According to David Newsom from The Christian Science Monitor from 07th January 2004:
In the two countries today where US interests are directly tied to the development of democracy - Iraq and Afghanistan - new governments haven't yet been formed. The question of postoccupation foreign policies hasn't arisen. When it does, issues of the treatment of US forces, the role of Islam, and attitudes toward Israel may arise. Each will be followed closely in Washington. If new policies are unacceptable, strong demands will be made, either for a forceful removal of the offending government or for sanctions. It may not be enough for proponents of diplomacy to point to the risks of setting aside an elected government or to urge dialogue with the new authorities, arguing that the experience of power often modifies the most radical of governments. The US commitment to the results of democracy will be sorely tested.
The temporary government in Iraq struggles with a lot of difficulties. The first is the disappearance of all previous government structures – following the war there was chaos within these, like: army, police, and all Baas party councils, even officials in national departments and villages’ leaders. Although action was necessary, experts warned that the situation in Iraq wouldn’t be like in Germany (where after Hitler’s collapse a government was quickly re-build) or Japan after 1945 (there the symbol of country continuity was held by leaving Mikado on the throne). Now all of those people are slowly replaced by new, pro American Iraqis. Another serious problem is the lack of fresh, charismatic political figures, which can be accepted by Americans (“Trudny”). The Washington Times quoted an unnamed senior official in the United States-led provincial authority in Iraq as saying: "If you have a free and open democratic process in an undeveloped political climate like we have here, it will be dominated by the extremes of the Iraqi political figures," the official said, according to the report. "If we had an electoral process now, it would be in a climate that would not be as secure as we would like. It would be in a climate where the media is far from properly developed, and no political party has a national framework except the outlawed Baas Party of Saddam Hussein," he said (“Iraq”). Finally, each of three main ethnic groups in Iraq is trying to take as much power and autonomy as only possible. The Sunnites, who used to wield authority, are now just a small (15% of population) minority and are afraid of losing power to a major group – the Shiite. Third group – the Kurd don’t want to lose their autonomy. The New York Times from 19th March 2004 expressed anxiety that, while in Iraq there is no culture of confidence and compromise, any Iraqi election is going to give the power to Shiites, limit Sunnites influence and will leave Kurds, who desire to separate their part of Iraq, to be ruled by people they have no trust (“Trudny”)
The process of transferring the power in Iraq to its citizens will be a long, difficult task. It is going to cost next millions of dollars and require the presence of international troops for next few years; however, it is job which must be done properly to provide peace in the Middle East and real end of terrorism in Iraq, hopefully in whole world.
Bibliography:
“Iraq not ready for democracy yet: Report”rediff.com. 07 January 2003. 28 September 2004 <http://www.rediff.com//us/2003/jun/07iraq.htm>
Newsom, David “Is the US ready for democracy?” The Christian Science Monitor. 07 January 2004. 28 September 2004 <http://csmonitor.com/2004/0107/p09s02-coop.html>.
“Trudny marsz do niejasnej przyszlosci.” PAP (Polish Press Agency). 29 March 2004. 28 September 2004. <http://www.irak.pap.pl/cgi-bin/irak.pl?akcja=inst&grupa=7&ID=40> (own translation)
