Iraqi Interim Integration Interrupted

[Azred]

Link to the news story is here

Apparently the Shiite members of the Iraqi Governing Council, who have been busily trying to lay the groundwork for what will eventually form the foundation of a post-Hussein Iraq, are all devotees of Shiite Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Husseini al-Sistani. Under his influence, they have decided to postpone signing the interim constitution because of differnces of opinion about clauses written into the interim constitution.
First, veto powers. Namely, the fact that if 2/3 of voters in three provinces deicde to veto something--the Kurds just so happen to control three provinces--then it will be vetoed. The Kurds are--probably rightfully so--averse to giving up any portion of their self-rule.
Second, the design of the Presidency. Although the Shiite members agreed to a single President with two deputies in the final draft, they now want a 5-person rotation with 3 of those 5 being Shiite. I find it hard to fault them for wanting to maintain a majority, since they are the majority group but they did agree, after all, and should honor their agreement.
Finally, according to Entifadh Qanbar, spokesman for the Iraqi National Congress (one of the now-dissenting groups), was raising concerns about how "an unelected body can bind an elected body in the future". Although I applaud Mr. Qanbar's incisiveness for seeing this particular peculiarity of the early democratic process, I would like to remind him Iraq must begin somewhere, and this particular system has worked elsewhere quite remarkably. Begin at the beginning, Mr. Qanbar.

The key figure here is still Grand Ayatollah al-Sistani; some of the Shiite representatives check with al-Sistani for guidance quite regularly. Being able to derail singlehandedly what must appear to be the American attempt to control Iraq's future is quite the accomplishment. However, it is a shame that he is helping hinder what could be real progress. There is a time and a place for "strutting one's stuff", but this is neither the time nor the place.

Interestingly, no one in the Iraqi Governing Council has realized a simple solution which will satisfy both the current American administration led by Paul Bremer and thier own self-interests. Put together a workable constitution now, ratify it, build a working government, hold elections and then when the Americans leave hold another Constitutional Congress and rewrite your Constitution however you please! [img]graemlins/saywhat.gif[/img] Seriously, I can't be the only one to think of solutions like this, can I?

[ 03-06-2004, 02:19 AM: Message edited by: Azred ]

[Skunk]

The United Nations had an even BETTER PLAN - reintroduce the old constitution that was drafted in the 1950's (the one that Saddam tore up).

The Shi'ites also have a BETTER AND MORE SIMPLE PLAN. Hold elections and let the elected government decide the constitution and hold a referendum to make it binding.

What's wrong with letting THE PEOPLE decide what they want - rather than a bunch of 'chosen ones' who are not there because anyone elected them to be there but because an outside power thought they might serve their interests rather than the desires of the populace...

[Seraph]

The Shi'ites also have a BETTER AND MORE SIMPLE PLAN. Hold elections...

How exactly is letting millions of people vote more simple then letting a few dozen people vote?

There are all sorts of hassles involved in holding fair elections (Look at how well Flordia did in 2000), do you really think that a country that has had such a sudden switch in government would be able to organize a nation wide election that was capable of being reasonably fraud free?

[skywalker]

Perhaps it would be even simpler to just have Mr. Bremer and a few Generals pick who will be in charge. Or we should install Mr. Chalabi as the new President of Iraq. [img]tongue.gif[/img]


Mark

[EDIT] Couldn't even spell my name right!

[ 03-08-2004, 06:30 PM: Message edited by: skywalker ]

[Timber Loftis]

rather than a bunch of 'chosen ones' who are not there because anyone elected them to be there but because an outside power thought they might serve their interests rather than the desires of the populace...

This is insulting to the interim people, many of whom were Iraqi exiles and are very patriotic to their homeland. It is a baldface assumption you've made that these Iraqi nationals serve an "outside power" rather than the desires (or even, *gasp* needs) of their people. I don't see you in the desert to help. And, while that normally would not be a fact which I would use to slap you around, your willingness to bad-mouth this group of people who have gone through a lot of crap just to go risk their lives trying to do what is right leads me to turn it against you.

Those who think something can't be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.
-- Chinese proverb.

[Timber Loftis]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4448093/

Iraqis sign Interim Constitution
from msn.com:
_____________________________
Iraqi politicians sign interim constitution
Shiite cleric withholds support, says approval of elected leaders needed.

The Associated Press
Updated: 2:11 p.m. ET March 08, 2004

BAGHDAD, Iraq - Iraq’s Governing Council signed a landmark interim constitution Monday, a key step in U.S. plans to hand power to the Iraqis by July 1. But within hours, Iraq’s top Shiite cleric issued a fatwa religious ruling criticizing the document, signaling that a dispute that delayed the signing was not over.

Before an audience of prominent Iraqi and American civilian and military officials — including top U.S. administrator L. Paul Bremer — 21 of the 25 council members signed the document on an antique desk once owned by King Faisal I, Iraq’s first monarch. Representatives of the absent four signed on their behalf.

Council president Mohammed Bahr al-Ulloum called the signing a “historic moment, decisive in the history of Iraq.”

“There is no doubt that this document will strengthen Iraqi unity in a way never seen before,” said Massoud Barzani, a Kurdish leader on the council. “This is the first time that we Kurds feel that we are citizens of Iraq.”

The charter, which includes a 13-article bill of rights, enshrines Islam as one of the bases of law and outlines the shape of a parliament and presidency as well as a federal structure for the country. Billed as the most liberal in the Arab world, it will remain in effect until the permanent constitution is approved in late 2005.

The White House issued a statement congratulating the Governing Council, and Secretary of State Colin Powell, addressing a gathering in Washington for International Women’s Day, also praised the Iraqi people for the interim constitution.

“Read what it says about democracy, rights, liberty and what the new Iraq will look like,” he said. “Read what it says, and you will see the vision the Iraqi people have for themselves. And let there be no doubt in anyone’s minds that it is a bright future.”

Powell added that the road ahead may be difficult “but it won’t be as difficult as the road that was behind.”

The ceremony was rife with symbols of unity, after council members patched over splits that erupted three days ago. The dispute — focused on two clauses — derailed an attempt to sign on Friday and fueled bitterness among Sunni and Kurdish members, who feared Shiite leaders were trying to grab more power.

Despite the signing, several Shiite council members said the disputed clauses will be subject to further negotiations and perhaps amended in a later document.

Cleric withholds support
Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Husseini al-Sistani issued a fatwa on his Web site that said the document “will not gain legitimacy except after it is endorsed by an elected national assembly.”

Al-Sistani also made clear his reservations about the charter.

“This law places obstacles in the path of reaching a permanent constitution for the country that maintains its unity, the rights of its sons of all sects and ethnic backgrounds,” he said.

The ayatollah — whose word holds strong influence among Iraq’s Shiite majority — did not denounce the charter or call on his followers to reject it. But the fatwa adds weight to demands by Shiites on the council for amendments.

Also, council member Ibrahim al-Jaafari read a statement signed by 12 of the 13 Shiite council members, saying they had agreed to sign the interim constitution without demanding changes in order to safeguard national unity — but that they want their concerns dealt with.

“We say here our decision to sign the document is pegged to reservations,” al-Jaafari said. “In reality we had a choice between delaying the constitution or dealing with our reservations, particularly on two clauses, in an annex.”

They said the clauses might be amended in an addendum to the interim constitution that is expected to be issued next month or in May to decide the shape and functions of an interim government that will take over from the U.S.-led coalition on June 30.

“We cannot allow an unelected body, like the Governing Council, to bind an elected body,” said Shiite member Ahmad Chalabi.

One clause in dispute, according to al-Jaafari, would give Kurds veto power over a permanent constitution expected to be drafted and put to a referendum next year. The other one bars any changes to the document signed Monday except with the approval of a proposed president, his two deputies, and three-fourths of a parliament to be elected by January 2005.

Monday’s one-hour signing ceremony came nine days after a deadline set in a U.S. timetable. The delay was caused by a mourning period following last week’s bombings at Shiite shrines, as well as political wrangling on the U.S.-picked council.

About an hour before the signing ceremony began, insurgents fired mortar shells at two police stations in central Baghdad, injuring four people, including one policeman, Iraqi officials said.

New government still must be created
Iraqi and U.S. officials still must agree on a method to create the government that will take power on June 30 and serve until national elections due by Jan. 31 — a task that will likely need help from the United Nations. Expanding the Governing Council to include groups and parties not currently represented is one option, but a selection process must first be agreed.

Meanwhile, the council must deal with the fallout from the Shiite demands.
______________________________________

Make sure to check out the Potential Leaders "Whos Who" and the Facts on the New Constitution interactives in the link I posted.

[Donut]

Pull my string, and I'll do anything.....

[ 03-09-2004, 08:26 AM: Message edited by: Donut ]

[Chewbacca]

Merely having a constitution doesn't neccessarily mean diddly squat in that neck of the woods:

Link
******************

Egypt's Constitution says the state may not detain people unless they are charged with a crime. Syria's Constitution declares that no citizen shall be tortured. Jordan's Constitution guarantees freedom of expression in speech and writing.

But Egypt has been under emergency law for decades, and tens of thousands of people have been kept in jail without charge. The use of torture has been routine in Syria's prisons for years, according to the State Department and rights groups. And journalists have been arrested for expressing views that the Jordanian government considered "harmful to national unity."

While members of the Bush administration have described the rights enshrined in the new Iraqi document as an unprecedented accomplishment for the region, in fact most Arab constitutions, among them Iraq's constitutions during the rule of Saddam Hussein, have long included similar guarantees.

Yet in the Middle East and beyond, the most stirring written guarantees of individual liberties have a way of being set aside by authoritarian rulers or political expediency. The Arab-Israeli conflict and, more recently, challenges from religious militants have given many Arab leaders the justification for suspending their constitutions on national security grounds.

"You will find very many constitutions that are good on paper, that uphold the rights of citizens, but are completely bypassed by states of emergency, extraordinary laws and state security legislation," said Hanny Megally, the director of Middle East programs for the International Center for Transitional Justice, a rights group.

Some Arab parliaments have dared in recent years to give women more rights in marriage, divorce and inheritance laws than were provided in their countries' constitutions. Some courts, particularly in Egypt, have proved robust enough to stand up to political pressure and to safeguard constitutional rights.

Many Middle East experts expressed optimism that Iraqis, after emerging from 35 years of dictatorship, would eventually make sure that their constitution — either the provisional one just signed or a permanent one to be drafted next year — means what it says.

"The problem in the Arab world over the last 70 years is that when it came to the crunch, societies and political cultures tended to favor security over citizens' rights," said Rami G. Khouri, the executive editor of The Daily Star, a newspaper in Lebanon.

But if Iraq can emerge from its present violence and win the independence it has been promised by the United States, it could provide a new model for its Arab neighbors, Mr. Khouri added. "Iraq might be one of the few cases where people of an Arab country have the chance to define themselves," he said.

[John D Harris]

Chewie you broke the code [img]smile.gif[/img] It's foolish to expect people to respect something they don't want to/don't know how to respect. IMHO only to be exceded in foolishness by, not at least trying to do something.

[Skunk]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: quote: rather than a bunch of 'chosen ones' who are not there because anyone elected them to be there but because an outside power thought they might serve their interests rather than the desires of the populace...

This is insulting to the interim people, many of whom were Iraqi exiles and are very patriotic to their homeland. It is a baldface assumption you've made that these Iraqi nationals serve an "outside power" rather than the desires (or even, *gasp* needs) of their people. I don't see you in the desert to help. And, while that normally would not be a fact which I would use to slap you around, your willingness to bad-mouth this group of people who have gone through a lot of crap just to go risk their lives trying to do what is right leads me to turn it against you.

Those who think something can't be done should not interrupt those who are doing it.
-- Chinese proverb. [/QUOTE]Those who are doing something wrong should be interrupted by those who can do it right
-- English proberb

I *NEVER* stated that they served an outside power - I stated that they were picked because it was believed that they would instigate policies which the occupation authorities believed to be right - rather than that which the Iraqi populace wanted.

Remember, most of these people have been living in the US or Europe for ten to twenty years - and have become 'westernised' in their outlook. This is a gulf away from those that STAYED and remain 'Iraqi' in their opinions.

And those that STAYED, and FOUGHT the regime are naturally both more popular choices amongst the populace and more able to serve their needs and views.