US Doesn't Like Outcome of Iraq Election So Tries to block the New Government

I will not be forced out by US and Britain - Iraqi PM

Leader's first interview since Rice and Straw's move to break deadlock

Jonathan Steele in Baghdad
Wednesday April 5, 2006
The Guardian

Iraq's embattled prime minister has defiantly refused to give up his claim to head the country's next government in spite of strong American and British pleas for an end to a deadlock which has paralysed the country for almost four months.

In an exclusive interview with the Guardian in Baghdad - his first since Condoleezza Rice and Jack Straw pleaded with him and his rivals for an immediate agreement to prevent a slide to civil war - Ibrahim Jaafari insisted he would continue to carry out his duties.

"I heard their points of view even though I disagree with them," he said, referring to the Ms Rice and Mr Straw's hectic arm-twisting visit to the Iraqi capital which ended on Monday.

Mr Jaafari won the nomination for Iraq's leadership by a single vote within the Shia bloc that came out on top in last December's election. George Bush would be proud. But the bloc controls less than half the seats in parliament and so long as the Sunni, Kurdish and secular parties refuse to back him, Iraq is left in a political vacuum. Mr Jaafari, a former doctor who spent years in exile in Britain while Saddam Hussein ruled, will not give way to other candidates from his party who have wider support.

Using the argument that the US and Britain had toppled Saddam in order to bring democracy, he turned it against them. "There is a decision that was reached by a democratic mechanism and I stand with it ... We have to protect democracy in Iraq and it is democracy which should decide who leads Iraq. We have to respect our Iraqi people," he said.

Tampering with democracy was risky, he insisted. "People will react if they see the rules of democracy being disobeyed. Every politician and every friend of Iraq should not want people to be frustrated," he declared. "Everyone should stick to democratic mechanisms no matter whether they disagree with the person," he added pointedly.

Mr Jaafari also insisted that the historic talks which the United States is planning to hold with Iran about the crisis in Iraq should not go over Iraq's head.

"When the two countries are talking about Iraq, Iraq must be a member of those talks," he said. "Definitely. Of course. It's in Iraq's interest, and in the interests of the other two countries that an Iraq representative be there, as long as the subject is Iraq."

Mr Jaafari looked stern and mainly unsmiling, as he fingered yellow-brown worry beads in his left hand during the 40-minute interview in his ornate residence, surrounded on three sides by an artificial lake.

He refused to be drawn on whether he felt snubbed by the fact that Ms Rice and Mr Straw invited Adel Abdel Mahdi, the man he beat to the nomination by one vote, to lunch and breakfast during their visit.

Yesterday, in comments to the BBC's Hardtalk programme, Mr Mahdi called on the prime minister to step aside. US and British diplomats have repeatedly hinted in private that they prefer Mr Mahdi, a pro-market economist and less of an Islamist than Mr Jaafari.

The prime minister also refused to agree with some Iraqi politicians who have described their presence as pressure and interference. "I do not see it as pressure," he said.

Washington and London were alarmed by the fact that Mr Jaafari won the nomination thanks to votes from MPs loyal to the radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr. Mr Sadr is a strong critic of the occupation whose militias have often clashed with US forces. But the prime minister insisted he should be praised rather than condemned for bringing Mr Sadr into the political process.

http://www.rawstory.com/showarticle.php?src=http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1747063,00.html

 

That's a much different and suspect claim than your original comment, which was that we supported/support dictators et al.

Uh, he was overthrown in an ethnic rebellion. That doesn't have anything to do with the support he had gotten historically, like IMF loans or support from the Belgians (used to be the Belgian Congo dontchaknow).

Hmmm, so we support all these dictators, but we don't support them. Interesting theory. Of course their are plenty of dictators who managed to survive despite losing proxy status (see North Korea, Cuba, Libya, etc).

 

Funny how emphasis is everything. Also strange how some people equate 'pleas' to imperialist demands, lol.

The same article:

Jonathan Steele in Baghdad
Wednesday April 5, 2006
The Guardian

Iraq's embattled prime minister has defiantly refused to give up his claim to head the country's next government in spite of strong American and British pleas for an end to a deadlock which has paralysed the country for almost four months.

In an exclusive interview with the Guardian in Baghdad - his first since Condoleezza Rice and Jack Straw pleaded with him and his rivals for an immediate agreement to prevent a slide to civil war - Ibrahim Jaafari insisted he would continue to carry out his duties.

"I heard their points of view even though I disagree with them," he said, referring to the Ms Rice and Mr Straw's hectic arm-twisting visit to the Iraqi capital which ended on Monday.

Mr Jaafari won the nomination for Iraq's leadership by a single vote within the Shia bloc that came out on top in last December's election.George Bush would be proud. But the bloc controls less than half the seats in parliament and so long as the Sunni, Kurdish and secular parties refuse to back him, Iraq is left in a political vacuum. Mr Jaafari, a former doctor who spent years in exile in Britain while Saddam Hussein ruled, will not give way to other candidates from his party who have wider support.

Using the argument that the US and Britain had toppled Saddam in order to bring democracy, he turned it against them. "There is a decision that was reached by a democratic mechanism and I stand with it ... We have to protect democracy in Iraq and it is democracy which should decide who leads Iraq. We have to respect our Iraqi people," he said.

Tampering with democracy was risky, he insisted. "People will react if they see the rules of democracy being disobeyed. Every politician and every friend of Iraq should not want people to be frustrated," he declared. "Everyone should stick to democratic mechanisms no matter whether they disagree with the person," he added pointedly.

Mr Jaafari also insisted that the historic talks which the United States is planning to hold with Iran about the crisis in Iraq should not go over Iraq's head.

"When the two countries are talking about Iraq, Iraq must be a member of those talks," he said. "Definitely. Of course. It's in Iraq's interest, and in the interests of the other two countries that an Iraq representative be there, as long as the subject is Iraq."

Mr Jaafari looked stern and mainly unsmiling, as he fingered yellow-brown worry beads in his left hand during the 40-minute interview in his ornate residence, surrounded on three sides by an artificial lake.

He refused to be drawn on whether he felt snubbed by the fact that Ms Rice and Mr Straw invited Adel Abdel Mahdi, the man he beat to the nomination by one vote, to lunch and breakfast during their visit.

Yesterday, in comments to the BBC's Hardtalk programme, Mr Mahdi called on the prime minister to step aside. US and British diplomats have repeatedly hinted in private that they prefer Mr Mahdi, a pro-market economist and less of an Islamist than Mr Jaafari.

The prime minister also refused to agree with some Iraqi politicians who have described their presence as pressure and interference. "I do not see it as pressure," he said.

Washington and London were alarmed by the fact that Mr Jaafari won the nomination thanks to votes from MPs loyal to the radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr. Mr Sadr is a strong critic of the occupation whose militias have often clashed with US forces. But the prime minister insisted he should be praised rather than condemned for bringing Mr Sadr into the political process.

http://www.rawstory.com/showarticle.php?src=http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1747063,00.html[/QUOTE]

 

You missed one hayes

seriously though, do you agree with this statement?

 

Ah, no. That was paraphrasing from a Guardian...uh....'journalist,' lol.

I agree that they should use the democratic mechanisms that they have. However, that's exactly what is happening. The Sunnis and Kurds and the Shia's rejecting Jaafari ARE using thier democratic mechanism by not forming the new government with him as PM. The US 'pleas' for him to be the bigger man and remove himself from the equation is not, IMO, anti-democratic in the least. Saying that what is happening is undemocratic is similar to saying a filibuster in Congress is anti-democratic.

 

signed,
Bill Frist

 

Yup. Remember, I'm not a Republican.

 

man i don't know what i'm talking about either i don't know much about politics, just came in here to stir some of you guys up
by the way i have exams in a week so i just spilled out some nonsense, don’t take it too seriously.

 

no problem man, take it easy

to chayes...i still stand by everything that i said, dont try and twist my words...belgium colonized the congo and did support mobutu, but the US was the main power broker behind Mobutu's regime and when he was abandoned by his former allies in the west he was overthrown, thus, the us did support and still supports dictatorships and sure there are other dictatorships the us doesnt support but thats deflecting attention away from the main discussion on this thread, which is us contempt for democracy in the developing world historically...remember deke's country had a democracy under patrice lumumba and the us teamed up with belgium and local collaboraters to conduct a coup and tried to murder lumumba as well, but in the race to kill the country's democratically elected leader between the US and belgium, the belgians got to him first and then the us propped up mobutu...i'm sure mutombo would back me up on that

 

I was responding to this statement:

...which I certainly think is "a load of crap," although I could have picked a more diplomatic way to say it was something offensive to the olfactory glands. You later changed it to mean, "since World War II," which I wouldn't have agreed with either, but wouldn't have found as rediculous. Maybe you haven't read many posts in D&D, but few have been more consistantly critical of US policy in the Middle East, and Iraq in particular, than I have. Something you should know.

At any rate, welcome to the board, Creepy.



Keep D&D Civil.

 

so are you saying the US hasnt deterred democracy in latin america, africa, and the middle east and hasnt supported brutal dictatorships? if you believe that then i apologize, you're severely mistaken

thanks for the welcome as well

 

neocon?

 

I guess I'll repeat myself. I was responding to this statement:

"if anybody thinks the us is interested in democracy then they're mistaken....they've deterred more democracy in this world and throughout history than anybody can ever dream of..."

I have said plenty about US policy in the Middle East, and other regions, that was highly critical. I think George W. Bush is the living embodiment of the Peter Principal. I'm not going to repeat hundreds of posts here for your benefit. Do a search.


Keep D&D Civil.

 

you didnt have to repeat yourself or even respond for that matter...im assuming you agree with me then that the US has deterred democracy and sponsored dictatorships all over the developing world (i could say this in a much more sophisticated/diplomatic manner, but we arent at the UN)

thanks for responding though...i'm sorry as a rookie i dont have edit or search privileges

 

You'll have fun with Hayes and wnes!



Keep D&D Civil.

 

Lol, no need to twist your words. I don't have to counter your opinions, as they are they are enough to show you're confused. You said that these dictatorships would not have existed with US support. But then you say - it was the Belgians that paved the way for Mubutu's takeover. Hmmmm.

Nobody is saying the US hasn't been involved with dictatorships. But you don't come close to a balanced view. You leap from 'US has supported dictatorships' to 'these dictatorships would not have existed without US support.' You have little basis besides your empty rhetoric to make a case for that claim.

No, its pointing out a hole in your causal argument. But no matter, there is little argument that this administration is making a more public and across the board push for democratization than any administration before it. Hence, past action by past administrations are of little consequence. If I say 'this administration is pushing for democratization,' and you respond 'the US has historically supported anti-democratic forces' - then that's not too responsive. In fact, I doubt that there has been another point in our history where democratization has been at the top of our criteria - and it is in Eastern Europe, Central and East Asia, the Middle East, and arguably Latin America. And lest you mistake this for a concession I will just say that we can either engage in or set aside that discussion since in the bi-polarity of the Cold War - the US was still the force for democracy against totalitarianism.

 

wasn't saddam's dictatorship in the beginning existed and survived because of us support.. just like saudi, without america's support it probably have been overthrown now..

 

i completely agree with the statement above

also, the us in conjunction with belgium paved the way for mobutu's dictatorship, they put him in power....without us and belgian support, the democratic movement of lumumba wouldve been victorious....same goes for iran, same goes for guatemala etc...

if anybody thinks the us genuinely cares about democracy then they're beyond hope

 

Actually it is like saying criticizing a filibuster is undemocratic (which is not true). Jaafari is basically filibustering the election of a new PM, since the majority of the parliament does not want him elected.

 

The mollahs of iran were put in power by the american goverment. Mr Jimmy Carter has alot to answer for. he supporterd khomenie during his exile in paris. the us goverment and the CIA financialy backed the islamic radicals who overrthrow the late shah's regime. CIA opreatives were covertly organising street protests in iran. Khomenie was the godfather of state Terrorisim.his regim went on a mass killing spree from 1981 to 1987. it is estimated between 100 Thousend to 300 Thousend of opposition to his dictatorship were excecuted.