As Saddam Hussein watched from a television in his cell, Iraq's national assembly today appointed one of his most tenacious opponents to the office of president, taking a significant step in forming a new government and breaking a political deadlock nearly 10 weeks after general elections.
The assembly voted in Jalal Talabani, a Kurdish leader, as president; Adel Abdul Mahdi, a prominent Shiite Arab politician, as vice president, and Sheik Ghazi al-Yawar, the Sunni Arab president of the interim government, as the other vice president. The three men are expected to take their oaths of office on Thursday and may name a prime minister on the same day, assembly members said.
Naturally, "the prime minister, likely to be a Shiite, will wield the most power", but "Talabani's appointment will give the Kurds strong leverage in the new government and in negotiations over the permanent constitution".
So, the advantages of a decentralized democratic power structure—ambitions thwart ambitions—appear to be in place. That's an absolute requirement for the successful democratization of Iraq, as I've argued for the past year or so. Fortunately, in this matter, things have turned out better than I feared they might.
However, Jalal Talabani is an interesting figure, with a curious past. For one thing, Talabani has long been a leader in the drive for Kurdish independence—a fact certain to irritate neighbors. On the other hand, he seems to understand practical limits, and has shied away from anything like Kurdish independence...
Question: You and the KDP leader Massoud Barzani defend federalism. However, most Kurds want an independent state. How will you solve this problem?
Answer: This is not completely correct. Obviously people dream of independence. However, even when you discuss with those with extremist tendencies, they come to see federalism as the best solution. How will we survive in the case of our neighbours closing the borders? The Kurdish people, like other peoples in the world, have the right to govern themselves, the right to self-determination is included in this. But, in reality, it is not possible to establish an independent state.
Talabani has also been instrumental in more diplomatic intra-Iraq political maneuvering between the Kurdish factions, and as a liaison between the Kurds and Hussein. To his credit, it appears that he understands the palliative power of democracy, having said in 2000...
...while there is not democratic regime there will be no solution for Kurdish problem or other problems. I always say that democracy is the panacea for all problems of Iraq, including Kurdish problem.
Kurds will never submit to an Islamic order. Today, there is a new Republic of Iraq. We now have a second republic, just like France produced its second, third and fourth republic. We are reconstructing Iraq. A consensus should be established during this transition; here it is not a question of a majority or a minority. Iraq is made mainly up of three groups. These are the Kurds, Sunni Arabs and Shias. These three groups should establish a consensus on important points, such as democracy, human rights, federalism, women’s rights, Iraq’s independence and integrity. In the Governing Council, we defended in an alliance a democratic and federal Republic of Iraq that recognises Islam. Here, there is no room for Islamic rule.
Finally, Talabani has a constructive attitude towards solving the ongoing problem of internal resistance...
Question: Is there another solution to the problem rather than a military one?
Answer: We have three groups in front of us. Those that come from abroad and whose allies are Ansar al Islam and Tevhid and Jihad, those close to the old regime and Islamic fundamentalists like the Wahhabis. Groups such as Al Qaeda and Ansar Al Islam should be wiped out. For the others there remains a political option. We can establish a dialogue with the Iraqis. We can accept their rejection of the Americans, but they have to do this in a democratic and peaceful way.
All of that bodes well for the future of Iraq.
But there's also an interesting episode from Talabani's past: if you recall the capture of Saddam Hussein, you might also recall that there were some claims that Kurds had actually found him first and turned him over US troops, directed US troops toward him, or at least participated in the capture. In fact, hours before the US mentioned it, the Kurds were already aware of his capture, and were leaking the news to Iranian media.
News of Saddam's capture broke late on Saturday 14 December when Talabani told the Iranian news agency IRNA the former Iraqi president had been detained near Tikrit.
Kurds in the north of the country were openly celebrating early on Sunday - hours before the US military in Baghdad announced it had Saddam in custody.
Subsequent reports indicate that Mr Talabani may have had more than an early tip. In a case where the conspiracy theorists may be on to something, it's possible that—contra US claims—Talabani was central to the eventual US detainment of Saddam. CSMonitor rounded up the anomalies and speculation...
The DEBKAfile, a website reputed to be edited by former Israeli intelligence agents, says that "seven anomalies point to one conclusion: Saddam Hussein was not in hiding; he was a prisoner." Among these "anomolies" are the length of his hair and beard, and that he appeared "beaten and hungry." The self-described DEBKAfile "analysts" believe that "his captors bargained for the $25 million prize the Americans promised for information leading to his capture alive or dead. The negotiations were mediated by Jalal Talabani's Kurdish PUK militia."
Other reports indicate that Saddam was "held prisoner until Jalal Talabani made his own negotiations", which "didn't just involve the reward but it involved gaining some sort of political advantage in the region".
At the time, I dismissed that as fanciful talk. I'm still skeptical. And yet...the strong performance of Jalal Talabani does seem to indicate some degree of leverage. As the Sunday Herald reported,
If the Kurds did indeed capture Saddam first, and a deal was struck about his handover to the US, then it’s not inconceivable that the terms might have included strong political and strategic advantages that could ultimately determine the emerging power structure in Iraq.
Or perhaps it's just a coincidence. I don't know. But the new President of Iraq is certainly an interesting fellow.
a Kurd has just been named President of an Arab country, and his position comes as the result of a national democratic election.
For his part, Saddam Hussein, who murdered 5000 thousands of Kurds with chemical weapons in a single afternoon in 1988, gets to watch all this from his jail cell—his two murderous sons sleeping the eternal dirt sleep and he awaits a trial that will almost certainly condemn him to death.
Here’s what’s interesting: He’s not opposed to the Americans, and his priorities do not seem to be to get rid of the occupation. I don’t think that echoes muc of what most people believe in Iraq. Some democracy, huh?
Well, that’s hardly unusual for a Kurd, is it? In any event, the government officials in Iraq seem to have the rational view that they must be able to exert control over their own infrastructure before US troops leave. That’s not unlike most Iraqis, who would like to see us gone just as soon as possible...but not before.
LOL. Until I looked down and saw your name—and realized the point—I was getting ready to put some poor fool in his place. Glad that was you, and not, say, MK. :)
Romablog, the Iraqi’s want to end the occupation, the Americans want to end the occupation. Neither wants to do it prematurely. Is that a difficult concept or did I misunderstand the point of your comment?
I simply don’t think that Americans want to "end the occupation." I don’t think, outside of political points, iraqi independance is an interest of our congressmen.
I feel as an American that Saddam should be sentenced to peaceful exile where he could not rise to power. With the transfer of power comes a transfer of curruption, It is not a human force and shouldn’t have it’s evil way, as such would be if Saddam were executed. This is the enemy not ourselves as people and we should resist this demone force.