Iraqi PM al-Maliki Says Rivals Who Won Election Can't Form Government

BAGHDAD — Iraq's prime minister said Thursday his Sunni-backed rivals, who narrowly won the March election, were wasting their time trying to form a new government, a remark sure to raise tensions.

Shiite Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki accused the winning Iraqiya list of delaying the political process, even though it was the premier himself who mounted a series of challenges to the results postponing the final tally.

"I say to our brothers in Iraqiya list: You are wasting your time and delaying the political process," al-Maliki was quoted as saying by the independent daily Al-Mada.

Iraqiya won 91 of 325 seats in parliament over 89 for al-Maliki's bloc. Because neither has a majority, they need coalition partners to form a government. Al-Maliki has already formed an alliance with another Shiite bloc that came in third in the election, and together they are just four seats short of a majority.

Iraq's constitution says the bloc with the most seats should get the first crack at forming a government, which Iraqiya leader Ayad Allawi believes gives him the mandate.

Al-Maliki claims that his post-election alliance gives him the largest bloc and the right to form the government.

Sunni anger over being largely excluded from government after the U.S.-led invasion was seen as a key reason behind the insurgency and subsequent sectarian violence that brought Iraq to the brink of civil war. Now many fear that if Allawi's Sunni-backed bloc is largely excluded from government the violence could return.

While violence has fallen dramatically in Iraq since the height of the insurgency, a spate of attacks, including one last week that killed 119 people, has heightened fears that insurgents are regrouping.

In the northern city of Mosul, a suicide bomber detonated an explosives belt at a police checkpoint on Thursday, killing one policeman and wounding 12 people, police and morgue officials said on condition anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media.

Comments

[Nifty options]

01:52 AM on 05/31/2010

El Maliki is not a true man who has the real abilities to rule iraq

thanks metrogyl

[Jim Killingsworth]

02:01 PM on 05/25/2010

And America should involve itself in nation-building because? The US entered a no-win situation the moment it invaded Iraq. If they didn't defeat Saddam, it would be a dangerous proposition because it would show America's weakness. Of course it would be embarrassing also.

Now we see, that by defeating Saddam, the majority Shia will probably end up ruling and since Iran is also Shiite, it weakens our position in regard to our attempts to negotiate with Iran.

My prediction for Afghanistan is that we will end up embarrassed like every other major power for millinea have been.

[nhop]

12:37 PM on 05/25/2010

Al-Maliki should appeal to the U S Supreme Court. Sinister Scalia would love to give victory to another loser.

[MARYHOBE]

07:09 AM on 05/25/2010

I guess we can see now that El Maliki is a little short on those qualities that are required for statesmanship. Iraq could really use a statesman or a great leader right now. The most logical union would have been a national unity government with Allawi and El Maliki. They were the two parties that represent the middle in Iraq and could have laid the foundation for a new Iraqi nationalism that transcends sectarianism. A great opportunity has been missed.

[OliverTwist]

03:44 PM on 05/24/2010

Doesn't Allawi have English as his first language or is CIA speak his first language?

Why not just appoint him "Imperial Governor" and skip the pretense.

[J0E1]

02:34 PM on 05/24/2010

Can we all agree that the iraq war was a big waste of time? This guy is going to just stir up even more tension in a country that really doesn't need any more. It's only a matter of time till chaos ensues and all of the work we put in to that country goes to waste.

[Randy Shepherd]

03:07 AM on 05/24/2010

funny how we think others need democracy, but we don't have it ourselves. "i pleadge a leagence to the flag, and for the REPUBLIC for which it stands. because we have the electoral college that really decides our president, and not the votes of the people, we are a republic, not a democracy. perhaps that is why the republicans want to control and limit the power of poor, lower, and middle class folks, and the democrats (not the politicians, but the people) want the power to make things fair. China is a reublic nation too, makes me feel proud to know a president can get the popular vote, and still lose (as with Bush), and then he can wage war for democracy?!

[admiralj]

09:02 PM on 05/22/2010

The minute we invaded Iraq, Iran started to panic that they would be the next target of Bush.
Al-Maliki is a puppet of Iran. Allawi won the first round and has the right to be the first to try and form a coalition government. This is also one of Iran's biggest fears, someone (Allawi) not under their control.

Al-Maliki, cannot be allowed to form the next government if democracy is to have a chance and survive.

[rupi]

01:49 PM on 05/23/2010

Fallow the stench, it will surely lead to Carl Rove's office.

[jusgimmeafreakinusername]

07:57 PM on 05/23/2010

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/23/israel-south-africa-nuclear-weapons

[UncleJimbo]

09:56 PM on 05/21/2010

Didn't they used to call that Dictatorship?

[tpaine24]

03:12 PM on 05/21/2010

Yes, Yank, everything is Israel's fault. What exactly does "screaming headlines" mean when you are the victim of suicide bombers? Why is your criticism not directed at those who commit such crimes, rather than those who are its targets? I suppose it must be because the Israelis deserve it for having the audacity to claim their historic homeland and trying to acquire the one tool - sovereignty - that gives a people a chance at surviving with dignity.

In any case, yes, the war in Iraq was misguided, but not because of Israel's role, whatever it may have been, but because its justification was wrong. Not just the WMD nonsense, but the idea that a democracy could be imposed on the Iraqis. I'm sure the Iraqis have their virtues, but except for the Kurds (who appear to be quite unique in the Moslem Middle East), no one in Iraq seems capable of adapting to the requirements of a modern liberal state. In the end, Yank, as you yourself must see daily in France, Moslems may not yet be ready for life in the modern world at all, and what Israel might have to do with this fact escapes me.

[songoftherushes]

07:07 AM on 05/23/2010

I think it is because of pro-Israeli supporters making statements like "Moslems may not yet be ready for life in the modern world".

Do you hear yourself?

[jusgimmeafreakinusername]

07:59 PM on 05/23/2010

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/23/israel-south-africa-nuclear-weapons

[Durango]

01:36 PM on 05/21/2010

Jeez, HuffPost ignores Iraq and then comes out with this headline and story?

Nothing like conforming the news to ones preconceived narrative.

Why haven't they been reporting on the (peaceful) progress that has been taking place?

[globality]

11:38 AM on 05/21/2010

The sooner we leaver the sooner they can massacre each other

This will happen and we need to prepare the American public. If these guys want to still settle the score on a murder that happened over 1000 years ago so be it.

To think the Shiite will not seek revenge for all the hell they went through during Sadam's rule and that they will share the oil revenues with the sunnis is very naive

We broke we fix it has expired.

Be prepared for horrific violence. When it happens let them bring in blue helmeted UN forces not US troops to keep teh peace. Keep taking our troops out

[gakabani]

09:22 AM on 05/21/2010

Democracy a la Bush, Maybe they need a corrupt supreme court, like ours, to give him the election!

[Kevin Atlanta]

08:36 AM on 05/21/2010

This is just one more step on the path to invasion of Iran. These children have a vested interest in keeping their ideological sandboxes aligned with Iran and the cultural divisions reinforced rather than build a free and democratic nation. That's what they've learned from the USA. It's all going to be Exxon or Halliburton rule in a very short time.
End the wars.
It's useless and a waste of life for United States Citizens.
Get us out now.

[SeesBeyond]

05:40 AM on 05/21/2010

It's all about the Sunni vs Shia family feud that broke out over who would be the successor of Mohammad when he died in 632 CE. This feud has been going on for 1,378 years, and neither the transient effects of colonialism nor the ethereal and abstract concept of democracy will have much effect on the primordial-level hatreds that underlie the feud, hatreds that have become inextricably woven into their cultural DNA - the fantasies of American diplomats (all of them, from Carter forward) notwithstanding. (In fact, one has to go back to Thomas Jefferson and John Adams to find presidents who actually made an attempt to understand the psychology of this culture and how it was manifested in international relations.)

For an inside, in-depth analysis of the situation inside Iraq today as viewed from the Sunni perspective, by an expert on the subject, see http://www.currenttrends.org/research/detail/zarqawis-anti-shia-legacy-original-or-borrowed . Note the relevance of this analysis to the subject of this story.

Conclusion? When the U.S. leaves, with no one to oversee or enforce fair elections, and with a culture that has neither tradition nor respect for democratic norms, the region will likely lapse back into internecine warfare. And on it will go.

A plea to Obama: Take the money being spent on Iraq and invest it in developing alternatives to oil.

[Yank in France]

10:19 AM on 05/21/2010

I agree with your comments about the Sunni-Shiite divide, but it is really very important to remember that US policy has indeed had a dramatic effect on this age-old conflict.

After all, the pro-Israel neocons (remember Woflotwitz, Feith, Abrams, Perle, etc.) launched the Iraq war with the EXPLICIT aim of exacerbating this scission so as to divide and rule over ISRAEL'S enemies.

Wolfowitz et all believed that Israel would be strengthened if:

(1) the one last remaining belligerent state (Iraq never signed 67 truce) was overturned, especially since Saddam was accused of providing the families of Palestinian suicide bombers up to $25,000.

Doesn't anyone remember all those screaming headlines in Israel blaming Saddam for the wave of suicide bombings seven years ago?!!

(2) They could bring the Shiites to power in the former Sunni caliphate of Baghdad.

Remember, the Sunnis' dominance in world Islam (88% Sunni vs 11% Shiite) is based on Sunni rule in the Arab world (historic caliphates and homeland of Islam: Mecca/Medina in Saudi, and the Damascas and Baghdad.

But among Arabs, the Shiites are much stronger (30% Shiites!).

With two great Muslim nations under their rule (one Persian, plus the great Arab Caliphate of Baghdad), Shiites can claim unprecedented historic legitimacy.

And all thanks to Israel, American Zionists and a generally dormant American public!!