Sunday passed a law setting national elections for January, averting for now a political crisis that threatened to unravel the country's slow progress toward stability.
Approval of the law eases a growing source of concern for the Obama administration. President Barack Obama is considering sending 34,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan, and successful elections here are key to a major reduction in U.S. combat forces in Iraq by next summer.
The elections, now scheduled for Jan. 23, had been held up by an explosive dispute over the oil-rich region of Kirkuk, where both Arabs and Kurds claim a majority. Lawmakers resolved the disagreement for now by agreeing to use voter rolls from 2009, and not a 2004 voter list compiled before many Kurds had moved into the region.
The lawmakers also resolved another key issue: how to list candidates on the ballot. Under the new law, candidates will be listed by name — a so-called open list — and not by party affiliation, a "closed list" in which voters do not know who the individual candidates are. The decision to use an open list will make it more difficult for religious-based parties to win support.
"Today we have been able to achieve one of the most sought-after points regarding the elections and that is the open list. And it is a grand day for Kirkuk. It will not be deprived of its right in national elections," said Khalid Shwani, a Kurdish lawmaker and prominent figure in negotiations over the law.
"Of course there were many compromises. No one can reach an accord without making some concessions," said parliament member Fawzi Akram, from Iraq's Turkomen minority.
Iraqi and U.S. officials expressed relief Sunday.
"This is good news. This is an achievement for all Iraqis, and for the political process," said Sadiq al Rikabi, an adviser to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki.
U.S. ambassador Chris Hill and Army Gen. Raymond Odierno, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, issued a statement congratulating the Iraqis.
Hill, in a conference call with reporters, said that, for now, the withdrawal of U.S. combat forces from Iraq could proceed as planned next year. "Had these deliberations gone on, some new decisions would have had to be made" about U.S. troop withdrawals, he said. "We knew that a crucial element of the schedule was that we were able to be here in strength through the election."
The Kirkuk issue, which generates deep emotions among Iraq's Arabs, Kurds and Turkomen, had repeatedly stymied efforts to pass the law.
Many Kurds were expelled from the area under Saddam Hussein, but have returned since the March 2003 U.S. invasion — in numbers that other Iraqis say exceed their previous population. The decision to use voter registration lists from 2009 was a victory for the Kurds.
The dispute, however, was only postponed, not resolved.
The law set up a fact-finding committee to examine voter lists in Kirkuk and other disputed areas, and compare them with 2004 versions. The panel is to complete its work in a year, long after the national elections, potentially setting up another stand-off.
The days leading up to the final vote showed how Iraqi officials, after years of sectarian violence, still struggle between defending their ethnic or religious group and representing the interests of the country as a whole.
Sunday's final session was raucous, with lawmakers shouting and a few storming out of the session. One of the most contentious issues was whether internally displaced Iraqis, who number as many as 2.5 million, could cast votes in their former home regions. In the end, it was decided they could not.
As late as Sunday afternoon, it was still uncertain lawmakers would pass the bill after so many failed attempts.
"There have been nine sessions in which we failed to reach any results - this is the tenth, inshallah (God willing) it will be the last," said Salim al Juburi, a spokesman for the main Sunni bloc in parliament.
(Issa is a McClatchy special correspondent.)
7 Comments so far
Show AllThe Generals are making the policy. McCrystal will get what he wanted because he swayed public opinion by his speech before the President could be told what to do by his handlers. Truman fired MacArthur for about the same thing. Policy should be made in and around the White House. There has never been a dictatorship here, per se, the President is really only a figurehead; a rallying point, contrary to popular belief, but there is protocol, and the Pentagon and its minions are breaking down the barriers. This country is more and more being taken down the road to military, and hawkish governmental control. They don't know it, but the "teabaggers" and their like are setting the stage.
Why is an active duty American general
http://games.bbzones.com
The SOFA agreement with Iraq allows the President of the United States to withdraw all military forces from Iraq unilaterally meaning without asking any Iraqi governmental agency or person(s). In this context the election law is not crucial at all to US withdrawal plans. Our CIC can decide any day to take all the troops out pronto without violating the SOFA agreement.
Where the rub comes in is that the Iraqis have not yet ratified SOFA which could be interpreted to mean that we are illegally in Iraq since January 1, 2009. If the Iraqis fail to ratify in January or whenever the fat is in the fire because that might be the equivalent of "out now".
There is too much palaver in this article, linking things that have no relationship to the United States and our troop presence. For instance, how in the world does an agreement about how to list candidates on a ballot affect "our" decision about whether to send Johnny back home? It affects the Iraqis and how they divide land and oil, but it is none of our business. It is a made-up issue.
The United States is not responsible for running elections or tweaking power relations in Iraq. We do more harm than good.
Just get the hell out. And no, do not repurpose the troops for another idiotic venture in Afghanistan.
Joe
"US ambassador Chris Hill and Army General Raymond Odierno, commander of US forces in Iraq, issued a statement congratulating the Iraqis." A picky point here, but one that should be made.
Why is an active duty American general, the field commander of US troops serving overseas in a combat zone, publicly commenting about the domestic politics of a foreign country? Such commentary on the internal affairs of Iraq coming from the US ambassador is perhaps gratuitous (and potentially more than just a bit paternalistic seen from the eyes of ordinary Iraqis), but is otherwise appropriate. But since when does the Pentagon's top commander publicly speak out - ostensibly on behalf of the American people, or the elected civilian government in Washington - on legislation passed by another nation's parliament?
That Ray Odierno as a matter of course gets his two cents worth in on Iraqi election law reform is yet further indication just how far, in the post-Bush/Cheney era, active duty Pentagon brass have become enmeshed in day-to-day partisanship both here at home and over there.
Bill from Saginaw
My first grade teacher should be in government. She said MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS.