[eklipse]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/...ain/index.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3141490.stm

UNITED NATIONS (CNN) -- U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said Friday that six months is an appropriate time period for the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council to complete a new constitution.

At a news conference at the United Nations, Powell said he and the U.S. civilian administrator in Iraq believe half a year would be right to determine the form of government and representation that Iraqis would like to see in their constitution.

If it's possible to meet that goal, he said, then it would be "appropriate to consider that shortly thereafter the people will be able to ratify such a constitution and prepare for elections."

In principal:

On the surface this appears to be a very welcome move - there is now at least some sort of timetable for power hand-over floating around - but - it does leave a lot of questions unanswered and has somewhat suspicious timing.

One of the points of contention over the proposed new UN resolution is the issue of a timetable for the establishment of a truly democratic, Iraqi, government. The US still does not seem to want to be held (in the form of a resolution) to a timetable, but, this recent statement would seem to speak directly to these concerns. Could it simply be a ploy to get the new resolution passed, get foreign financial commitments, get foreign troops on the ground - and then turn around in 6 months and say: "Yeah.....well....sorry.....democracy is currently out of stock.....please allow another 6-8 months for delivery"?

Also, we don't yet know how this constitution and elected government scenario is going to play out. Who is going to have final say over the constitution? Will the constitution even be acceptable if it is drawn up by unelected, American subservients? Who will oversee the election process? What role will America play in the election process? What happens in 6 months if a constitution fails to materialize?

Discuss!™

[kvm_mkdb]

Powell needs to say that in order to pave the way for a UN resolution.

If the administration really wanted to give Iraq a constitution they would set up a committee to draft it, etc. - instead there's just a 6-months timeline.

Just a ploy.

[thunderous_funker]

Who writes the Constitution? The Governing Council? A group so paralyzed by in-fighting it's best solution for an executive branch was a 9 person rotating presidency?

Not only will they have to deal with the self-serving interests of some of the crooks on the council, but with the US dictating the necessary political and economic outcomes.

Oh well. I hope they figure out a way to do it. But the Iraqis won't be the first Arab nation to write a shiny new constitution at the behest of the Americans. A shiny new high-minded constitution that still hasn't led to sovereignty, justice or freedom.

[Troll]

Jay Leno's statement was classic! Something like

"They need a Constitution? We could give them ours. We aren't using it anymore anyway."

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by Troll:
Jay Leno's statement was classic! Something like

"They need a Constitution? We could give them ours. We aren't using it anymore anyway."

ROFL!

[eklipse]

It would appear that even Iraq's governing puppets are having trouble with their American masters - doesn't bode well for the possibility of a quick power-handover or the future of Iraqi-American relations.

Once again, America's agenda doesn't seem to have the concerns of the Iraqis as a high priority.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/27/in...&position=

Iraq Leaders Seek Greater Role Now in Running Nation
By PATRICK E. TYLER

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Sept. 26 — With an advanced degree in engineering and a high technology career behind him in Britain, Hayder Awad Aabadi, Iraq's new minister of communications, smiles when asked whether Iraqis are ready to run their country again.

He will get the telephones working in Baghdad by the end of November, he says. He will build a state-owned mobile telephone network by piggybacking on existing infrastructure. He will thwart saboteurs who have been cutting the fiber optic lines around the capital.

"Iraqis are a very proud people," Mr. Aabadi said in an interview in his spare office, which is situated away from the front of the building to protect him from car bombs. "They will not be motivated in a situation where things are run by a foreign occupying power."

Impatience is beginning to grow here as Iraqi officials chafe at the strictures of an American occupation, which, they say, has in some cases slowed reconstruction because power is centralized in the hands of the military commander in Iraq, Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, and the civilian occupation administrator, L. Paul Bremer III.

While Mr. Bremer makes the rounds in Washington, contracts for a cellular phone network await his signature. Mr. Aabadi asserted that he could have had a network running 30 days after major hostilities ended, a claim supported by other telecommunications executives in the region.

American officials are aware of the problem. "The reality of foreign troops on the streets is starting to chafe," Mr. Bremer said this week in Washington. "Some Iraqis are beginning to regard us as occupiers and not as liberators."

But at the same time, the United States is convinced that the Iraqi Governing Council, an appointed rather than an elected body, is not ready to take control of an unstable and still violent country.

Such a transfer of power may take at least a year, American officials say, a process that the French government argues is too dilatory and therefore dangerous.

Iraq — its electricity intermittent, its communications irregular, its army in the first stages of formation, its police in training, its roads often insecure — is a hard place for anyone to govern. But with competent officials beginning to return to ministries and national pride stirring in opposition to occupation, the question of when to give power to Iraqis has become central.

President Bush has proposed that in Iraq, the United States make the largest reconstruction commitment since the Marshall Plan to rebuild Europe after World War II. Administration officials say it goes without saying that such a commitment must be organized under American supervision.

The problem with the allied plan is that the 23 million Iraqis may not be willing to wait.

Opinion polls show that a majority in Baghdad say the current violence and other problems are a price worth paying for the removal of Saddam Hussein, but most Iraqis regard Mr. Bush and the Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain with distrust.

American and British officials have been running the country for five months, but security is far from being restored, Iraqi officials say. And Mr. Bremer's Coalition Provisional Authority has failed to stabilize electricity supplies, end water shortages or even return normal traffic patterns in the capital.

"When you in are someone else's house, the person who built that house and maintained it is the person you should look to," said one Iraqi security chief. American officials counter that they have already given considerable authority to Iraqis who are, for instance, laying down the laws that will govern Iraq's future economy.

Mr. Aabadi cites an example of how his work as communications minister is complicated by the occupation. Every day, he sends out armed security teams to repair fiber optic cables that saboteurs have been cutting. His men, he says, are often disarmed, abused and humiliated by American soldiers who patrol the capital.

The United States military says it is carrying out orders to disarm Iraqis who do not have permits or police authority, though many Iraqis violate the rules for self-protection.

"You cannot blame anyone," Mr. Aabadi says. "The soldiers are doing their job. The workers are doing their jobs. But you can't run a country with a professional army in the streets."

But to whom exactly could the United States cede power? Many European officials cite the Afghan model, where Hamid Karzai quickly took control of the country after the war, while the United Nations retained an important role and international troops provided security.

But no figure with the authority of Mr. Karzai has yet emerged in Iraq. Rather, a host of former Iraqi opposition leaders who helped persuade the Bush administration to topple Mr. Hussein are jostling for position as this country of many religious and ethnic groups ponders its future governance.

These leaders include Massoud Barzani and Jalal Talabani, the Kurdish chieftains of northern Iraq; Ahmad Chalabi and Iyad Alawi, the secular Shiite leaders who have strong backing in Washington; and Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, the brother of Ayatollah Muhammad Bakr al-Hakim, who died in a car bomb attack on Aug. 29 in Najaf.

All are on the Governing Council formed in July. All are pushing for a strategy that would reduce Mr. Bremer's authority and strengthen the interim government. But few of them are in any agreement on what sort of constitution should govern the country or which one of them should emerge as Iraq's new leader.

That, however, does not stop them from complaining about Mr. Bremer. When the Governing Council formed in July, he pledged that it would have a major role in finance, security and foreign affairs.

The council members asked him to put it in writing, which he did, saying he would "consult the Governing Council on all major decisions and questions of policy." Only in "exceptional circumstances," he said, "would the coalition act without the support of the council."

But last week, five Iraqi leaders resolved to tell Mr. Bremer that it was time to fulfill those pledges by giving them real access to Iraq's budget and finances, and to give the new ministry of interior a security role that would allow the American Army to pull back to bases. Mr. Bremer has yet to respond to them.

"Bremer wants to do everything himself — I mean they call him king over there," said Mudhar Shawkat, a senior member of Mr. Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress. "He has done a lot, but he has yet to consider Iraqis as his partners and treats them as his subjects."

Underlying the clash of approaches are American and British concerns that Iraq could implode if power is transferred too quickly.

Iraqi political leaders argue that the proof of their ability to govern lies in the fact that they have been doing so since the Governing Council was formed in July.

They have appointed a cabinet to supervise the tens of thousands of Iraqi experts and technocrats returning to ministries. They have passed laws on foreign direct investment, a customs and income tax system, and a nationalities law to end discrimination. They have also worked closely with the occupation authority on security and finance policies.

But there are other unspoken concerns.

Some senior American and British officials say privately that they are concerned that if an election was held today, a Shiite muslim cleric might well dominate the polling on the strength of the 60 percent Shiite share of the population.

Many Iraqis today say such concerns are exaggerated, that Shiites are divided along secular and religious lines and are unlikely to vote as a bloc unless they perceive a threat that they will be disenfranchised as they were in 1932, when the British withdrawal and Sunni duplicity excluded them from political power.

Still, senior American officials say they are hoping that six months to a year of constitution writing and preparations for national elections will provide a process from which a moderate and secular Shiite leader will emerge to head the first democratic government here, one that would have the independence and self-assurance to avoid tilting toward the conservative Islamists of Iran.

[MacGorilla]

Originally posted by Troll:
Jay Leno's statement was classic! Something like

"They need a Constitution? We could give them ours. We aren't using it anymore anyway."

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by eklipse:
It would appear that even Iraq's governing puppets are having trouble with their American masters - doesn't bode well for the possibility of a quick power-handover or the future of Iraqi-American relations.

Once again, America's agenda doesn't seem to have the concerns of the Iraqis as a high priority.

These comments are ridiculous. America is giving a lot to the plight of the Iraqi people. Name me someone who has done more for the people of Iraq?

The multi-lateral negotiations that are going on right now between the US and other nations are so far above our heads here. Iraq is going to be fine.

Iraq-US relations will be very good for decades to follow.

I don't understand why you root for such bad things to happen in Iraq, or how you can not have supported the liberation of 25 million Iraqis. Your views are heartless.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
These comments are ridiculous. America is giving a lot to the plight of the Iraqi people. Name me someone who has done more for the people of Iraq?

The Iraqis have been doing fine for themselves since before America was but a gleam in the telescope of Christopher Columbus. Something called 'the cradle of civilization' mean anything to you?

The multi-lateral negotiations that are going on right now between the US and other nations are so far above our heads here. Iraq is going to be fine.

Iraq-US relations will be very good for decades to follow.

There you go in spacefreak al-Sahaf mode again.

I don't understand why you root for such bad things to happen in Iraq, or how you can not have supported the liberation of 25 million Iraqis. Your views are heartless.

I do not 'root for bad things to happen in Iraq' - bad things have happened and continue to happen on a daily basis in Iraq, if I'm 'rooting' for anything it is for the 'bad things' to stop 'happening'.

I fully support the liberation of 25 million Iraqis, however, I'm still waiting for it to happen.

[Lerkfish]

There are two systemic problems:

1. That the Bush administration* is pushing for a "democratic" constitution from people they appointed and put in place in Iraq.

and

2. That the bush administration* sees nothing wrong with number one.

Until you solve number2, things like number one will keep happening.
As long as the Bush administration* thinks they have the RIGHT to install puppet governments in the mideast and possess the
god-given authority to do so, because of being a SUPERPOWER™, they will never understand that anything they do could ever even be potentially wrong.

*--more precisely, the neocons.

[lil'babykitten]

What Lerkfish says.

The fact that this Council is appointed by the US, is going to cause quite a few problems when it comes to writing such important documents. These are the sorts of things that are going to shape the way Iraq is run in the future. This, I feel, is a core reason as to why the US wants such a pivotal role in it.

I don't see why there has to be a deadline for this constitution. I'd be putting more effort in to organising a democratically elected 'Congress', voted on by the Iraqi people, chosen by the Iraqi people. Once this is sorted then the Constitution should become priority.

It appears as though things are being done backwards and I am not sure that these developments are in the interests of the Iraqi people.

[AutoJC]

Powell: Iraqi Constitution wanted in 6 months

To hell with that nonsense.

Let's just mail them a copy of our constitution, and use it as a draft for theirs.

Also, we need to find Iraqis who believe in ruling a nation that has diverse voices of islam, Christianity, and Judaism, among many things. A defender of individual rights. they should be the first to run for office.

The representatives in the government could be any Iraqi, really.

[AutoJC]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
There are two systemic problems:

1. That the Bush administration* is pushing for a "democratic" constitution from people they appointed and put in place in Iraq.

and

2. That the bush administration* sees nothing wrong with number one.

Until you solve number2, things like number one will keep happening.
As long as the Bush administration* thinks they have the RIGHT to install puppet governments in the mideast and possess the
god-given authority to do so, because of being a SUPERPOWER™, they will never understand that anything they do could ever even be potentially wrong.

*--more precisely, the neocons.

You forgot to include the biggest problem of all:

Finding an Iraqi who is strong enough to build a coalition among these warring tribes.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by AutoJC:
You forgot to include the biggest problem of all:

Finding an Iraqi who is strong enough to build a coalition among these warring tribes.

I know one.

[yakkiebah]

Originally posted by eklipse:
I know one.

HAHAHA!

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by yakkiebah:
HAHAHA!

I think there are about three of us who got the joke! the poster, you and myself.

[shmerek]

Originally posted by lil'babykitten:
I think there are about three of us who got the joke! the poster, you and myself.

I got it.

[christ]

Originally posted by eklipse:
I know one.

But he's not allowed.

(Funnily enough, he wouldn't be allowed even if he were democratically elected by the entire population of Iraq. how is that for democracy in action?)

[Troll]

Originally posted by AutoJC:
Let's just mail them a copy of our constitution, and use it as a draft for theirs.

The US Constitution is old-fashioned, outdated, vague. In the ordinary course, it would be ridiculous to use it in a modern context. It's old technology. Kind of like suggesting that Iraq use Commodore 64's when PowerMac G5's are available.

In Constitutional Law circles, the US Constitution is respected as having been a fine attempt and a pioneering document but modern constitutions are far better. From a documentary perspective, you'd probably find that the Namibian, South African, Canadian and German constitutions, being modern constitutions would have more weight. Those are the Constitutions that are put forward these days in Constitutional debates. I doubt even the Americans would suggest grafting the US Constitution onto Iraq.

[eklipse]

That idea sure fizzled out quickly

Looks like 6 months isn't enough time to ensure the successful sale of Iraq's entire infrastructure.

[clarkgoble]

Speaking as a Canadian I'm not sure the Canadian view of their constitution is better than the US. I personally find more comfort in the US constitution, whatever the problems of the current administration.

But I do agree it isn't a good match for the particular problems in Iraq. Probably a parliamentary system is a must, given the factions. The big issue is what rights there are for women, for religion, and so forth. i.e. how to protect against dominance by religious fundamentalists and protect an Islamic state.

Clearly the 2cd amendment isn't a go...

One thing that I think the Bushies definitely do need to do is give Iraqis more control sooner. Even if it is only partial, it has to happen or the US will lose what little they have.

It is too bad that the infrastructure was so damanged. (Especially electrical) That appears to be what is ultimately holding up so many things.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Name me someone who has done more for the people of Iraq?

Saddam Hussein. Have may have been a brutal dictator, a thug and a murderer, but the Iraqi people were living in better conditions under him than they are under Bush.

[Spliffdaddy]

That was a good one.

[Troll]

Originally posted by clarkgoble:
Speaking as a Canadian I'm not sure the Canadian view of their constitution is better than the US. I personally find more comfort in the US constitution, whatever the problems of the current administration.

To be clear, the populace's view of their Constitution is not what I was talking about. It's a technical, legal point that I was raising. Have a read of the South African Constitution for example. It's written in clear language, it has a limitations clause, a bill of rights, it specifically deals with issues that the US Consitution is unable to deal with like abortion, the death penalty, environmental rights etc. My point is simply that since the US Constitution was drawn up there has been very much progress in the theory of democracy, in the drafting of Constitutions and in the development of rights culture and society. It would be ridiculous not to allow the Iraqis to benefit from that development and the technology that has been developed. One should assume neither that the US is the best example of democracy on the planet or the most democratic country nor that the US has a monopoly on democracy. The US government needs to recognise that their Constitution is not only culturally irrelevant to Iraq but technologically outdated. If Iraq follows the model of other countries in recent history, the US Constitution will have little influence on their own.