Iraqi temporary constitution delayed - again

Sand

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3534879.stm

The Governing Council agreed on the constitution that will serve Iraq until the directly elected government takes over on Tuesday, a few days after the Saturday deadline and it was due to be signed today but apparently 5 Shia representives didnt turn up and now want to renegotiate the deal, with a collective, ethnically defined presidency and a removal of veto guaranteed by the constitution to safeguard minority rights.

Its a hitch, but its not all bad news - they expect the deal will still be signed. Once its signed its one more step towards elections being held. The Shias who were kicking up a stink over the election of the post June 30th government seemingly have accepted it is not possible to run direct elections in June, for security reasons if nothing else - the coalition have come to meet them halfway and direct elections have been pushed forward and look likely to take place in late 2004 or early 2005, in accordance with the UNs evaluation.

One good outcome is that Sharia law will not be part of Iraqs constitution, though Islam will be a source for legislation. A 25% representation by women in the governing body is an aspiration rather than a requirement which is a pity - Im not a fan of affirmitive action or the like in most cases but a requirement would have been useful as a guard against conservitive clerics turning back the clock on progress. We Irish should know ourselves only too well the threat posed by conservitive clerics and the governments that listen to them.

The Kurds will retain their autonomy, which is simply recognition of the political and even military realities - but the borders of their region will be decided later, which is deferring what will be an extrmely bitter battle for posession of Kirkuk.

Trying to start up a modern democracy from the ashes of a brutal dictatorship wasnt going to be done in a wet weekend, but its looking fairly promising all things considered. The longterm benefits to the region of the citizens/subjects of other Arab regimes seeing what Iraqis are entitled to ( such as freedom of speech and religious exspression ) and comparing it to what theyre entitled to could be extremely significant in bringing the whole region out of its malaise.

sovtek

A constitution written by members of a council hand picked by a foreign invader who can't speak their language nor have the first clue about their culture! I imagine the people's under the democratic government's of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Kuwait...etc that we continue to support are green with envy.
Surely the families of the two hundred and some odd dead from explosions a week ago are also giggly with anticipation.

Sand

A constitution written by members of a council hand picked by a foreign invader who can't speak their language nor have the first clue about their culture! I imagine the people's under the democratic government's of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Kuwait...etc that we continue to support are green with envy.

Whats being accomplished in Iraq is never easy. The US, for example, had to wage a war, call in allies from across Europe and indeed deal with loyal British subjects of the crown who disagreed with the sentiments of the revolutionaries. What a mess that was too - until it was done. And then it was inevitable.

Always the same.

Surely the families of the two hundred and some odd dead from explosions a week ago are also giggly with anticipation.

No Id imagine theyre mourning their dead. Show some respect?

bonkey

So far, I've been pretty impressed with whats gone on concerning getting this constitution together.

The US' approach in getting concensus has, at times, been somewhat heavy-handed, but by large, they've managed to get all of the major players this far, without giving any of them any powers which guarantee an ability to corrupt a new Iraq from the start. Despite Sand's misgivings in certain areas, I would say that they've struck a nice balance between egalitarian and democratic ideals and what simply won't be accepted.

Overall, not a bad bit of work, but the real hard part comes next....

When the US went into Iraq, I was one of the most adamaant that it was the wrong thing to do. Now, in March 2004, whether or not it was the right thing to do is immaterial at least as far as the future of Iraq is concerned, as that is part of history. What matters is where it all goes from here.

The US was put under pressure concerning the handover of power, and whether or not that has had anything to do with the path subsequently followed, they've done pretty well in this area. What concerns me is that we're already hearing talk about the US pulling out once the first democratic elections are held (end of this year-ish?) , and that - quite frankly - is the best path to disaster that I can see.

The US - under international scrutiny and/or pressure, if it makes it easier to accept when couched that way - are now vital to the equation in ensuring that Iraq does not end up as another puppet regime and/or another brutally oppressive one. It will be the US' actions in the coming year(s) which determine what future the Iraqi people will be given. If they walk out fo the region when power is handed over at the next elections, I greatly fear that they are condemning Iraq to a future which will futilise (its not a word, but it should be...it or "futilifiy") the whole removal of Saddam. If they stay, it will cause them problems, both with the ME and International perception, but it will give the future that they have sown the seeds of the best chance to continue.

I'm currently reading "A Problem From Hell" - a Pulitzer-prize winning author discussing 20th century genocides and the US' actions regarding each. Its not a pretty read, but lets not get sidetracked too much. What worried me most about the book was the re-affirmation that humanitarian causes have been always secondary at best. Indeed, there are few greater insults, according to the book, that you could have levelled against your career in Washington than one of "idealist".

That is my fear - that the US will not carry this great start as far as it needs to be brought. That the humanitarian aspect - the future of Iraq - will all too soon be sacrificed to some greater political agenda.

Surely the families of the two hundred and some odd dead from explosions a week ago are also giggly with anticipation.

I'm fully with Sand on this one - show some respect.

And what would you prefer? That the US just walked out and let the extremist factions carve the nation apart in bloody war until some new despot rose to the top? Bear in mind that the UN has backed the claim that its too early to have any meaningful elections, so any group would have to be handpicked.

jc

Victor

Originally posted by bonkey
When the US went into Iraq, I was one of the most adamaant that it was the wrong thing to do. Now, in March 2004, whether or not it was the right thing to do is immaterial at least as far as the future of Iraq is concerned, as that is part of history. What matters is where it all goes from here.

I'm surprised with the language you use in this paragraph, you almost seem to be saying any means justifies the end. Yes, Iraq has to move on. but that is not to say any wrongs can be overlooked.

Anyway, they *seem* to have sorted things.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2004/0307/iraq.html

Terms agreed for draft Iraq constitution
March 7, 2004

(19:29) A senior member of Iraq's Governing Council has said an agreement has been reached with the country's top Shiite Muslim cleric on the terms of an interim constitution, and that the document would be signed tomorrow.

The interim constitution was to have been signed on Friday, paving the way for an interim government in Iraq and the withdrawal of US troops, but Shiite Muslims withdrew their support at the last minute.

The document had been hailed by council members and US overseer in Iraq, Paul Bremer, as one of the most progressive in the Middle East, laying the foundations for direct elections before the end of January 2005.

The interim paper provides for a federal state with two official languages, where Islam will be a source of legislation but not the basis for it.

Ahead of the planned signing, guerrillas fired 10 rockets at the headquarters of the US led administration in Baghdad this evening .

The blasts echoed across the capital but the US Army said there were no serious injuries.

sovtek

Originally posted by bonkey
I'm fully with Sand on this one - show some respect.

Before I get to any other points...I wanted to address both you and Sand at the same time.
I think it's pretty obvious that I meant no disrespect to any of the family (which I'm sure would not have seen this anyway).
I was highlighting that I doubt the majority of the population of the ME are looking upon Iraq in envy and that the family of those killed are feeling envied at the moment...because of my governments direct responsibility for that tragedy.

sovtek

Originally posted by Sand

No Id imagine theyre mourning their dead. Show some respect?

And some have stated that they feel the Americans are responsible.

PHB

Even if they were responsible, do you really think it would be better for them if they packed up and left?

Sparks

http://www.cidi.org/humanitarian/hsr/iraq/ixl25.html

BAGHDAD, 27 January (IRIN) - Hundreds of Iraqi women, including a
minister, protested on the streets of Baghdad this week against the Iraqi
Governing Council's (IGC) Act 137, dated 29 December, replacing Iraqi
civil law concerning the family with Shari'at law (Islamic law).

The new law, still to be properly implemented, means that marriage,
divorce, custody, and child support, inheritance and all other aspects of
family law will be dealt with by Shari'at courts. (The law will be
introduced in the new Iraqi family law known as "Personal Status Law".)

I'd love to see how that gets integrated with the much-touted concern for human rights that the IGC and the US (which sounds rather tautological really) is going on about in every press release....

bonkey

Originally posted by Victor
I'm surprised with the language you use in this paragraph, you almost seem to be saying any means justifies the end. Yes, Iraq has to move on. but that is not to say any wrongs can be overlooked.

Not quite. I'm saying that we need to seperate the two issues.

There are many people who opposed the war in Iraq and took the stance that the US should never have gone there. I'm one of those people.

But those critics seem generally divided into two camps. One who are still maintaining that the US should not be there, because it was never right for them to be there, and the other saying that the US should lie in its own bed now that its made it.

For me, the former is a judgement which - whilst talking about what is right and wrong - completely ignores the reality that a US withdrawal now would be an even greater disaster....which many of the same critics would then line up to point fingers at and say "see, you couldn't even do that right".

What I'm saying is that regardless of what we think of the US having invaded, the best course of action for the future of Iraq right now requires the Americans.

I couldn't care less if someone thinks, for example, that George Bush should be brought up on war trials.....thats still a seperate issue to what is best for Iraq given what has already happened. I just get the feeling, at times, that people on all sides of the original issue (whether or not the invasion/occupation was/is right and/or justified) seem to decide to support/condemn current actions based on whether or not they thought the whole thing was a good idea or not at the outset.

jc

Meh

Originally posted by Sparks
I'd love to see how that gets integrated with the much-touted concern for human rights that the IGC and the US (which sounds rather tautological really) is going on about in every press release....

...except the IGC voted to repeal 137 on Feb. 27th:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1158160,00.html
Yesterday, eight of the 13 Shia members of the governing council walked out in protest after a majority voted to cancel Resolution 137, passed in December, which proposed replacing civil family law with sharia, or Islamic religious law. The resolution was opposed by groups who felt it would set women's rights back decades.

Sparks

Originally posted by Meh
...except the IGC voted to repeal 137 on Feb. 27th:

Thank goodness for that. It's not often I'm glad to be proven in error

chill

And it looks like the constitution was signed at last this morning. An enormous victory for the Iraqi people and the US actions to liberate them. Also a victory for the bravoury of the members of the council who have risked their lives every day in representing their people in this effort to achieve an incredible compromise for the good of all the poeple.
Will it mean democracy for Iraq ? I don't know, but it is in their hands.... if they screw it up then they can't blame anyone but themselves and the Saddam appeasers who would have left them to suffer.

Sparks

Originally posted by chill
An enormous victory for the Iraqi people and the US actions to liberate them.

"Perhaps" to the former, "don't be silly" to the latter.

the Saddam appeasers who would have left them to suffer.

*bangs head on table*
Not this crap again....

chill

Originally posted by Sparks
"Perhaps" to the former, "don't be silly" to the latter.

Yeah I know it hurts, but the fact is that it was mainly the US and British that liberated the Iraqi people. They will remember that for a long time, while you will try to forget it...I imagine...

*bangs head on table*
Not this crap again....

You may find opinions that you don't agree with 'crap' but that doesn't say much for your argument. Fact is countries like France, Germany, Russia and many others did everything they could to keep Saddam in power. My guess is that the Iraqi people will remember that too.

Sparks

Take it elsewhere chill. May I suggest www.freerepublic.com?
Because if you look at the reality, the nasty, hard, cold, gets-under-your-eyelids-disturbing fact is that the iraqi people at this moment are worse off than under saddam, in day-to-day living conditions. As to their political state - well, they had no real vote under Saddam, but today they just have no vote. I'd love to see how that's an advancement...

sovtek

Originally posted by chill
Fact is countries like France, Germany, Russia and many others did everything they could to keep Saddam in power. My guess is that the Iraqi people will remember that too.

Along with the US... I'm sure they remember that as well. It's probably why there are unabated "coalition" casualties almost every day.

Sand

Despite Sand's misgivings in certain areas, I would say that they've struck a nice balance between egalitarian and democratic ideals and what simply won't be accepted.

I agree its probably the best they could hope for given the realities. Iraq is currently as dominated by a powerful clergy as Ireland was in the 1930s-1950s -Im just concerned their influence will have as negative an impact on a young state as was the case with Ireland. I think Connolly said something along the lines of Irish revolution would be pointless if the only thing that changed was the flag above our heads. Intervention in Iraq will not be worth it if all that changes is the person or group oppressing the Iraqis.

What concerns me is that we're already hearing talk about the US pulling out once the first democratic elections are held (end of this year-ish?) , and that - quite frankly - is the best path to disaster that I can see.

Yes, whilst the Iraqi Police and hopefully Army need to start taking over the majority of security concerns, the backing of the US military and administration is vital in keeping Iraq on the right path. A pullout or sudden shift in policy would be an absolute disaster. The terrorist groups in Iraq seem to be attempting to provoke a civil war by targeting the Shias ( whom Bin Laden and co view much as Catholics viewed Protestants round about the 1500s ) into striking out at the Sunnis and Kurds. The influence of the US will be vital in keeping the Shias firmly behind a political process rather than a militant one.

This election couldnt come at a worse time for the Iraqis as the Democrats/Protestors will be scoring hits on Bush every time another US soldier is killed, increasing the short term electoral attractiveness of such a disastrous pullout. I can only hope hes stubborn as a mule.

That is my fear - that the US will not carry this great start as far as it needs to be brought. That the humanitarian aspect - the future of Iraq - will all too soon be sacrificed to some greater political agenda.

Then the entire exercise will have been utterly pointless. Having won the war, it would be crinimal to allow short term political concerns lose the peace.

Before I get to any other points...I wanted to address both you and Sand at the same time.
I think it's pretty obvious that I meant no disrespect to any of the family (which I'm sure would not have seen this anyway).
I was highlighting that I doubt the majority of the population of the ME are looking upon Iraq in envy and that the family of those killed are feeling envied at the moment...because of my governments direct responsibility for that tragedy.

I accept you didnt intend any disrespect but it comes across as ..... making light of the deaths to score a point. Remember Bush has been heavily criticised recently for appropriating deaths as support for his policies - and Id assume he didnt intend any disrespect either, it just came across that way.

As for your second point, whilst the families are suffering, it doesnt lead on to say that they then oppose the constitution. Maybe they support it, regardless of the fact their family and friends have died. No one envies their pain at losing a loved one but they didnt lose them because a constitution was brought into force. They lost them because terrorists who oppose every ideal exspressed in that constitution murdered them.

People in Northern Ireland have been killed by dissident terrorist groups during the "ceasefires" and post good friday (Omagh for one ) - it doesnt lead on to say that their loss means that the GFA wasnt a good deal.

And some have stated that they feel the Americans are responsible.

I dont think the coalition killed them, the terrorists did. The terrorists knew exactly what they were doing, they planned to do it - give them credit of holding them responsible for their own actions.