The jury is out on whether democracy will take root in the months after power was trans-ferred from the US-led coalition to an Iraqi administration.
There is a long list of obstacles to be overcome before anything like a sovereign Iraqi state can be said to exist. For the experiment to have any chance of success, this state must take into account the interests of the country's ethnic, religious and political groups in the hope that no group will feel forced to take up armed struggle to secure its ends.
Observers on all sides agree on one point: Arab suicide bombers from the nexus around al-Qaeda have made Iraq an important new field of operations, and their agents have been able to infiltrate the country more effectively since the fall of Saddam Hussein.
These terrorists are incapable of being converted and can only be stopped through accurate intelligence, backed up by force.
Nevertheless, every attempt should be made to court the dissatisfied Iraqis, who have in recent months from their bases in Fallujah, Najaf and Baghdad attacked coalition forces and anyone seen to be backing them.
This is the aim of the International Crisis Group (ICG), which has called on the UN to ensure that even groups that opposed the invasion should be invited to the national conference planned for July.
The ICG, headed by by former Finnish President Martti Ahtisaari and former Australian foreign minister Gareth Evans, said in a recent report: "Religious and tribal Sunni leaders as well as followers of Muqtada
al-Sadr, who have felt excluded, will need to be brought in, regardless of their opposition to the occupation."
The conference is seen by the UN as supplementing the transitional government being put in place under US auspices.
Analysts fear that exclusion of these groups from the political process will doom other efforts toward long-term security in Iraq, jeopardizing elections set for January next year.
Al-Sadr has received an invitation to the conference, but whether he will participate remains unclear.
Plans set out in the transitional constitution and backed up by UN Resolution 1546 for the establishment of a new democratically elected Iraqi administration look good on paper, even if the timetable looks ambitious to many.
This provides for elections at the beginning of next year through which a consultative assembly will be chosen to work out the details of a permanent constitution. The last step will be fresh elections at the end of 2005 to choose a new government.
But all this will remain as ideas on paper if the interim government and the foreign troops are unable to put a stop to the assassination of leading politicians, attacks on public buildings and assaults on the emerging Iraqi security forces.
Many Iraqis could simply stay away from the polling stations for fear of being blown up by suicide car bombers as they queue to vote.
Fears of this kind would also mitigate against bringing in enough international observers to monitor the election. Their presence is essential to overcome the mistrust in the electoral process felt by many Iraqis -- a hangover from the days of 99.9 percent results secured by Saddam.
"I don't think that the US and this government will allow free elections," said Baghdad political scientist Wamidh Omar Nadhmi, reflecting the feelings of many Iraqis.
He sees the transfer of power at the end of the month as a facade behind which the US will continue to pull the strings.
European diplomats have noted that power is being transferred only in certain political functions. The transitional government has no right of veto over the military operations of the US-led foreign forces in the country, nor can it order them to undertake military operations.
This would seem to imply that an Iraqi government would not be able to halt US air attacks on Fallujah after it has taken power, but would have to cope with the political fallout of such attacks.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers