Power shifts in Iraq as occupation nears end

BAGHDAD, Iraq -- The snag over signing Iraq's interim constitution shows how power is shifting here, with Washington's ability to sway events diminishing as the June 30 deadline for the end of the U.S.-led occupation nears.

Weeks of intense negotiations under strong U.S. pressure produced a charter that American administrator L. Paul Bremer hailed as "really unprecedented" in Iraq's history and "in the history of the region" because of its protection of civil rights and promotion of the rule of law.

In the end, however, five Shiite Muslim members of the Governing Council refused to sign, because the country's premier Shiite cleric, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Husseini al-Sistani, believed the document did not promote the power of the majority Shiite community.

The council later announced it would reconvene Monday to sign the charter after a weekend of consultations.

But even if that happens, the delay was more than an embarrassment for the Coalition Provisional Authority, which had invited the world's media to witness the Friday signing. By announcing that the occupation will end June 30, the Americans are now self-proclaimed lame ducks whose influence is ebbing, giving way to Iraqi politicians and the Shiite clergy.

From Washington to Baghdad, U.S. officials insisted that the ability of an unelected cleric to block a decision taken by the Iraqi administration represented the flowering of democracy.

"It's not unusual when a society is working to build democratic institutions that there are going to be bumps along the road," said Scott McClellan, President Bush's press secretary. "But the important thing is that Iraqi leaders are able to freely discuss those issues with one another and do so publicly without the threat of brutal action by an oppressive regime. And so democracy is moving forward in Iraq."

Growing independence

Nonetheless, the glitch in finalizing the constitution showed that despite 130,000 troops and billions of dollars in committed aid, Washington can no longer control events in Iraq absolutely. Among those who balked at signing was Ahmad Chalabi, a Pentagon favorite.

"Of course we won't accept this constitution as it doesn't address our civilization, our reality, our homeland or our needs," said Ali Mohan, an Iraqi Shiite university student in Baghdad. "If the Grand Ayatollah al-Sistani agrees on the constitution, all the Iraqi people will follow suit by the will of God."

Such growing independence, in thought and action, raises serious questions and challenges assumptions at the very foundation of U.S. policy in Iraq. For example, the Bush administration has expressed confidence that the next Iraqi government will support the presence of U.S. forces after the transfer of power June 30.

However, some Shiite clerics, notably Muqtada al-Sadr, are vehemently opposed to the presence of foreign troops. It is unclear whether al-Sistani, who is more moderate course, will impose conditions on the role of foreign troops and whether they will be as free to pursue their war against insurgents as they have been in the past.

U.S. promises to promote the rights of women and religious minorities appear equally conditional on the approval of the Shiite religious establishment, whose influence is likely to grow even stronger after June 30.

Making up an estimated 60 percent of Iraq's population, Shiites are confident that when elections are finally held here, they will dominate the government. For that reason, they have little interest in derailing the process of American handover of power and eventual withdrawal.

Still, Shiite leaders want to ensure that decisions made now -- by an unelected administration hand-picked and heavily influenced by the United States -- don't restrict them in the future.

Thus the focus on the interim constitution, which will be in effect until next year and will likely help determine the shape of a permanent charter, due to be put to a national referendum in late 2005.

Entifadh Qanbar, a spokesman for the Iraqi National Congress, said the dispute over the constitution went beyond just a few clauses. Council members, he said, have to deal with the issue of how "an unelected body can bind an elected body in the future."