The Transition in Iraq

This conference is available in its entirety as a downloadable MS Word document. CLICK HERE to transfer the entire transcript to your own system.

Digested First Pages:

Introduction by Richard Farson
Welcome to our extremely well timed conference on The Transition in Iraq. I'm proud to have recruited ILF Fellow Harlan Cleveland for the leadership of this most important and most challenging discussion. I have introduced him at length in my announcement to the general membership, but I will mention again that certain of his roles in life have particularly suited him for this assignment. He knows what it's like to be responsible for rebuilding a war torn country because he played that role in post-WWII Italy. In that situation, he was part of the advanced planning that has been missing in our invasion of Iraq. He's been Assistant Secretary of State and Ambassador to NATO. He knows international organizations inside out. He went through the Cuban Missile Crisis with JFK. He's held one major leadership post after another, most of which involved him in thinking through complicated political dilemmas. He's written extensively on leadership and world affairs. We are so lucky to have him moderate this conference. So, once again, welcome, Harlan.

Opening Statement by Harlan Cleveland
Greetings! At the end of June, the Coalition Provisional Authority, which is mostly the United States of America, is scheduled to turn over Iraq's sovereignty to "the Iraqis."

The date is firm; President Bush says so. The Iraqis who are to govern Iraq after that firm date are not identified. The governing entity's officials (a prime minister, a president, two vice presidents and a couple of dozen cabinet officers) are being selected by a United Nations official, the Algerian international nation-builder, Lakhdar Brahimi, who is responsible to the UN Secretary General.

These arrangements are supposed to be legitimized by the UN Security Council, in a resolution still being negotiated. The US has floated its own resolution. But China, apparently with Russian and French help, has drafted an alternative, giving more clout to Iraqis and less to their liberators/occupiers.

So, as of today, nothing is firm except the date. On that date both the Coalition's occupation of Iraq and its Governing Council, the appointed administrative body of Iraqis that has been handling civil governance functions, are expected to disappear.

What will then be the status of the US and other Coalition troops that have been responsible for security during the past year? That's also unclear. It must presumably be clarified by agreement between the newly sovereign interim Iraqi government and the governments that have military forces in Iraq.

This issue may turn out to be less fuzzy than it seems. Colin Powell has said unequivocally that if the Iraqis don't want us there, we'd leave. But the Bush Administration is betting heavily that the prospect of US forces suddenly leaving would be appalling to most Iraqis and most Iraqi factions; that is, in effect, what Paul Wolfowitz said on the PBS News Hour Friday evening. The bet has been publicly laid on the table: earlier that day, in a press conference with the Danish prime minister, President Bush said "full sovereignty" would pass to Iraq.

During the next few weeks, participants in this conference will obviously be following events as they develop. Meanwhile we need, I think, to ask ourselves:

(a) How did we get into this mess, anyhow? That's well worth discussing, but may turn out to be the easier question.

(b) How and when can we get out of Iraq with a modicum of grace and a minimum of casualties--leaving behind an Iraq that is clearly better than the Iraq of Saddam Hussein, and preserving our own self-image as a "city on the hill" for human rights and democratic values?

This conference is available in its entirety as a downloadable MS Word document. CLICK HERE to transfer the entire transcript to your own system.

top