Good News From Iraq: A Constitution!

Remove all ads!

A bit of a conundrum no? Not so easy to just say "mission accomplished," pull up stakes, and "let the Iraqis sort it out" when this sorting could easily be a civil war that makes the bloodshed up to this point look tame in comparison. I would agree with Juan Cole that one pragmatic solution might be to pull back the ground presence of coalition troops whenever possible in favor of the IP and ING, while maintaining the ability to provide significant air support when needed. Otherwise, it seems the "Sunni solution" (rather ominous choice of words) will require a careful balancing of politics and negotiation, as well as armed response, to separate those in the insurgency who can be reconciled with democracy from those who can't. And as Chandos points out, a suitably convincing Bill of Rights. It's hard to negotiate with a movement whose proposal is apparently the iron fisted rule of a minority.

And where I tend to disagree with Cole, who I always find valuable to read, is where he tries to compare the toll in lives in the insurgency with the toll in lives under the Baath party, as though that makes Baath rule not so bad. This seems to me to ignore that many of the civilian deaths have resulted from the Baathist insurgency, on one hand, and that, on the other, it's rather specious to equate what are frankly war conditions with other political conditions: like saying that slavery in the US wasn't bad because at least tens of thousands of people weren't dying every month or so in the Civil War...

But I can't help but think that the chronic incompetence of the Bush administration hasn't greatly aggravated the situation...

 

Providing air support is not a good idea. Thats how thousands of Iraqi civillians have been killed.

Best thing would be to to have support from other Muslim countries. All the foreigners will do is aggrivate people more (if thats even possible).

 

The problem in that would be actually persuading Arab League members to commit troops into what appears currently to be something of a failing state. It would also invite nationalist resentment on the part of Iraqis, and possible political maneuvering on the part of any states which were prepared to commit, which would not be welcomed.

The Arab League was more than willing to commit to a defensive strategy during the first Gulf War, but there's no current reason why it should become embroiled in Iraq currently, as it's interests are not directly threatened.

[ October 26, 2005, 15:40: Message edited by: Dranalis DeAealth ]

 

Yes, actually you are disputing the foundations of democracy. I not sure which part of "majority rule" you're not grasping.

Are you serious? There are always going to be minorities who reject an "entire framework of political debate," in a democracy. That is the nature of politics. Now, the political "process" is another matter. As Rally, points out, many in the minority refused to take part in the process. Many may see the American occupation as a taint on the process itself. One look at the document itself reveals that there are some problems, as I have already pointed out at the start of this thread.

As far as putting forth "an argument" in which there is a solution for a minority which spent the latter part of the 20th century oppressing the majority of the population, under a brutal tyrant, and are now blowing up innocent Iraqi people in the streets of their own country: Sorry, looks like you are in for a long wait. As someone who is interested to see if a real representative government can be achieved through a series political solutions in Iraq, (note: that I did not say it can be) I have little regard for the enemies of liberty.

 

I am disputing your bizzare assertions that an ethnic grouping as large as the Sunni community in Iraq can be ignored, and that Iraq can be considered a success as a result. Not even President Bush or Dr. Rice believes this; they at least want to enagage the Sunnis, even if that may be impossible for them to achieve.

The foundations of liberal democracy in the west is that all ethnic and religious groups within the polity should be enagaged with that polity; that they should have their rights protected to prevent mob rule on the part of the majority; and that all sections of the nation should work in relative harmony. You will note how sensitive we treat race relations in the west. If this is not the case, then you have a sub-par democracy or semi-democracy; something which is often called an "electoral democracy" in Political Science.

This is not about minority rule; I have never said it was, despite your totally unfounded assertions to the contrary. This is about having a minority which is politically active and works in harmony with other ethnic or religious groups within a society. This cannot possibly be considered to be the case today in Iraq.

You cannot - by definition - have stability, let alone a civil society or a political process which is anywhere near that in the west if this is not present.

I'm afraid I'm going to half to depart with you in your continued depiction of an entire ethnic grouping (In this case, Sunni Iraqi Arabs) as violent murderers with no legitimate political grievance. (Quite apart from whether or not this is against the rules of the forums, which I imagine it is, and which I may follow up if you continue in this vein. If this isn't against the rules, then it most certainly should be.)

[ October 26, 2005, 16:53: Message edited by: Dranalis DeAealth ]

 

Yes, and I addressed this in an earlier post. Those rights of the minority are crafted into the consititution itself.

If you wish to misinterpret my words in such a manner, then by all means feel free to "follow up." But please do not misrepresent my posts in an attempt to suit your own purposes.

 

Having a formal right in a constitution does not create a situation of engagement. Tolerance, peace, and stability cannot be created purely by amendment.

I can only, once again, quote what you said:

Bearing in mind that it has been plain from the start (And from the post of mine that you were responding to) that we have been talking about Sunnis as a community, and not individuals, when we refer to this "minority."

Sorry, but you labelled an entire group of people as murderers, by anyone's reading.

If this is not what you meant, then you have yet to provide any alternative explanation.

 

All right let's get basic then: The Sunni population had been represented by whom politcally before the invasion? You may refer to the Baath party as the Sunni community, in much the same way that any country is represented by its government. It is often repeated: The Americans invaded Iraq. Does that mean that all Americans invaded Iraq? I think not. The insurgents are believed to be hold-overs, in large part, by former members of the Baath party, which rpresented the Sunni population. And are still supporters of Saddam - yes, a brutal tyrant. One only has to regard the recent wave of violence that has swept Iraq this recent week, and the numbers of dead and wounded as a result of the insurgency, most of whom are innocent Iraqis. This is a blatant attempt to derail the shaping of a representative government, and a political solution from taking place in Iraq.

 

The US air support would only be there at the request of the Iraqi gov't. You know, the one that a large majority of the country voted for, and the one that is accepted as the legitimate gov't of Iraq by the UN, the Arab League, and every other country in the world. As soon as this gov't says the US and coalition should go, they'll be gone (and really they have no other choice). Cole's idea was to diffuse tensions by removing US presence as much as possible and as quickly as possible, handing the boots on the ground bit over to the IP and ING, and providing air support for those cases when the insurgency attempted to attack in force.

 

Once, again, this is a bizzare line of argumentation. On what basis do you state that the Sunni community is contiguous with the Baath Party? Quite apart from the fact that the Baathist regime was dictatorial and brutalised Kurds, Shia, Christians, Iranians, and, yes, Sunni alike.

Everyone is agreed on the fact that the Sunnis were the principal basis for the governing elite of Iraq which had ruled that country since establishment by the British. But to fail to make the difference between the likes of Saddam and the Sunni community as a whole, many of whom suffered just as violently under Saddam as the rest of Iraq - no, sorry, that goes way too far.

 

Dranalis - What's bizzare is your refusal to acknowledge the politcal automomy of any other group in Iraq other than the Sunnis. And what's also bizzare is your inability to acknowledge the tension between the religious and ethnic groups, which existed for decades in Iraq, and still does - and that there may actually be a politcal solution to the problem. In other words, a government and society based on the rule of law in which individual rights are protected. It's not about the "group" - but about the individual.

I can understand that some may not prefer a democratic solution, based on the one-man-one-vote principle of individual representation and personal liberty. Yet, despite your dislike of such a solution, there appears to be at least a majority of those in Iraq who are willing to work through a process that may give them greater political representation and, put an end to "group" mentality. And that the parchment barriers of a constitution can protect individual freedoms in a society of majority rule, which you have berated in your previous remarks.

The real problem is not with the Sunnis, despite the narrow focus of your argument, but with the constitution itself. Thusly, I would ask you to broaden your view a bit and take a look at the big picture, which is the sweeping generalizations made in the document itself, bordering on creating a theocracy. The consitution is full of contradictions, being both a statement of religious authority and at the same promoting individual rights and religious choice. That will be difficult.

 

The Sunnis are the A and the O of Iraq. And ironically, the only long-term viable partner that the occupying powers have. Even if the relationship seems to be a little bit tense between the Americans and the Sunnis. But I see absolutely no reason why it should be that way. (That does not mean I have not heard some reasons, I just don't think they were able to provide me with any further insight).

I don't see that anything has changed since Iraq was created from scratch by the British. The same geopolicital constraints as then bind the hands of involved parties now. Still three different nations are forced to live in one state. A state that never really worked in the 90 short years of its existence.

And obviously, there is no agreement among the three nations on how their amalgam country should look like and how it should work. Except, of course the agreement of the South and the North, that they want as little common country as possible. And keep their wealth to themselves and share as little as possible with "Iraq". It looks like this is the most likely outcome.

I fear this will lead to war in 10-15 years. If the South and the North keep their wealth to themselves, what will they do with it ? They will secede.

And what about the impoverished middle, that gets nothing from the prosperous north and south. How will this fast growing difference in wealth work out. And how will the impoverished Sunnis have anything to say in national-matters ?

A constitution that settles on the Sunnis as being the whipping boy can't be the foundation for a functioning country.

It would be better to create 3 countries now than wait until they create themeselves in a bloody way.

 

Well, I doubt if the prosperous north and south versus impoverished center situation is actually the case at this very moment, though it is the likely outcome if the center sees continued bloodshed and disruption of basic services while the south and especially the north prosper in comparison. And likely, many people from especially the urban center (such as riverbend) feel as though their quality of life has gone way down since the war (but then again, under Saddam, much of the wealth of the center of the country was drawn from resources extracted from the north and south, when it was the north and south that experienced bloodshed and disruption).

Not that any kind of payback through resourse starvation is at all justified; just pointing out that the center will be upset at any kind of federalism, because it means a scaling back of their privileged position administering Iraqi resources. Likely one of the big reasons Sunnis were more engaged in the political process this time around was the realization that the use of resources was still very much under negotiation. Even if the north and south have more local control over resources, Baghdad will still likely emerge as the financial and administrative center of Iraq, that is, if it can bring the security situation under control. For example, even though Houston is the center of alot of the US oil business, they make plenty of cash off of oil in NYC as well...

But I wonder in the first place why everyone assumes that oil resources will be the sole determining factor for whether a region in Iraq will be prosperous or not. It seems to me that oil is as much a curse as a blessing in the Middle East. Not only is it a cause of strife, but also oil wealth seems to bring with it corruption and governmental retardation.

Which is another reason to be upset at the Bush administration's abyssmal planning in Iraq. So excited to have a country under their control, they dismissed anything that seemed socialist in any way and went on with absurd plans for installing flat taxes and the like. It seems to me the only countries that have dealt well with oil wealth have at least partially socialized it: think of Norway, or even Alaska in the US. Imagine if each and every Iraqi had started recieving small checks in the mail as part of their share of the oil revenue. Wouldn't that have cut down on oil line sabotage? Sigh, only one of many, many lost opportunities...

 

Well, actually, "federalism" and "resource-administration" were explicitly not contained in the constitution and are postponed to be settled at another time. Everything the constitution contains are very vague allusions that it would be handled in a somewhat federalistic way, someday. That was the deal to get at least some Sunnis to vote, the remote chance that there would be some kind of a federalistic solution. The standpoint of the Shia and the Kurds is to make oil a state only matter, where federal institutions would have no business at all.

It is a given. Besides, everything else is quite impossible. Arabic countries don't do to well in manufacturing anyway. And it's not because they haven't tried like maniacs the last 80 years.

But anyway, what industry do you think could develop in the Sunni-part of the country and compete with the oil-wealth of the north and the south? It's more likely that the East-Germans outgrow Bavaria in the next 5 years, as that any place can keep up with the growth incredible oil-wealth can provide. The wealth difference between the middle and the rest of Iraq will fast become intolerable and if Bavarians get mad at having to pay for Germans, what do you think will the Kurds and Shia think about having to pay for Sunnis?

That is if not someone moves Silicon Valley to Bagdad, the... everything would be different.

As to resources. I think the worldwide correlation between wealth in resources and lack of stability and democracy is obvious and well-known. Resources under the ground bring with them a multidude of problems and wars. It seems like democracy is the privilege of watchmakers, while tyranny is the yoke of miners. Nigera and South-Africa are other examples.

But I think the Kurds used their wealth well. Oil-Smuggling made their economy and their democratic instutions thrive. And I am happy to know that they intent to use their oil-revenue to peacefully solve ethnical problems. They plan to reward arabs that leave Kirkuk for good with a substantial sum to start a new life somewhere else. That will make the transition from Kiruk via referendum back into Kurdish territority easier.

Anyway, the Kurds will settle for nothing less than freedom, which means an independent state of their own.

Been there, done that. All arabs socialise their oil wealth in that manner. That's why they have such high standards in education and healthcare and so forth. All 1st world level. Iraq peaked in that area in the 70's.

At least imo, oil rich countries never ever will accept anything else. The people are quite aware where the wealth comes from and that it's something coming from the ground and in someway belongs to all of them. All arab policies since the 50s focus on heavily investing in infrastructure and their own developement. They are all welfare state that focus on the happiness of their people. It's just sad that some ideas haven't turned out that well like they looked on paper. And cynically speaking, that makes them subjects so devote.

Actually, that's why most countries have nowadays such a good relationship with Iran. They wanted to invest more of their oil-revenue in their on developement, against the wishes of Anglo-Iranian
(BP). That was the beginning of a long quarrel.

And it's been the downfall of Saddam Hussein. Because he squandered all the state's money in his war with Iran. Money that Iraqis were expecting from him and he had to deliver it.

So, given the majority of Arabs think of it as simple common sense that the oil belongs somehow to the state and the state is obliged to invest it into the well-being of the citizens through direct payments or investments in exquisite infrastrucutre, like it's usus in all Arab countries and Iran... That makes the idea that they should not receive any checks any more look just way, way, way more