U.S. Says It Will Stick to Iraq Hand-Over Date

U.S. civilian administrator L. Paul Bremer III vowed Thursday that the Bush administration would stick to its commitment to relinquish control of Iraq on June 30, even though it remained unclear who would take the reins of a temporary government.

“The date holds, and hold it should,” Bremer, who heads the U.S.-led occupation of Iraq, said at an evening news conference in the Iraqi capital.

Meanwhile, United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan confirmed Thursday that a team of U.N. electoral experts had determined that Iraq would not be ready for elections until the end of the year or early 2005.

Annan and U.N. special envoy Lakhdar Brahimi said that because of travel plans, they needed at least one more week to explore options for an interim government that would run Iraq between June 30 and the election of a national assembly.

Among the possibilities are a modified version of the 25-member Iraqi Governing Council or a transitional assembly selected by a broad national conference of Iraqis. Annan also expressed support for the June 30 hand-over of power by the Coalition Provisional Authority, which Bremer heads.

U.S. officials in Iraq said they were not surprised that the U.N. team needed more time to tackle the issue of how to form an interim government. They said the delay vindicated their much-criticized struggle to develop a plan acceptable to Iraqis.

“There are literally dozens of ways to carry out this complicated task,” Bremer said. “I invite your attention to how complicated it is.”

This is the third U.S. attempt to develop a democracy plan for Iraq.

After the U.S.-led invasion in March, Bremer proposed the appointment of a committee to draft a constitution as a first step to electing a government. But as an insurgency picked up steam, the U.S. indicated that it would transfer power as early as June, and regional caucuses were proposed for choosing delegates to an interim national assembly that would select a transitional government.

At this moment, all eyes are on the United Nations. Expectations are high that the world body will be able to end an impasse between the United States, which wants to delay assembly elections until the end of 2005, and Shiite Muslim leaders in Iraq, who want a swift vote.

Less than a year ago, the U.N. refusal to back the war in Iraq was viewed by Bush administration officials as a sign of the world body’s growing irrelevance. Now the future of the occupation may hinge on what the U.N. leadership proposes.

But despite expectations for a clear U.N. answer, Annan and Brahimi were careful to say that the world body would offer proposals but that, ultimately, it was up to Iraqis to choose their new form of government.

“We need to have the Iraqis discuss it,” Annan said Thursday after a luncheon with Brahimi and U.N. Security Council members. “They must take ownership, discuss it amongst themselves, and we will try to work with them to find a consensus.”

Brahimi is expected to return to Iraq -- if invited -- to help Iraqi leaders turn that consensus into reality.

Serious negotiations on the leading alternatives have yet to take place in Iraq because some key players have been reluctant to discuss options before hearing what the U.N. has to say.

“We have some ideas, but we are not ready to talk about them,” said Hamid Bayati, a senior official with the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, a leading Shiite party.

Under the option in which authority would be handed to a new version of the Governing Council, the panel either would be expanded or downsized. Critics, however, say that the council, which includes many Iraqi expatriates, lacks credibility.

“The Governing Council represents about 60% of Iraqis,” said Salama Khafaji, an independent Shiite member of the Governing Council. “But it does not represent everyone, and it does not represent fairly.”

The second option calls for a national conference of hundreds, or even thousands, of Iraqis -- including politicians, clerics, tribal leaders, professionals, trade unionists and women -- to elect a transitional assembly. But critics say a national conference may take months to set up and may not be worth the effort if free elections for a permanent national assembly are scheduled, as many are hoping, by the end of the year or early 2005.

At his meeting with Annan, Brahimi also discussed the idea of a “technocrat caretaker government,” perhaps selected by an expanded Governing Council.

Before leaving Iraq last week, Brahimi said an interim government should be “something provisional, something that is not going to last very long, something that is not going to have very extensive powers.” But even if short-lived, the new government would provide the groundwork for Iraq’s political future and its immediate stability.

“In a lot of these situations, you have to choose the people, and then the mechanism,” said a U.N. Security Council ambassador. “There are several people at the center of power who want to be sure their interests are protected. You have to begin by saying, ‘Who should be in the caretaker government?’ and work from there.”

One thing virtually all parties appear to agree on is that postponing the transfer is not an option.

“If the U.S. did not transfer power on the 30th [of June] I would join the opposition to oppose the American presence in Iraq,” said Nasir Chaderchi, a Sunni Muslim member of the Governing Council who represents the National Democratic Party.

Meanwhile, with elections approaching in the U.S., the disarray of post-invasion Iraq is emerging as a potential liability for President Bush.

Under current plans, the Coalition Provisional Authority office in Baghdad is to be converted into what would amount to the world’s largest embassy after June 30, with thousands of Americans workers remaining in Iraq to participate in reconstruction efforts. About 100,000 U.S. troops also will stay behind.

In Washington, senior defense officials said they were confident that Iraqi authorities would not demand the rapid withdrawal of U.S. troops after the hand-over, but they could not say how long troops would remain.

“I really do believe it’s unknowable,” Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters at a breakfast interview.

Annan told the Security Council on Thursday that a new resolution would be necessary to clarify the U.N.’s mandate under a new interim government. U.S. officials have expressed concern that debate over a new resolution could delay reconstruction efforts, and even the hand-over. But Annan and French and German diplomats said they didn’t want to extend the occupation by another day.

At this point, the regional caucus proposal -- which has been approved by the Governing Council -- has fallen from the debate.

“The caucuses are out of the window,” said Mouwafak Rabii, a Shiite member of the Governing Council.

On the surface, one of the simplest options is to transfer power to the Governing Council, a panel that includes Kurds and Shiite and Sunni Muslim Arabs that was formed with U.S. backing. Although the Coalition Provisional Authority continues to wield the ultimate authority during the occupation, the Governing Council has appointed ministers, awarded contracts and written laws.

“The GC idea is gaining momentum,” Rabii said. “This way there would be continuity.”

He disputed criticism that the council was viewed as illegitimate by Iraqis. “People have been accepting us for the past year,” he said.

Other council members disagreed. “Already the GC is not so credible,” said Mahmoud Othman, a Sunni Kurd and independent member of the council. “Imposing it on the Iraqi people would not be accepted.”

Another risk is that the council, once empowered, would be reluctant to step aside. Last fall, the council agreed with the U.S. plan to dissolve on June 30, but then several members expressed second thoughts, proposing that the council be retained as a second assembly.

“We fear the council will delay having elections,” said Adel Abdul Mahdi of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq. “We will insist on a date for elections before power is transferred. The Governing Council should not choose the date.”

Bremer said Thursday that the council was “working well,” but he declined to comment on whether the panel, or a modified version of it, could run the country after June 30.

The council or any new body to which authority is transferred should have limited powers, most Iraqis agree. “We don’t want to see a non-elected body having the same powers as an elected body,” Bayati said.

For example, the new assembly may be prohibited from making law regarding hot-button issues, such as the role of religion in government or boundaries of disputed regions, such as Kurdistan.

The national conference proposal is similar to the process that followed the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan, in which a large representative body was chosen to elect a small transitional assembly. But such an effort may take several months, and the new government will barely be in place when election campaigns for a permanent assembly are to begin.

In addition, Shiites -- who make up an estimated 60% of the Iraqi population -- are wary of such a plan because it would not guarantee them a majority of the seats in the new assembly. Shiites now hold 13 of the 25 Governing Council seats.

“If the council is expanded it must be done so with a criteria that respects the balance of Iraq’s community,” Mahdi said. “Currently, the Shiite are underrepresented on the Governing Council.”

Coalition officials are not abandoning the idea of caucuses. They say a version of caucuses -- even if the U.N. calls them something else -- still will be necessary to fill new slots on the council or to select participants in a national conference.

“At the end of the day, you still need some sort of caucus,” one coalition official said.

Sanders reported from Baghdad and Farley from New York. Times staff writers Charles Duhigg in Baghdad and Esther Schrader in Washington contributed to this report.