Let's Make a Deal

By Joe Klein Sunday, Dec. 21, 2003
    • In the days after Saddam Hussein was captured, five of the six plausible Democrats running for President — all except Dick Gephardt — gave major foreign policy speeches and called once again for the internationalization of the reconstruction effort in Iraq. This has been an article of Democratic faith: the President needs to share power in Iraq with the U.N. and NATO but won't because he is a cowboy unilateralist. It is a line of attack that has always been hostage to the possibility that George Bush might change diplomatic course — and last week there were strong, if subtle, signs that the Administration was ready to involve both the U.N. and our NATO allies in the selection of a new Iraqi government.

    First, there was an apparent change of heart by Grand Ayatullah Ali Hussein al-Sistani, the most powerful Shi'ite in Iraq. Al-Sistani had been insisting on direct election of a new government next spring because he feared that the U.S. proposal — for an indirect process featuring local caucuses throughout the country — might easily be manipulated to favor the nonelected members of Iraq's Governing Council, particularly the Pentagon's perennial favorite former exile, Ahmed Chalabi. According to the Financial Times, al-Sistani is now willing to let the U.N. decide whether direct elections or the American plan would be easier to carry out next spring.


    LATEST COVER STORY
    Mind & Body Happiness
    Jan. 17, 2004
     

    SPECIAL REPORTS
     Coolest Video Games 2004
     Coolest Inventions
     Wireless Society
     Cool Tech 2004

    PHOTOS AND GRAPHICS
     At The Epicenter
     Paths to Pleasure
     Quotes of the Week
     This Week's Gadget
     Cartoons of the Week

    MORE STORIES
    Advisor: Rove Warrior
    The Bushes: Family Dynasty
    Klein: Benneton Ad Presidency

    CNN.com: Latest News

    Secretary-General Kofi Annan — who favored direct elections until last week — told me the U.N. would be willing, if asked, to certify the American plan and supervise the caucuses, "if we are sure the process is inclusive and transparent," and then "only if our security considerations can be met." French President Jacques Chirac, another direct-elections fan, seemed to be in a negotiating mood as well. Two weeks ago, he told Senator Joseph Biden that he was open to a modified version of the American caucus plan — and, furthermore, that he would not be opposed to a NATO military presence in Iraq. Chirac did not go so far as to promise French troops, but he did tell Biden, "If the coalition led by the Americans stays in Iraq, it's a disaster, and if they leave, it's a disaster. So we have a dilemma." But Chirac appeared far more concerned by the likelihood of chaos if the troops leave.

    It seemed clear that former Secretary of State James Baker was doing more in Europe last week than negotiating debt relief for Iraq. A more likely project was the continuation of negotiations recently begun by Colin Powell and Donald Rumsfeld to produce a grand bargain with the recalcitrants — France, Germany, Russia — that would involve increased military and financial participation by the allies in return for U.N. supervision of the transition to a new government. Baker, I am told, was furious over the Pentagon memo that limited reconstruction contracts in Iraq to countries that had been part of the "coalition of the willing." He insisted on speaking directly with the President to secure a full range of negotiating options for his trip — including reconstruction contracts — before he left for Europe.

    The Bush Administration was reluctant to acknowledge these developments for reasons that were understandable and, perhaps, for others that were not. The understandable reluctance had to do with local Iraqi politics. Al-Sistani doesn't want to appear to be negotiating with the U.S.--especially since Wahhabi extremists across the Islamic world are now whispering that there is a secret regional alliance between the Shi'ites and the U.S. Furthermore, the U.S. doesn't want to appear to be letting the Shi'ites set the ground rules — especially since delicate negotiations are under way with prominent Sunni tribal leaders to secure their support for the caucus process, in return for generous reconstruction funds.

    But there was also the possibility that the Bush Administration was racked by its never ending ideological battle over unilateral action. The State Department was firmly in favor of an international deal. Defense Secretary Rumsfeld was said to be ready to shed the burdens of local governance in Iraq. The Coalition Provisional Authority was divided — but L. Paul Bremer told Senator Hillary Clinton that he favored U.N. involvement in the selection of a new government. The Vice President remains skeptical about any U.N. role. The President, however, may be turning away from the hard-liners and toward a more pragmatic approach. "Jim Baker wouldn't be involved," a prominent Republican told me, "if we weren't talking about a serious change of course."

    Even if a solid plan is negotiated, formidable obstacles to success in Iraq remain. The guerrilla war continues. The hajj — the annual pilgrimage to Mecca — will set large numbers of people moving through the country in January and February and provide wonderful cover for troublemakers. Thousands of U.S. troops will rotate in and out of Iraq in March and April, a process that may be vulnerable to major terrorist strikes. Still, there finally appears to be the outline of a plan to move from the current chaos to a new Iraqi government, recognized and supported by the international community — if the President wants it.