A draft law on the Iraqi transitional administration sparked political debate over the legitimacy of laws and security agreements ratified by the Interim Governing Council. Omayma Abdel-Latif reports The debate over the mechanisms of power transfer rages on among Iraqis while they await the findings of the UN mission to Baghdad that investigated the possibility of holding elections before the handover of power scheduled for 30 June. It is in this context that the Interim Governing Council (IGC) is set to meet next Sunday to debate a draft of the fundamental law that will determine the scope and structure of the sovereign Iraqi transitional administration. The draft law is considered the first step in a two-year power transfer plan outlined in the 15 November agreement signed by the IGC and the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA). A copy of the drafted document was leaked to Arab press earlier this week with parts of it providing guidelines for the transfer of power and the selection of the members of the transitional national assembly. Items of the draft also deal with federal arrangements, a mechanism for judicial review, and a timetable for drafting Iraq's permanent constitution. According to the November agreement, the drafting and approval of the fundamental law should be completed by 28 February. However, observers believe that the ratification of such a law, and other security agreements, will not be smooth sailing for either the IGC or the CPA as the very legitimacy of a US- appointed body to ratify important laws and agreements has been questioned. There has been much media hype over 30 June -- the date set for the ending of the US- led occupation of Iraq. However, observers argue that a much more significant date is 30 March, when the IGC is expected to conclude security accords with the CPA in order to change the status of the existing US-led occupying troops from "occupier" to "invited to remain in Iraq". The November agreement also suggests that bilateral security agreements should be approved by that date. The agreement, however, provides no further details either on the nature of such security accords or on the duration of the presence of US-led forces in Iraq. These accords are due to be signed just three months prior to the date set for the transfer of power. Arab commentators agree that the timing has been determined in view of the Bush administration's election agenda, regardless of the situation in Iraq. This, according to some Iraqi observers, is cause for concern. "There is a belief that the current security agreements are being formulated in a way that serves US national interests. After all, they are being signed by one party which occupied Iraq and which in turn appointed another party to co-sign the agreement," leading Iraqi expert Laith Kubba told Al-Ahram Weekly. This notion is further supported by the fact that such accords are shrouded in complete secrecy, prompting one Arab commentator to suggest that agreements signed with a non- democratically elected body "are very telling of the US's true intentions about Iraq". Kubba pointed out that while most Iraqis would agree that the deteriorating situation warrants a security accord, the most important question remains as to whether or not this is done on Iraqi terms, in a transparent fashion and according to Iraq's national interests. "There is a perception among Iraqis that their country will be under threat from its neighbours -- namely Turkey and Iran -- if political unrest breaks out. Therefore, some forces should remain in Iraq until the build-up of the Iraqi army and security apparatuses is completed," Kubba explained. But in light of the fact that Iraqi police have been heavily targeted, there are also growing fears that the restructuring of the Iraqi army might be deliberately prolonged in order to justify the continued presence of foreign troops. According to Iraqi observers, the UN has been kept in the dark over the details of the security accords. One Arab observer explained that the UN team which visited Baghdad last week to investigate the possibility of holding elections before the June handover was not briefed on the details of the accords. UN sources told the London-based Al-Hayat newspaper, "the UN team did not approach the subject, which proved ticklish, and that the Iraqi parties deliberately avoided discussing it with them." The notion that such agreements and laws only serve the American agenda was lent more credence this week when the London- based Ashraq Al-Awsat newspaper reported that US Civil Administrator Paul Bremer stated that "he will not accept a transitional law which makes Islam the main source of legislation." According to the current draft, Islam is the official religion of the Iraqi state and is considered a primary source of legislation but not, as Bremer said, the source of legislation. The present head of the IGC Muhsen Abdul-Hamid, who is also a member of the committee that drafted the law, suggested that the Islamic Shari'a be made "the main source of legislation". But the ratification of the fundamental law and the security agreements by a US-appointed body is precisely what Iraq's leading religious authority has been resisting. The Grand Ayatollah Ali Al-Sistani has consistently demanded that only an elected body be given the authority to ratify any laws or agreements. In another potential conflict of interests, last December the five Kurdish members of the IGC submitted a draft law that was viewed as reinforcing Kurdish separatist ambitions at the expense of the integrity of the Iraqi state. Adnan Pachachi, who heads the drafting committee, put another draft forward. Kubba strongly criticised both drafts saying that they did not reflect all shades of the Iraqi political spectrum. The Kurdish draft, he pointed out, insisted that the constitution recognise the present Kurdish government and that the federal system be founded on an ethnic and geographical basis. This demand has been included in the current draft as item number three, which states: "the federal entities should be determined along ethnic and geographical lines or according to the requirements of the proper governance." Pachachi's draft, on the other hand, suggested that all previous constitutions be abolished. It also stated that the IGC and its ministers should be given a free hand in selecting the members of the transitional national assembly. Kubba questioned the basis for such an authority. "Decisions as important as abolishing previous legislation and constitutions should be made by a democratically elected body and not by a body whose legitimacy is in question," he argued. Others beg to differ. Head of Al-Mada media house and editor-in-chief of Al-Mada newspaper, Fakhry Karim, believes that the situation in Iraq is exceptional and that the primary issue is not whether the IGC is a legitimate enterprise. "Iraq is under occupation, the state has collapsed and stability is lacking, so the number one priority is to transfer power to the Iraqis immediately and put an end to occupation," he told the Weekly. To question the legitimacy of the IGC, he continued, implies that Iraqis should remain at a standstill. Karim pointed out that any future government -- which will be elected and become accountable to the Iraqi people -- should review all the accords that are now being ratified. "If the IGC ratifies agreements that are later viewed as undermining Iraqi state sovereignty," Karim explained, future governments, in all likelihood, would seek political and legal means to scrutinise and abolish them. "But for the time being such details should not divert us from the original goal which is to restore the sovereignty of Iraq and rebuilding the state." While Iraqis await the UN verdict on whether or not elections are feasible, and as Iraqi political entities continue to debate the legitimacy of US-appointed bodies, Kubba believes that the most important questions are to whom power will be handed over if the US remains faithful to its 30 June target, and can consensus among Iraqis to hold elections build? Kubba suggests three possible scenarios: the UN bears the responsibility of establishing political order in Iraq and becomes fully involved in the political game; the IGC expands its membership and assumes responsibility during the transitional period (an idea that was put forward this week by the Kurdish leader Jalal Talabani); or elections are held to set up a transitional council which enjoys the support of the various political groups, including the religious establishment itself.
