[SimeyTheLimey]

This seems to be good news.

BAGHDAD, March 1 -- Iraqi political leaders agreed early Monday on the terms of an interim constitution that strikes a compromise on the contentious issues of Kurdish autonomy and Islam's role in government.






The country's 25-member, U.S.-appointed Governing Council reached consensus on the 63rd and final article of the document at 4:20 a.m. local time, after more than 10 hours of almost nonstop negotiations mediated by the American administrator of Iraq, L. Paul Bremer, people involved in the meeting said.


"It's a historic document," said Faisal Istrabadi, one of the lead drafters and a senior aide to council member Adnan Pachachi. "Every single article, and each subparagraph, had the consensus of all 25 people in the room. . . . In the best tradition of democracies -- granted, we are an aspiring democracy -- we all compromised."


The document, which will provide a legal framework for Iraq until elections are held and a permanent constitution is drafted, grants broad protections for individual rights, guaranteeing freedom of speech, assembly and religion, and other liberties long denied by the Baath Party government of former president Saddam Hussein. In an unprecedented step toward gender equality in the Arab world, the document sets aside 25 percent of the seats in the provisional legislature for women, council aides said. [more]

[voodoo]

Sure. It was known that they would make a constitution though.

Nothing to see here, carry on.

[Troll]

Wow! All 25 people agreed. Twenty-five!! Impressive. That's like what? 1 unelected representative for every 1.8 million Iraqis.

Sheesh, if we'd had only 25 people to deal with during the negotiations for the South African Constitution, we'd have had a Constitution drafted before the 11am tea break!

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
Wow! All 25 people agreed. Twenty-five!! Impressive. That's like what? 1 unelected representative for every 1.8 million Iraqis.

Sheesh, if we'd had only 25 people to deal with during the negotiations for the South African Constitution, we'd have had a Constitution drafted before the 11am tea break!

How many were involved in writing the previous Iraqi Constitution? 1?

This is only an interim constitution, designed to elect a government who can then create a permanent one that will be put to the people for ratification. As in any process, you have to start somewhere.

I'm curious how you would do it otherwise? Apparently, you want the drafters of the interim constitution to be democratically elected even though this is a country with no mechanism for holding elections. So the document that would create the mechanism for elections is only valid if created by people elected by a mechanism that doesn't exist until you have a document that creates the mechanism for elections. Do you see the endless loop you have created?

But we have a way out! Your favorite institution has recognized the Iraqi Provisional Council as the legitimate represenative body to draft this constitution. Thus there is, in Kofe's language, "legitimacy." Thus you have to deal with this dreadful and inconvenient step toward something that obviously terrifies you -- that Iraq might produce good news.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
How many were involved in writing the previous Iraqi Constitution? 1?

This is only an interim constitution, designed to elect a government who can then create a permanent one that will be put to the people for ratification. As in any process, you have to start somewhere.

I'm curious how you would do it otherwise? Apparently, you want the drafters of the interim constitution to be democratically elected even though this is a country with no mechanism for holding elections. So the document that would create the mechanism for elections is only valid if created by people elected by a mechanism that doesn't exist until you have a document that creates the mechanism for elections. Do you see the endless loop you have created?

But we have a way out! Your favorite institution has recognized the Iraqi Provisional Council as the legitimate represenative body to draft this constitution. Thus there is, in Kofe's language, "legitimacy." Thus you have to deal with this dreadful and inconvenient step toward something that obviously terrifies you -- that Iraq might produce good news.

well, I think its good to optimistic, but its also wise to be skeptical, especially knowing the nativity and fealty of the council, directed by Bremer.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
well, I think its good to optimistic, but its also wise to be skeptical, especially knowing the nativity and fealty of the council, directed by Bremer.

Well, you know, Japan's constitution was typed up by a couple of Americans in MacAurthur's office. There was no Japanese input, and no Japanese were either consulted, or involved. But in the end, it still worked out.

Of course, the Japanese constitution was also written without the input of lawyers. Maybe that is the reason?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Well, you know, Japan's constitution was typed up by a couple of Americans in MacAurthur's office. There was no Japanese input, and no Japanese were either consulted, or involved. But in the end, it still worked out.

Of course, the Japanese constitution was also written without the input of lawyers. Maybe that is the reason?

but my point is still valid: there is good reason to be skeptical in this situation: you still have a lot of violent insurgency and unrest following the regime change. The council is one that is installed by the occupiers. I don't mean skeptical of the intentions of the council, necessarily, but skeptical that its going to be a fait d'compli to come up with a constitution under those circumstances.
The Japanese knew how to surrender...it was an honor thang. I don't think that example is typical nor should be used as a parallel comparison in this situation, certainly.

[Spliffdaddy]

One step closer to freedom.

Brought to you by the kind caring folks of the USA.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:


but my point is still valid: there is good reason to be skeptical in this situation: you still have a lot of violent insurgency and unrest following the regime change. The council is one that is installed by the occupiers. I don't mean skeptical of the intentions of the council, necessarily, but skeptical that its going to be a fait d'compli to come up with a constitution under those circumstances.
The Japanese knew how to surrender...it was an honor thang. I don't think that example is typical nor should be used as a parallel comparison in this situation, certainly.

I wouldn't say skepticism is the right word. But caution might be. I don't think that anyone has suggested that this by itself solves Iraq's transition to democracy. But it is a step in the right direction, and a necessary one.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
One step closer to freedom.

Brought to you by the kind caring folks of the USA.

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I wouldn't say skepticism is the right word. But caution might be. I don't think that anyone has suggested that this by itself solves Iraq's transition to democracy. But it is a step in the right direction, and a necessary one.

Perhaps my point is that the people selectively installed to make that step aren't going to be the ones that will win the people over. So, even if the step is necessary, making sure the right people make the step is also necessary.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Perhaps my point is that the people selectively installed to make that step aren't going to be the ones that will win the people over. So, even if the step is necessary, making sure the right people make the step is also necessary.

You seem to be rather certain about this. I think you are making a lot of assumptions without the personal knowledge to back it up. Noth that I have it either. But I am not the one making assertions about Iraqi public opinion.

I think the Japenese example shows that people can accept a constitution even if they feel no loyalty to the people who drafted it. And that one was a permanent document, not just an interim one, as this is.

You do realize, by the way, that the constitutional convention that drafted the US Constitution wasn't really elected either. They were appointed as delegates to write revisions, not a new constitution. The Constitution istself didn't derive its authority from the drafters. It's legitimacy came from the states ratifying it. As I understand it, something similar will eventually happen in Iraq. That's when we'll have a better idea whether the new government will be accepted or not.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
You seem to be rather certain about this. I think you are making a lot of assumptions without the personal knowledge to back it up. Noth that I have it either. But I am not the one making assertions about Iraqi public opinion.

I'm basing my opinion on the level of insurgency. What are you basing yours on?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
I'm basing my opinion on the level of insurgency. What are you basing yours on?

Well, I certainly wouldn't equate the insurgents with popular opinion! They seem to have their own agenda.

I don't really have an opinion about Iraqi public opinion apart from what I read from opinion polls. Otherwise, wait and see seems to be the best approach.

[Logic]

Did the interim constitution talk about the Kurds at all? Since they want their freedom now.........

[lil'babykitten]

Originally posted by Logic:
Did the interim constitution talk about the Kurds at all? Since they want their freedom now.........

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/3495996.stm

The draft charter will recognise Islam as one source of legislation rather than the only source, and gives autonomy to the Kurdish minority for now.

So they get 'autonomy', whatever that means.

I'm more interested in seeing what kind of system these puppets are going to install for the election process.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Well, I certainly wouldn't equate the insurgents with popular opinion! They seem to have their own agenda.

I don't really have an opinion about Iraqi public opinion apart from what I read from opinion polls. Otherwise, wait and see seems to be the best approach.

but you have enough of an opinion to declare my opinion wrong....not much "wait and see" in that, I don't think.

[BRussell]

The first line of the new Constitution:

"We hold these truthf to be self-evident, that all Republicanf have the right to a convention in which they can claim succeff in Iraq."

Some other news about the Republican convention in NY:

The source, a veteran official of past GOP conventions, said the 50,000 delegates, dignitaries and guests would watch off-site events on giant TV screens. “Now, we’ll go to the deck of the USS Intrepid as the U.S. Marine Corps Band plays the National Anthem,” he said, pretending that he was playing the part of the convention chairman.

“Or, and this is a real possibility, we could see President Bush giving his acceptance speech at Ground Zero,” he added. “It’s clearly a venue they’re considering.”

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
but you have enough of an opinion to declare my opinion wrong....not much "wait and see" in that, I don't think.

No. I didn't say your opinion was wrong. I said it was based on an assumption. There is a difference.

[zigzag]

Good news, and the reason I could support the idea of an invasion. One can only hope that it sticks. If it does, the WMD controversy will fade into history. If it doesn't, there'll be hell to pay. Time will tell.

[eklipse]

Saddam Hussein used to receive 100% approval too.

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by eklipse:
Saddam Hussein used to receive 100% approval too.

"used to"

[eklipse]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
"used to"

Nice to see some traditions are continuing well in his absence.

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I'm curious how you would do it otherwise?

How about everyone whose anyone gets to have representatives at the negotiations? They don't have to be elected but they at least need to be representative. In South Africa we had an interim constitution too. One that was adopted finally virtually verbatim because the grunt work had been done at the interim negotiations. In South Africa, they invited everyone to participate - politicial parties, banned "terrorist" organisations, womens' movements, NGO's, youth leagues. Not all of the people that were there had been elected, but they were representative of the population. And when it was all over, all of those representatives went back to their communities and said, "This is the best deal we could get. Let's all get behind it." Of course, the National Party could have gone to Washington and hauled back Mbeki and 24 of his mates and said, we select Mbeki and Co. to negotiate the Constitution on your behalf but they didn't because that isn't democracy!

The IRC's only claim to fame is that the Americans chose them. How can such a few people elected by the US represent the diverse Iraqi communities. I mean half of them don't even have a community in Iraq. I think you not only have to have a process that is representative, but people must see it to be so. This Constitution and the process for its drafting has no buy-in from the people.

I don't think this is going to stick. I think there will be civil war in Iraq within a year of the US pulling out, unless something drastic changes.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by Troll:
How about everyone whose anyone gets to have representatives at the negotiations? They don't have to be elected but they at least need to be representative. In South Africa we had an interim constitution too. One that was adopted finally virtually verbatim because the grunt work had been done at the interim negotiations. In South Africa, they invited everyone to participate - politicial parties, banned "terrorist" organisations, womens' movements, NGO's, youth leagues. Not all of the people that were there had been elected, but they were representative of the population. And when it was all over, all of those representatives went back to their communities and said, "This is the best deal we could get. Let's all get behind it." Of course, the National Party could have gone to Washington and hauled back Mbeki and 24 of his mates and said, we select Mbeki and Co. to negotiate the Constitution on your behalf but they didn't because that isn't democracy!

The IRC's only claim to fame is that the Americans chose them. How can such a few people elected by the US represent the diverse Iraqi communities. I mean half of them don't even have a community in Iraq. I think you not only have to have a process that is representative, but people must see it to be so. This Constitution and the process for its drafting has no buy-in from the people.

I don't think this is going to stick. I think there will be civil war in Iraq within a year of the US pulling out, unless something drastic changes.

I completely agree with Troll.

What is happening right now in Iraq is a recipe for disaster. If the people do not own the democratic process from the start, it cannot be theirs, even if it is given to them on a silver platter.

Democracy is not a state, it is an ongoing process. When an alien presence appoints a group of insiders, those insiders are likely to be seen as outsiders, and on the payroll of the alien presence.

This is bound to get very messy. I want to believe the whole thing will work, but own experience in politics in situation of oppression tells me otherwise. The total opposite actually.

Even if the majority of the population agrees or goes along with the process, you still have a lot of people whom were accustomed to Saddam Husein's rule (especially the clan authorities who were apparently maintaining cohesion and a great part of the population). You cannot have these guys change there belief system overnight, just because democracy is "great".

I think what is happening in Afghanistan is a good example of thet. Tribalism and any power structure based on millenia of traditions will not occur without a lot of resistance and blood.

Cultures do not change on a someone's whim. Freedom is not given, it is taken. But what kind of Freedom are people looking for exactly? You'd be surprised at the variety of opinions on this topic (what is freedom), and could never impose your point of view on them, without interfering with that freedom.

That the U.S. government "freed" Iraq is "good", but it does not mean that the military interventions will have the consequences people dream about.

One illusion entertained is: " If I feel comfortable in a home like mine, surely others would feel the same in a similar home".

Definitely not true.

Anyway, "Qui vivra verra!"

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
How about everyone whose anyone gets to have representatives at the negotiations? .

That was essentially the idea when the Governing Council was selected. Each of the major ethnic groups is represented.

Your pessimism is noted. However, not having a crystal ball, I think wait and see is more appropriate.

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
That was essentially the idea when the Governing Council was selected.

There are many womens groups that have been operating in Baghdad for years that were not consulted or invited. The UN was not consulted. The Baath Party was not consulted. Islamic fundamentalist groups weren't consulted. I don't even remember ever having read of any plan to involve these groups.

If the intention was to have a representative body then the execution of the idea was miserable. What it looks like to me is a situation where the US chose sympathetic foreigners to make decisions for Iraq within the confines of a process controlled by the US. The Baath Party didn't qualify because Saddam was the US's enemy, the UN didn't qualify because the US thought it was irrelevant, Islamic groups didn't qualify because they are the US's enemy. The focus here was on what was good for the US not on the Iraqi people. The INC's composition reflects that.

I think you could have got a decent constitution and a relatively sympathetic ally in the Middle East despite having a more representative process. And I think Iraq would have been more stable as a result. But that's water under the bridge. If the UN gets involved pronto then I might be proved wrong.

[angaq0k]

Actually, some disagreeement has shown up already:

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Con...l=968350060724

Quote:

Council members refused to say, however, how the presidency and his deputies would be chosen - and it was not clear whether there had been agreement on that issue. Shiites have demanded that the president be a Shiite, with Kurd and Sunni vice presidents, but other council members have resisted Shiite attempts to dominate the executive.

(...)

Fundamentalists backed down after a clause was included underlining that no legislation will be passed the contravenes the tenets of Islam, several council members said.

And this one:

http://radio-canada.ca/url.asp?/nouvelles/inter.shtml

Quote:

Le chef du Conseil suprême de la révolution islamique en Irak, Abdel Aziz Hakim, s'est quant à lui abstenu de commenter l'accord, préférant demander à l'ONU de fixer une date pour des élections.

De son côté, vice-président du Front irakien turcoman, Saadeddine Mohammad Arkaj, a qualifié le texte d'échec. «Nous refusons d'être qualifiés de minorité, car nous sommes une composante ethnique principale de l'Irak», a-t-il dit.

Translation by yours truly:

The Chief of the Supreme Council of Islamic Revolution, Badel Aziz Hakim, abstained to comment the agreement, prefering to ask the U.N. to fix a date for the elections.

Saadeddine Mohammad Arkaj, on hhis side, qualified the text as a failure. "We refuse to be qualified as a minority, since we are a major ethnic component of Iraq".

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
If the UN gets involved pronto then I might be proved wrong.

The UN seems to already think it is involved.

[voodoo]

.

[voodoo]

.

[angaq0k]

From:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FC04Ak03.html

Quote (last paragraph):

Nobody knows how an Iraqi interim government - to rule from June 30 until the elections - will be chosen. The United States will open its largest embassy in the world on July 1 in Baghdad. It will totally control the interim government. And it will rely on more than 100,000_US troops stationed in Iraq. "What handover?" asks a Shi'ite businessman in Baghdad. Millions of Shi'ites - all of them oblivious to the non-transparent machinations inside the IGC - fear that the de facto occupation may last for years. The draft constitution was due to be signed by Bremer on Wednesday - before the IGC declared three days of mourning for the victims of the multiple carnage. Now it will probably be inked on Friday. The draft constitution was born, as the White House wanted. But it was born already drenched in Shi'ite blood.

[Spliffdaddy]

well what does Canada plan to do about it?

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
well what does Canada plan to do about it?

That is what I'd do: support the U.N. to take over A.S.A.P., to limit collateral damage.

I do not represent Canada.

And you do not represent Iraq, or the U.S. either for that matter.

[nonhuman]

Originally posted by angaq0k:
Fundamentalists backed down after a clause was included underlining that no legislation will be passed the contravenes the tenets of Islam, several council members said.

This is an interesting clause. It would seem to preclude the possibility of a secular government, as there would need to be some official person/body who interprets the Quran in the same way that the USSC interprets the constitution. Essentially they're creating a state religion. They may not "require" that people join it, but it would make it very easy use this to deny government positions to anyone who doesn't follow the official interpretation of Islam which amounts to pretty much the same thing.

In the best case scenario (well, the best one I can think of, I'm sure someone else can come up with something better), the official interpretation of the Quran would be established by a body similar to the SC in that its role is purely judicial and it has no legislative or executive power. In the worst case, it's the president who decides or some other single cleric with some sort of legislative power.

Though I firmly believe that they should be allowed to form whatever kind of government they can democratically decide upon, I hope, for their sake and the sake of future generations of Iraqis, that their final constitution doesn't include language such as this which opens the door to all kinds of abuse.

[angaq0k]

Originally posted by nonhuman:
(...)Though I firmly believe that they should be allowed to form whatever kind of government they can democratically decide upon, I hope, for their sake and the sake of future generations of Iraqis, that their final constitution doesn't include language such as this which opens the door to all kinds of abuse.

And this what I fear the most; that extremism gets the upper hand because of the U.S. intervention, as well intended as it could have been. The allowance of contracts to foreign corporations is only discrediting the benevolence of the action. One has to be extremely naive to believe this will not have adverse consequences in the short and long term.

Saddam had to be taken away. But maintaining a semblance of order by ONE alien structure is bound to create some reactions (as we have seen so far) that will discredit any effort of pacifying that area. Even without the recent terrorists attacks, there would be at some point some movement leading to some radical position.

I hope as well they can find their way towards a form of democracy that would limit abuse, but I am afraid it will be a long road and that blood will flow for a long time, unfortunately.

My belief is that civil war is dangerously possible. But I am not an expert in the matter. Hopefully, I may be totally wrong!