The Sovereignty See-Saw

First we said we would:

According to the [The "Agreement on Political Process," signed by CPA Administrator Paul Bremer and Jalal Talabani on behalf of the Governing Council], the Assembly is to be elected by May 31, 2004, and the Governing Council will be dissolved upon its establishment. Also, the CPA will disband by June 30, 2004, when the Assembly is due to assume "full sovereign powers for governing Iraq."

Then we said we wouldn't:

Marc Grossman, under secretary of state for political affairs, tells Senate Foreign Relations Committee that Bush administration plans for new caretaker government in Iraq will place severe limits on its sovereignty, including only partial command over its armed forces and no authority to enact new laws;

And now we're saying we will again:

Rushing to stem eroding support at home and abroad for his Iraq policies, Bush discussed with his Cabinet and Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi plans for what he called a "full transfer of sovereignty" to an Iraqi interim government on June 30 backed by a new U.N. Security Council resolution.

My only question is, who's going to tell Negroponte?

Actually my other question is whether anyone is going to try and insist this doesn't represent a moving of the goalposts?

Comments

[wilfred]

Moving the goalposts? It's this administrations tradition. Flip-flopping? Nope, that's Kerry, right?

[Edward]

Would seem to be on in the same, if you ask me, Wilfred...must be a branding/copyright question.

[JimPortlandOR]

Robin Wright and Mike Allen are reporting in WaPo that "President Bush will lay out details of the U.S. plan for the Iraq transition at a major speech Monday in a bid to counter mounting public anxiety over the escalating violence and uncertainty less than six weeks before the handover of political power in Baghdad, according to U.S. officials."

"Beginning with Monday's address at the Army War College, Bush will give a major speech on Iraq every week through June 30, when the U.S.-led coalition is due to turn over limited authority to a new interim Iraqi government."

With possibly 4 or 5 speeches to give, Bush will have lots of room for changing our approach (with the winds), but I'm sure they wouldn't consider moving the goalpost. Apparently the goalpost is "adjective-free" with regard to 'full' vs 'limited' sovereignty'. In one news cycle we have both.

WaPo

On the other hand: the NY Times is reporting:

Rushing to stem eroding support at home and abroad for his Iraq policies, Bush discussed with his Cabinet and Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi plans for what he called a "full transfer of sovereignty" to an Iraqi interim government on June 30 backed by a new U.N. Security Council resolution.

NY Times

[Slartibartfast]

Using the NYT article abstract as a midpoint is pretty weak; you're going to have to do better. Here's the whole of it:

Marc Grossman, under secretary of state for political affairs, tells Senate Foreign Relations Committee that Bush administration plans for new caretaker government in Iraq will place severe limits on its sovereignty, including only partial command over its armed forces and no authority to enact new laws; says administration is still not sure who will govern Iraq after June 30 or precisely how they will be selected; several European and United Nations diplomats say they do not think UN will approve Security Council resolution sought by US that handcuffs new Iraq government recommended by Lakhdar Brahimi, special UN envoy, in its authority over its own armed forces on its own soil; Democratic and Republican members of committee appear frustrated that so few details are known at this late stage in transition process

Tell me you understand what that's trying to say, and if it really means anything in the actual implementation of policy. Looks bad, but could be utterly meaningless.

As for me, I'm reserving judgement until after the end of June. If the goalposts get moved to July, fine. If they get moved to indefinite, or painted in someone else's school colors, then I start to get upset. The biggest threat I can see now is they might get torn down by the opposing team.

There. Have I abused the analogy enough, or does the analogy want to ask me for some more?

[Edward]

Using the NYT article abstract as a midpoint is pretty weak

Hey, don't blame me for their archiving policy.

But to help everyone understand what was being said back then, let's start with a definition:

sovereignty. n. Complete independence and self-government.

And then there's only the question of which part of "no authority to enact new laws" is unclear.

[Slartibartfast]

Again, the guy's undersecretary of state for political affairs, so he could be utterly full of it. Or stoned.

I'm not blaming you for their archiving policy, I'm questioning that the article's a summation of US foreign policy as regards Iraq, as you represent. And I'm too goddamned lazy (not to mention, cheap) to pay the money and get the whole article. If those words had come out of Colin Powell's mouth, I'd be a bit more concerned.

[Gary Farber]

"Tell me you understand what that's trying to say....

Sure, Slart. We're giving them Diet Sovereignty With No Caffeine.

Always happy to help.

[Gary Farber]

See here for that full article.

Helpful Farber-Invented Tip: there's an easy work-around for pulling up old Times articles if they're within the frame that the Link Generator has them. Go to the abstract of the article; copy the headline; drop it into Google; pick up the original URL from Google, drop it into the Link Generator.

Presto-magico, open seseme!

Just pay me a nickel every time you do it, along with what you owe for each quarter on "Mind-reading; something-something penalty."

;-)

(Or just read my blog several times a day, damnit; extra props for commenting.)

[Slartibartfast]

Thanks, Gary. One thing, though: I'm not seeing the Grossman quote anywhere in that article.

Wrong article?

[Gary Farber]

Whoopsie. Yes, wrong article. Obscure reference: "There is no gold in Aqaba."

I was overly hasty, and forgot to put the headline in quotes, and then didn't check that it was, indeed, the identical article, rather than one on the same subject. Apologies.

Here ya go.

[sidereal]

I predict non-petroleum sovereignty and a very influential aid package fraught with conditions and leverage, designed to make sure private US organizations are given free reign and are first in line at the trough.

[Slartibartfast]

Thanks, Gary. I think my mistake was using the Times' own search engine to look for it.

I think Grossman took a pounding on the "limited sovereignty" remark, because he's still taking salvos a month later. I think he must be one of those guys who regularly step on their unit in public:

Mr. Grossman at first said that this could not happen because any government would recognize the importance of keeping American forces on hand — the line taken repeatedly by American officials for months. Finally, when pressed, he answered "yes" — American forces would have to leave.

He was then contradicted by Lt. Gen. Walter Sharp, director of strategic plans and policy for the military's joint staff, who said that such a request would only be valid if made by an elected government — something that would not exist until next year.

Mr. Grossman then said that General Sharp "perhaps did a better job than I did" in answering the question.

I'm thinking there's some confusion about when Iraq is truly sovereign, and we're seeing that confusion bleed out in the person of Marc Grossman. Given that national elections aren't scheduled for over a year from now, I think the idea that we're going to walk out of Iraq en masse in late June is...not well thought out. Or, in other words, Iraq won't be truly sovereign for another year and change, but the first step will be taken in June.

Or I could be completely full of it.

[Slartibartfast]

...designed to make sure private US organizations are given free reign and are first in line at the trough.

What do you think we are, the UN?

[Gary Farber]

"Given that national elections aren't scheduled for over a year from now...."

I predict they'll be moved up.

I may, however, be indulging in wishful thinking, because I think they desperately need to be moved up.

Personally, I'd schedule them for August 1st, a special election limited to a one-year term, using ration cards for IDs, same as has been done for innumerable local level elections, all of which have been felt to have been great successes. Flawed? Yes.

That would make them utterly unlike the first half of 20th century Chicago elections, or of Tammany Hall elections, or the national election of 2000, here.

We survived; the Iraqis will survive better than with no elections.

It's the only way to gain legitimacy for a government, as our ideals actually tell us. In this case, our ideals have it right.

Whatever entity they come up with for June 1st will be seen by Iraqis as "the Puppet Government, Part II."

Hold early elections, ASAP, and the thing might hold together, maybe, for a while, at least.

2005 will be Too Late. (October The 1st Is Too Late.)

Mark my words, kemosabe.

[Gary Farber]

"...designed to make sure private US organizations are given free reign and are first in line at the trough."

What do you think we are, the UN?"

Non-offensively meant, meant merely in mirror: what do you think we are, Iraq?

Isn't it possible that the Iraqis might desire to set their own rules, which might not guarantee America First and America-We-Have-No-Say-Over-You?

I'm not clear by what right we have the right to take that right away from them. Am I right?

What's the meaning of "sovereignty," again?

[Slartibartfast]

Marked, Gary. Personally, I think having national elections much later is probably acceptable, provided that local and regional autonomy is achieved in the near term. And from what I remember of Bush's last address on the topic (which was also the first such occasion I can think of where he outlined a plan), that is in fact the strategy.

I'm not sure it's in the cards, though. I think once local and regional autonomy is achieved, we'll be thrown out on our ear. Not physically, just that our scheduled election will be preempted by an unscheduled one.

[Gary Farber]

Oopsie, again.

[Gary Farber]

"Personally, I think having national elections much later is probably acceptable, provided that local and regional autonomy is achieved in the near term."

You may be right. Have you read many Iraqis saying so?

"...that is in fact the strategy."

It is. However, given that we, it turns out, signed up for the Strategy-of-the-Month Club, I don't see this as an obstacle to change.

"I think once local and regional autonomy is achieved, we'll be thrown out on our ear. Not physically, just that our scheduled election will be preempted by an unscheduled one."

That's one way to describe what will happen. But since, forgive me, our government tends to have a history of, sometimes, leading by noticing which way the crowd is marching, and running to the head of the crowd and shouting "follow me!," carefully making sure to not turn away from the way the crowd is marching, I suspect this will happen again.

The Iraqis will force early elections by not accepting the June 1st government as legitimate, and after some time, we'll shout "follow me," and move up the elections.

I may, of course, be wrong. It's been known to happen.

[Slartibartfast]

Heh. The longer answer ought to have been "I don't think so. What do you think we are, the UN?" But I thought there was little room for misinterpretation.

I don't think we're pure as the driven snow, Gary. I just think for the most part, we're less likely to tear off a piece for ourselves than the UN is. Or has been.

[sidereal]

You'll have to clarify your use of 'we'. If the State Department is in charge of our relationship post-handoff, I think we'll be pretty noble about it. If Bremer/Pentagon is in charge, I don't doubt that the people who crafted an executive order putting private US corporations above any law are going to tear off as big a piece as they can get away with.

[sidereal]

You'll have to clarify your use of 'we'. If the State Department is in charge of our relationship post-handoff, I think we'll be pretty noble about it. If Bremer/Pentagon is in charge, I don't doubt that the people who crafted an executive order putting private US corporations above any law are going to tear off as big a piece as they can get away with.

[Gary Farber]

"I just think for the most part, we're less likely to tear off a piece for ourselves than the UN is. Or has been."

I'm proud of my country, and proud to be an American. Overall. But there are also many stains on our country, as there are on many. And as a great country, we have some great stains.

I'm not saying we're worse than the UN. But you're probably familiar with, say, the history of the United Fruit Company in Latin America; with the steel and railroad trusts in the late 19th Century; with Teddy Roosevelt Progressivism; with, also, the Panama Canal; with recent companies such as Enron; Arthur Andersen; global Crossing; and Tyco.

I'd love to believe that government will resist attempts to exploit our position in Iraq, but we can probably agree that the only question is what the degree will be.

[Slartibartfast]

Am I just tired and befuddled, sidereal, or did you just discuss Bremer and State as if they were two sides of a coin, instead of the same face?

Gary, I never claimed we were perfect. I never even claimed we should be held up as a shining example. I just think we're better than the discussed alternative. That is all.

[sidereal]

Indeed I did. I was tired and befuddled and on my way to the elevator. I take a mulligan. Elide Bremer.

[Gary Farber]

Although CPA isn't on the organizational chart of either State or DoD, it reports generally to DoD, not State. That was the switch made when Jay Garner was fired, and Paul Bremer appointed.

Then there was the somewhat reshuffle theoretically putting it under the control of the White House group chaired by Advisor Rice.

Typically, it's been left officially rather muddled, but State has certainly had the least say, ever since Garner was canned.

The big transition happening on June 1st is that State will be taking, theoretically, anyway, primary control, under the new embassy and Negroponte, with the dissolution of the CPA and retirement of Bremer.

[asdf]

late to the party, I see.

couple points.

I watched that hearing. Grossman was testifying above his paygrade. I think he decided to plunge ahead and answer questions that he wasn't supposed to, and policy was still being debated above him.

I also think, given Colin Powell's penchant for schmoo-ing diplomatic agreements (see UN Resolution 1441), that we are schmoo-ing agreements with our allies and the Iraqis about what sovereignty means. Hence the discrepancy between various spokespeople. Meanwhile, under the radar, Bremer is trying to pass all kinds of edicts and so forth. It's bizarre.

In any case, surely this uncertainty contributes to instability. Early elections are also going to be difficult, as any new goverment will immediatey be challenged, and violently so. Wait too long, however, and the window could close.