Is Iraq Ready for A Power Transfer?

Producer: Bharati Jagdish
First broadcast: 18 May 04, Radio Singapore International

The assassination of the head of Iraq's Governing Council, Ezzedine Salim comes just six weeks before the planned handover of power to an Iraqi transitional government on June 30th

In spite of the assassination and continued unrest in Iraq, the Bush administration has made it clear that it will go ahead with the handover to Iraq's Governing Council.

For more on this, Bharati Jagdish (BJ) spoke to Dr Glen Barclay (GB) from the Australian National University.

GB: "First of all, things are developing exactly as should have been expected. It's a terrible thing that people get assassinated, but this is the risk that collaborators have to take and anybody cooperating with the invading forces will be regarded by Iraqi nationals as a collaborator and obviously, the higher-placed these people are, the more they will be, inevitably, targeted for assassination. Things are developing exactly as should have been expected."

BJ: The US and the British seem determined to hand over power by June 30th, but some observers say that they should delay this until the Iraqi transitional government has the capacity to govern. What do you think?

GB: "Power isn't going to be transferred in any real sense anyway. The United States will be retaining an army of occupation. The supposed transfer of power to an Iraqi authority will simply mean establishing a puppet government in Baghdad which will be completely under the direction of the occupying forces. The new regime will, in effect, have no real sense of sovereignty and they, of course, will continue to be targets for assassination. That's the situation."

BJ: So, in your view, there is no future for the transitional government anyway?

GB: "I think that's absolutely true. All history shows that there is no future for a government which collaborates with invaders. They will always be regarded as traitors."

BJ: There seem to be two schools of thought here. One, that it's possible that once coalition forces hand over power to the Iraqis and a substantial number of coalition forces leave Iraq, the resistance may die down. The other is that the Iraqi transitional government would be seen as collaborators, as you say, and the resistance will become even stronger after the occupying forces leave. Do you think it's even possible that the withdrawal of forces would actually calm things down a little?

GB: "No, the withdrawal of occupying forces will provide more opportunities for the resistance. Time is on their side. Sooner or later, the Americans will have to decide either that they're going to maintain a permanent military occupation with no exit strategy or that they're simply going to have to withdraw and I would think that it's much more likely that the withdrawal will go on, more or less, according to plan and this will simply mean that the whole adventure of the invasion of Iraq would have been a total failure."

BJ: Now, this attack should be signal that the interim government taking over on June 30th should be at least representative of the movements within the population. Do you think the United States is considering this?

GB: "I don't think it has been considered at all. You can't have it both ways. The invaders can't have a government of collaborators and then invite the others, some of whom, may be part of the resistance, to take part. I don't think there's any resolution. This is a no-win situation."

BJ: They have talked about having elections in Iraq in January next year. How far would this help?

GB: "Certainly, an elected Iraqi government - this is assuming you can persuade enough suitable Iraqis to stand for election - would, of course resolve the problem. But again, how you can you have an election in what's virtually a civil war situation? It doesn't really make much sense."

BJ: Now, Bush is gunning for a re-election at home in November this year. How would these developments affect his chances in spite of a coalition withdrawal from Iraq?

GB: "At the moment, in the popularity polls, he's actually running below John Kerry and no American incumbent president has ever won an election in which the incumbent was scoring lower in the polls than the challenger. Everything has actually worked towards discrediting Bush and any significant withdrawal from Iraq, I think, could really only be seen as demonstrating the failure of the whole operation. As things stand at present and as they're likely to develop, Bush is going to lose the election."