OT (Politics): The Iraqi Constitution [Archive] - Front Office Football Central

flere-imsaho

08-21-2005, 09:16 AM

I was trying to find an appropriate thread for this but there isn't one, really. So I thought I'd start a thread that we can update as the Constitution goes through its process (writing/voting/adoption/elections).

As most of you know, after missing the 8/15 deadline, the deadline was extended a week. For a good insight as to how the process has worked prior to the 8/15 deadline, I highly recommend reading/watching this (http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/july-dec05/constitution_8-16.html) from the Jim Lehrer Newshour. I know there will be some of you who will scream "PBS! Biased!", but I think this is an evenhanded piece, as it's essentially an interview with a guy who was acting, until a month ago, as a legal advisor to the process.

We also have this (http://za.today.reuters.com/news/NewsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2005-08-20T154947Z_01_ALL056860_RTRIDST_0_OZATP-IRAQ-20050820.XML), which is an update from today:

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - U.S. diplomats have conceded ground to Islamists on the role of religion in Iraq, negotiators said on Saturday as they raced to meet a 48-hour deadline to draft a constitution under intense U.S. pressure.

U.S. diplomats, who have insisted the constitution must enshrine ideals of equal rights and democracy, declined comment.

Shi'ite, Sunni and Kurdish negotiators all said there was accord on a bigger role for Islamic law than Iraq had before.

But a secular Kurdish politician said Kurds opposed making Islam "the", not "a", main source of law -- changing current wording -- and subjecting all legislation to a religious test.

"We understand the Americans have sided with the Shi'ites," he said. "It's shocking. It doesn't fit American values. They have spent so much blood and money here, only to back the creation of an Islamist state ... I can't believe that's what the Americans really want or what the American people want."

Washington, with 140,000 troops still in Iraq, has insisted Iraqis are free to govern themselves but made clear it will not approve the kind of clerical rule seen in Shi'ite Iran, a state U.S. President George W. Bush describes as "evil".

U.S. ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad has been guiding intensive meetings since parliament averted its own dissolution on Monday by giving constitution drafters another week to resolve crucial differences over regional autonomy and division of oil revenues.

Failing to finish by midnight on August 22 could provoke new elections and, effectively, a return to the drawing board for the entire constitutional process.

But a further extension may be more likely, as Washington insists the charter is key to its strategy to undermine the Sunni revolt and leave a new Iraqi government largely to fend for itself after U.S. troops go home.

An official of one of the main Shi'ite Islamist parties in the interim government confirmed the deal on law and Islam.

It was unclear what concessions the Shi'ites may have made, but it seemed possible their demands for Shi'ite autonomy in the oil-rich south, pressed this month by Islamist leader Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, may be watered down in the face of Sunni opposition.

"UNITY OF IRAQ"

Sunni Arab negotiator Saleh al-Mutlak also said a deal was struck which would mean parliament could pass no legislation that "contradicted Islamic principles". A constitutional court would rule on any dispute on that, the Shi'ite official said.

"The Americans agreed, but on one condition -- that the principles of democracy should be respected," Mutlak said.

"We reject federalism," he repeated, underlining continued Sunni opposition to Hakim's demands. Hundreds demonstrated in the Sunni city of Ramadi on Saturday, echoing Mutlak's views.

He urged Sunnis, dominant under Saddam Hussein but who have largely shunned politics and, in some cases, taken up arms in revolt, to vote in an October referendum to back a constitution.

Other Sunni leaders are also encouraging their followers to register for the referendum, in part to ensure they can block the constitution if they chose to oppose it down the road. If two-thirds of voters in at least three of Iraq's 18 provinces vote no in October's referendum, the constitution is rejected.

The Kurdish negotiator rushed to make clear his outrage at a deal on Islam: "We don't want dictatorship of any kind, including any religious dictatorship.

"Perhaps the Americans are negotiating to get a deal at any cost, but we will not accept a constitution at any cost," he said, adding that he believed Shi'ite leaders had used the precedent of Afghanistan to win the ambassador's support.

Khalilzad, who has said there will be "no compromise" on equal rights for women and minorities, helped draft a constitution in his native Afghanistan that declared it an "Islamic Republic" in which no law could contradict Islam.

It also, however, contained language establishing equal rights for women and protecting religious minorities.

LOCKED IN TALKS

About a dozen senior leaders, representing the Shi'ite Islamist-led government, secular Shi'ite former prime minister Iyad Allawi, Kurds and Sunnis, were in talks on Saturday.

Sunni leaders say they are resigned to the Kurds maintaining their current autonomy in the north -- though not to the Kurds extending their territory into the northern oilfields -- but said they would not tolerate an autonomous Shi'ite region.

Ethnic tensions in the northern oil city of Kirkuk spilled on to the streets on Saturday as hundreds of Arabs demonstrated against federalism -- code for Kurdish ambitions to annex Kirkuk -- and gunmen shot up the office of a Kurdish political party for the second time in a month, wounding three guards.

In Baghdad, a U.S. soldier was killed when his vehicle hit a roadside bomb. South of the capital, a tribal sheikh was kidnapped in the latest sign of tribal tensions. Many tribes cut across sectarian lines, with Sunni and Shi'ites members.

Emphasis mine (Bias!)

duckman

08-21-2005, 12:48 PM

Failing to finish by midnight on August 22 could provoke new elections and, effectively, a return to the drawing board for the entire constitutional process.

But a further extension may be more likely, as Washington insists the charter is key to its strategy to undermine the Sunni revolt and leave a new Iraqi government largely to fend for itself after U.S. troops go home.
You overlooked that portion.

Glengoyne

08-21-2005, 02:51 PM

I heard some time ago(NPR report) that if the Aug 15 dead line was missed, there was another deadline some six months down the road. Now I'm reading things like a failure now will result in new elections and such. I'm just not sure what the deal is now.

The Diplomat(IIRC) being interviewd said that the Aug 15 deadline was MUCH more important to the U.S. than the Iraqis. He thought the U.S. desire to move the process along would be incentive enough for the Iraqis.

flere-imsaho

08-22-2005, 04:35 PM

Maybe a New Constitution, Maybe Not (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/22/international/middleeast/22cnd-iraq.html?ei=5094&en=593e756db6d0d056&hp=&ex=1124769600&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print)

It's being reported that the Iraqis have agreed upon a new Constitution, but it seems to me there's a lot of details that say they haven't.

Bolded parts mine, for emphasis:

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Aug. 22 - Less than an hour before the deadline for finishing a new constitution, Iraqi leaders said tonight they had reached agreement on the document and were presenting it to Parliament.

"The constitution is finished," said the deputy speaker for the National Assembly, Hussein Shahrastani.

But officials said they would need another three days to resolve disagreements over three key issues: federalism, treatment of former Bath Party members, and the number of votes required to elect the prime minister and president. If the rival parties cannot come to an agreement in that time, each party would be free to take its own position on the constitution, said Hajim M. al-Hassani, the speaker of Parliament.

"Some questions need to be decided to carry out amendments," he told reporters after the agreement was reached.

The announcement of the agreement narrowly beat the midnight deadline that would have brought about the dissolution of the National Assembly.

A succession of senior Iraqi leaders arrived at the convention center for the presentation of the constitution, including Ibrahim al-Jaafari, the prime minister, Massoud Barzani, the leader of the Kurdistan Democratic Party, and Ayad Allawi, the former prime minister. The American ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, was also in attendance.

"They want to take three more days to see if they can build consensus and near consensus on the constitution," Mr. Khalilzad said on CNN.

Asked whether the draft would be approved, Mr. Jaafari said "God willing."

Negotiators working toward the final draft were being held up by four issues as they approached the deadline, which had already been extended once. Sunnis were basically shut out of the process for the last week and presented the document late in the day.

The first issue was that the alliance of Kurds and clerical Shiites wanted a de-Baathification clause that would limit the level of position that could be attained by members of the Baath party. This was opposed by a group of Sunni Arabs and members of the secular Iraq List headed by the former prime minister Ayad Allawi.

Two Federalism issues were also being contended. The Sunnis and the Allawi group were pressing for a two-thirds majority vote as being necessary for people to join together in a federal state. And they wanted to limit to three the number of current provinces that could join together.

Finally, the Sunnis and the Iraq List wanted to establish a two-thirds majority vote for approval of a prime minister and the presidency. The push for the two-thirds votes was a concession by the Sunnis that the Shiite-Kurd coalition had such an advantage in numbers that they could easily achieve a majority vote.

On Sunday negotiators said they had agreed on a formula to share Iraq's oil wealth, which had been one of the most difficult issues. The agreement was being shepherded with the help of American officials, and especially Mr. Khalilzad. After more than 12 hours of talks on Sunday, an American official said a deal was almost in hand.

"It looks like all the major issues are resolved, and we hope tomorrow we will work out the remaining details," said the American official, who, because of the diplomatic delicacy, spoke on condition of anonymity.

The potentially intractable problem in the process was the disaffection of Sunni leaders, who had been largely excluded from the deliberations during the past week. The constitution has been written almost entirely by Shiite and Kurdish leaders, who said they had decided to leave the Sunnis out because they were being too inflexible.

The support of the Sunni leaders was not necessary to complete the constitution. Because the Sunni community largely boycotted the election in January, it has only a handful of legislators in the 275-member National Assembly, which has authority to approve the document.

On Sunday, Sunni leaders complained of being locked out of the drafting process. They demanded that they be included and, if they were not, that the constitution be defeated.

"There is still no active and serious coordination so far," 15 Sunni leaders said in a joint statement. "This constitution needs to be written by consensus, not simply a majority vote."

Still, the agreement of the Sunni participants was viewed as crucial in helping to placate the larger Sunni Arab population, which formed the backbone of support for Saddam Hussein's government and provides the bulk of the manpower for the guerrilla insurgency. Sunni Arabs make up about 20 percent of Iraq's population.

The Shiites and the Kurds had said they would consider Sunni views, but they said they would only bend so far to accommodate them.

The Sunnis, for instance, have been adamant in their opposition to granting autonomy to the Shiite-majority areas. Leaders of the Shiites, who make up about 60 percent of Iraq's population, are pressing for the establishment of an autonomous region in southern Iraq. The region would consist of 9 of Iraq's 18 provinces and contain its richest oil fields.

Sunni leaders argued that granting autonomy to the Shiites, along with the Kurds, who already have it, could cripple the Iraqi state.

Shiite and Kurdish leaders had said they intended to include language in the constitution that would allow individual provinces to vote on autonomy. But they said they were discussing a compromise that could make the idea more palatable to the Sunnis.

Ahmad Chalabi, the deputy prime minister, said Shiite and Kurdish leaders were discussing language that would limit the size of autonomous regions to three provinces each. "The idea is to satisfy the Sunnis so they don't go berserk," Mr. Chalabi said in an interview at his home in Baghdad. "They are afraid of a super-Shia region."

But Mr. Chalabi, who is a Shiite, warned that the Shiites and the Kurds would not compromise on their desire for autonomous regions, even if the Sunnis withdrew their support.

"How many votes have they got?" he said of the Sunnis. "The majority of Iraqis want federalism."

Mr. Chalabi and other Iraqi leaders said they had agreed to a formula to share Iraq's oil and gas wealth, which provides the bulk of the government's revenue. Under the agreement, money earned from oil and gas deposits would be shared among the provinces according to population.

The central government would control the oil and gas extracted from existing fields, and regional governments would be allowed to control fields that are not currently being worked.

The control of oil is considered critical to the future of the Iraqi state, in part because most of the country's known deposits exist in southern Iraq, where the Shiites predominate, and in northern Iraq, the home of the Kurds. For the most part, Sunni Arabs do not inhabit regions known to contain much oil.

The way I read this indicates that the Kurds & Shiites have been able to agree on wording that suits both of their sides, and have left the Sunnis out of the process, as they arguably don't need their votes anyway. I hope this isn't the end of the story, because I rather doubt it will end the Sunni insurgency.

Dutch

08-22-2005, 05:33 PM

I hope this isn't the end of the story, because I rather doubt it will end the Sunni insurgency.

I seriously doubt the Sunni terror-insurgency (that blows up mosques, hospitals, police stations, women, and children) could give a flying fuck about anything Democracy related. But maybe that's just me.

ISiddiqui

08-22-2005, 05:37 PM

Warhammer

08-22-2005, 07:00 PM

duckman

08-22-2005, 07:13 PM

I always thought the idea of setting a deadline for having a constitution was absurd. Did we have one when we were debating ours? Let it take as long as it takes for the Iraqis to decide what they want.
My understanding of all this is the deadline is for parliament to approve the document. If they cannot vote on it in the time allotted, they're suppose to have new elections. It would delay the entire process if it came to that. However, they group writing the document has all the time they need to complete.

I hope that makes sense. :)

Dutch

08-22-2005, 07:58 PM

But there is no better to get more Sunni's backing the insurgency than if there is strong federalism in the Iraqi Constitution... because, quite frankly, all the good land in Iraq is under the Kurdish and Shia areas.

They should blow up some random people to really show they are disgusted by the whole process of losing their iron grip over the Shia and Kurds. It's all they know.

Jesse_Ewiak

08-22-2005, 10:09 PM

Hmm....this (http://www.juancole.com/2005/08/islamic-law-primary-in-iraqi.html) doesn't sound good.

An agreement was reached that Islam is the religion of state, and that no law shall be enacted that contradicts the agreed-upon essential verities of Islam. Likewise, the inviolability of the highest [Shiite] religious authorities in the land is safeguarded, without any allusion to a detailed description . . . A Higher Council will be formed to review new legislation to ensure it does not contravene the essential verities of the Islamic religion.

Sounds like a rip-off of the Council of Guardians -- the Iranian body charged with reviewing all laws passed by the Iranian parliament, the Majlis, to make sure they are consistent with the officially approved Iranian brand of Shi'a fundamentalism.

Also, it (http://za.today.reuters.com/news/NewsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2005-08-20T154947Z_01_ALL056860_RTRIDST_0_OZATP-IRAQ-20050820.XML) seems we've sold the concept of a democratic republic down the river along with equal rights for women. But hey, we're bringing freedom...as long as you're a fundamentalist Shiite.

ISiddiqui

08-22-2005, 10:14 PM

Not surprising, considering the Shiites are mostly in charge right now. It goes to figure they'd want an Iranian style government, complete with a higher council and less rights for women.

amdaily

08-23-2005, 07:36 AM

Upon hearing that we've created Iran Jr.,and supported it for our own expediant political purposes, angers me to no end. I'm ready to come home too. Iraq will be a breeding ground for terror in the years to come, so it makes no difference if we leave now or "when the job is finished."

ISiddiqui

08-23-2005, 07:48 AM

Interesting... one of the reasons they delayed the vote is because the Sunni's actually threatened civil war (rather than implied it).

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7374-1746919,00.html

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=305 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=305 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top>

Sunnis threaten civil war as Iraq constitution deadline extended
From Catherine Philp in Baghdad

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR><TR><TD height=5>http://images.thetimes.co.uk/images/trans.gif</TD></TR><TR><TD><TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=305 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=top>IN A dramatic midnight turnaround, Iraq’s ruling Shia pulled back from threats to force the new constitution through parliament, putting off a vote to buy more time to win over Sunni Arabs who had threatened civil war if it was passed.

Shia and Kurdish leaders had agreed to a draft constitution laying out plans for a federal system that would transform the Iraqi state into a loose federation of regions with a weak central government.

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 align=right border=0 VALIGN="TOP"><TBODY><TR><TD id=mpuHeader name="mpuHeader"></TD></TR><TR align=right><TD align=right><SCRIPT type=text/javascript>NI_MPU('middle');</SCRIPT></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>Sunni leaders reacted with fury at the proposition, claiming that it would inflame the insurgency and trigger civil war and vowed to defeat the charter at a national referendum later this year unless demands for federalism were dropped.

But Shia leaders, determined not to miss the deadline, presented the draft to parliament minutes before midnight. To loud applause, the speaker announced that the deadline had been met. Then to stunned confusion, he dismissed parliament without a vote, calling for three more days of talks between political leaders. But as the events of the evening sank in, it remained unclear what could be done to win over the recalcitrant Sunnis.

Moments after parliament was adjourned, Sunnis issued a statement rejecting the draft because a consensus had not been reached. “If it passes, there will be an uprising in the streets,” Saleh al-Mutlak, a senior Sunni negotiator, said. He added that further blockage of a deal could trigger elections to a new interim assembly, a scenario that most parties — particularly the Shias — wish to avoid.

Even after printing their final draft, Shia and Kurd leaders had continued trying to win over the Sunnis, but officials said the sticking points had been federalism, the mechanism for allowing regions to devolve and deBaathification — the banning of former regime figures from public office.

Sunnis vehemently opposed attempts by the Shias and the Kurds to carve out their own powerful federal regions, fearing they could be left high and dry while the oil-rich North and South go their own way. They also fear that deBaathification could keep their minority out of official positions.

The new delay will come as a bitter disappointment to Washington, which had exerted heavy pressure on the factions to reach an agreement and dropped its opposition to a strong role for Islam, leading to accusations of a sell-out. The Bush Administration badly needs to demonstrate political progress in Iraq to counter growing domestic opposition to the costly military occupation.

The Administration hoped that involving Iraq’s Sunni minority in the constitutional drafting process would help to bring it back into the political mainstream and sap the violent insurgency.

But that prospect looked remote last night as Sunnis threatened to derail the draft constitution should it make it through parliament with the issues of contention unchanged. “All the history of Iraq’s problems is contained in this constitution — racism, sectarianism and secession,” Hussein Shukur al-Falluji, a Sunni delegate, said. “If they pass this constitution, then the rebellion will reach its peak.”

“We will not be silent,” Soha Allawi, another Sunni Arab member of the drafting committee, said. “We will campaign to tell both Sunnis and Shias to reject the constitution, which has elements that will lead to the break up of Iraq and civil war.”

The Shias would have faced little difficulty ramming the constitution through a parliament they control, but almost certainly backed off because the Sunnis could defeat the draft in October’s scheduled referendum. If two thirds of voters in at least three provinces reject the document, the constitution will fail. The Sunnis have such a majority in three provinces and have started a vigorous “no” campaign.

The draft was also said to reflect a Kurdish and American compromise over Islamic law. “Islam is a main source for legislation and it is not permitted to legislate anything that conflicts with the fixed principles of the rules of Islam,” it read.

But it also apparently insists that all laws must respect “democracy and human rights”, a phrase insisted on by America.

Kurdish leaders said that they backed the agreement, saying that the provision on federalism was enough to satisfy their demands for guarantees that they would retain the broad autonomy they already have in the North. The Kurds and the Shias also agreed to distribute Iraq’s oil and other natural wealth “according to the needs” of the central Government and the provinces. The status of the oil-rich city of Kirkuk will be determined by the end of 2007. Last night’s deadline was the second after negotiators failed to agree last week, to the disappointment of the Americans. Parliament then voted to extend deliberations by a week.

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

flere-imsaho

08-23-2005, 08:35 AM

This is good stuff: (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8926876/)

Actually, I'm not terribly worried about this. I mean, one hopes that the Iraqis protect women's social rights as much as possible. It certainly seems clear that in protecting the political rights, there's no discussion of women not having the right to vote. I think it's important to remember that in the year 1900, for example, in the United States, it was a democracy then. In 1900, women did not have the right to vote. If Iraqis could develop a democracy that resembled America in the 1900s, I think we'd all be thrilled. I mean, women's social rights are not critical to the evolution of democracy. We hope they're there. I think they will be there. But I think we need to put this into perspective.

- Reuel Marc Gerecht, a former ME analyst for the CIA. I hope his views aren't shared by the administration.

ISiddiqui

08-23-2005, 08:44 AM

Jesus... he can't be serious... can he?

flere-imsaho

08-23-2005, 08:53 AM

I'm sure he is. It's all a part of "managing expectations" now that it's clear that the "grand mission" of creating a democracy in Iraq isn't going to turn out.

For instance, from the same interview (Meet the Press, linked above):

MR. GREGORY: The role of Islam, of course, is a critical issue. And Tim Russert, during an interview with President Bush, asked him about this in February of last year. Let's watch that.

(Videotape, February 8, 2004):

MR. TIM RUSSERT: If the Iraqis choose, however, an Islamic extremist regime, would you accept that, and would that be better for the United States than Saddam Hussein?

PRES. BUSH: They're not going to develop that. And the reason I can say that is because I am very aware of this basic law they're writing. They're not going to develop that, because right here in the Oval Office, I sat down with Mr. Pachachi and Chalabi and al-Hakim, people from different parts of the country that have made the firm commitment that they want a constitution eventually written that recognizes minority rights and freedom of religion.

(End videotape)

MR. GREGORY: Fast forward to this morning. Gentlemen, we put this on the screen from The New York Times. "[American ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay] Khalilzad had backed language [in the constitution] that would have given clerics sole authority in settling marriage and family disputes. That gave rise to concerns that women's rights, as they are annunciated in Iraq's existing laws, could be curtailed. ... [The[ arrangement, coupled with the expansive language for Islam, prompted accusations from [a Kurdish leader] that the Americans were helping in the formation of an Islamic state."

Mr. Diamond, is that a change of position?

MR. DIAMOND: It would be, I think, a substantial change if it's true. We need to wait and see what exactly is true. All of these are just reports. Let me say, I don't think we have--and I think Reuel would agree with this--we don't have the power anymore to foreclose this, to veto this. We're not a veto player there anymore. But neither do I think the United States should be endorsing it. And I think our clear stand should be in favor of individual rights and freedoms, including religious freedom, as vigorously as possible. So I hope the ambassador on the ground is standing up for that principle.

BrianD

08-23-2005, 08:55 AM

Jesus... he can't be serious... can he?

Considering the way things are heading now, his plan is probably better than anything they can hope for.

flere-imsaho

08-23-2005, 08:58 AM

Here's a question, though: Was this sectarian divide inevitable? Could we have done things differently to get a more "democratic" Iraq after all of our hard work in "liberating" that country?

BrianD

08-23-2005, 09:02 AM

Here's a question, though: Was this sectarian divide inevitable? Could we have done things differently to get a more "democratic" Iraq after all of our hard work in "liberating" that country?

Yes. No.

It doesn't seem like the Iraqis ever wanted a democracy. I think they wanted to be out from under Saddam's rule, but I don't think they wanted a democracy.

Klinglerware

08-23-2005, 09:03 AM

Jesus... he can't be serious... can he?

Well, although he is affiliated with the AEI, I tend to respect the analytic integrity of the analytics side of the CIA (separate from the covert/special ops side, of course).

This guy was probably offering this sobering assesment for years--hell, I'm sure the Bush administration had been ignoring him too, since what he's been saying runs counter to what the administration has been believing.

duckman

08-23-2005, 09:06 AM

I think the Sunnis want to force re-election because they failed to be a part of the first national elections. The Sunnis have shown up in record number the past few weeks to register for another election. Strategically, it is a sound plan since that would give them more say in parliament. The Kurds and Shiites would have no choice but to give concessions to the minority in order to see the constitution become a reality.

ISiddiqui

08-23-2005, 09:11 AM

Well, although he is affiliated with the AEI, I tend to respect the analytic integrity of the analytics side of the CIA (separate from the covert/special ops side, of course).

This guy was probably offering this sobering assesment for years--hell, I'm sure the Bush administration had been ignoring him too, since what he's been saying runs counter to what the administration has been believing.
Yes, but a "democracy" without womens' social rights is just a recipe for disaster. Iraq will have regressed on the issue of womens' rights. And unlike the US in 1900, I don't think Iraqi women will have the right to vote within 25 years.

NoMyths

08-23-2005, 09:17 AM

FREEDOM IS ON THE MARCH! unless you're a woman

Klinglerware

08-23-2005, 09:41 AM

Yes, but a "democracy" without womens' social rights is just a recipe for disaster. Iraq will have regressed on the issue of womens' rights.

That's pretty ironic, don't you think? The choice in Iraq was between a secular authoritarian regime and an Islamist democracy (ala Iran). A liberal democracy might have been too much to ask for, since democracy technically only implies "rule by the people"--if democracy is truly respected, the people will decide what form their government will take. Unfortunately from the US perspective, the majority appears to not really mind Islamist rule of law.

If I were in the secular Sunni minority, I certainly would be concerned that my right to drink Johnny Walker Black (the unofficial city beverage of Baghdad, during Saddam-era Iraq) will be infringed.

Finally, women do have the right to vote and hold office in Iran.

HomerJSimpson

08-23-2005, 10:06 AM

BrianD

08-23-2005, 10:09 AM

Dutch

08-23-2005, 12:01 PM

Shouldn't that read that the failed to *take* part in the first elections? Wasn't there a mass Sunni boycot of the first election?

Correct. You can't bomb voters because you hate democracy and vote...at least not on the same day.

flere-imsaho

08-26-2005, 08:25 AM

The Iraqis missed the second deadline this past Monday, after all. The process seems to be a bit in limbo with negotiators saying "just a few more days" to try to get the Sunnis on board. However, it doesn't seem terribly hopeful, as the Sunnis are rejecting the notion of federalism, which would favor the Shiites & Kurds who, due to their numbers, stand to control most of the government through elections.

The key question now is whether or not the Shiite-Kurd group will simply bypass the step of having the Constitution approved by parliament, and send it to a national referendum instead. In this scenario, Sunnis have vowed to vote against the Constitution, but given that they only make up 20% of the population at best, it's unclear what they could do (through normal political channels) to stop the adoption of the Constitution.

OK, that was the objective part, taken from various news sources (frankly, just go to Google News and start reading).

Subjectively I'd say that right now things look pretty bleak. The two sides are deadlocked on the issue and neither's given ground for ages. If the Shiites & Kurds send the Constitution to a referendum the Sunnis plan to boycott the vote and/or vote against it. But it'll get passed anyway, due to numbers. What, then, do the Sunnis do?

Also, the Constitution, as it stands now, is still along the lines of "Iran, Jr." It's now very unlikely we'll end up with a democracy in Iraq.

ISiddiqui

08-26-2005, 10:30 AM

Yikes... bad news all around flere. I didn't have high hopes, but now it almost seems a civil war is inevitable. This is not going to end well at all.

Glengoyne

08-26-2005, 10:38 AM

There is a provision that if three of the Iraqi provinces vote against the constitution by two-thirds or maybe 75% , then the constitution has been vetoed by the people. I don't think there is a way to avoid that measure, and I also understand that there are a half dozen of these provinces that are Sunni dominated. If the Shia and Kurds don't play ball to some degree, and accord the Sunnis some protections, then the Sunnis have some cards to play at the negotiation table.

Also, rather than declare this Iran jr., I'm wondering why people aren't pointing to these developments, and declaring that Iraq is becoming Afghanistan Jr. As I understand it the language regarding no law that violates "Islam" comes straight from the new Afghanistan Constitution.

I haven't seen the bit quoted by Jesse E. describing the accordance of inviolability to select religious leaders, nor that a higher council would be approving laws. I have heard something about a council of judges that would adjudicate disputes about laws and Islam. This could be the same thing, but it might not.

I guess my point is, why declare now that we are creating another Iran, when this may really be closer to Afghanistan. As I understand it Afghanistan has formed itself into an Islamic state, but sort of an Islamic state light. I'm disappointed in the way this looks like its going, but I really don't think we have a very good picture right now what is actually happening. For me, I'm thinking I'll reserve judgement for the time being.

flere-imsaho

08-26-2005, 11:14 AM

Update: (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/26/international/middleeast/26iraq.html?ei=5094&en=36a4a823e1bedaa9&hp=&ex=1125115200&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print)

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Aug. 25 - Talks over the Iraqi constitution reached a breaking point on Thursday, with a parliamentary session to present the document being canceled and President Bush personally calling one of the country's most powerful Shiite leaders in an effort to broker a last-minute deal.

Mr. Bush intervened when some senior Shiite leaders said they had decided to bypass their Sunni counterparts, as well as Iraqi lawmakers, and send the document directly to Iraqi voters for their approval.

The calls by Shiite leaders to ignore the Sunnis' request for changes to the draft constitution provoked threats from the Sunnis that they would urge their people to reject the document when it goes before voters in a national referendum in October.

At day's end, American officials in Washington declared that the Iraqis had made "substantial and real progress" toward a deal on the constitution. And senior Iraqi leaders said they would make a last-ditch effort on Friday to strike a deal.

But after so many days of fruitless negotiations, some senior political leaders here suggested that time had run out.

"There are still some negotiations, but if we don't have any compromise, then that's it," said Sheik Khalid al-Atiyya, a Shiite negotiator. "We will go to the election to vote on it."

A decision by the Shiites to move ahead without the Sunnis would be a considerable blow to efforts by the Bush administration to bring the leaders of the Sunni minority into the negotiations over the constitution.

Mr. Bush and American officials here have expressed hope that bringing the Sunnis into the drafting of the constitution could help coax them into the political mainstream, and ultimately begin to undercut support for the guerrilla insurgency. The Sunnis largely boycotted the parliamentary elections in January.

In recent weeks, Sunni leaders across north and central Iraq have begun telling their communities to register for and vote in the Oct. 15 referendum on the constitution and in the parliamentary elections scheduled for December. That trend could be endangered if Sunni leaders are not part of a deal on the constitution.

Indeed, the events of Thursday raised the prospect that the Sunnis would try to reject the constitution when it goes before the voters. Under the rules agreed to last year, a two-thirds majority voting against the constitution in any three of Iraq's 18 provinces would send the document down to defeat. The Sunnis are thought to constitute a majority in three provinces.

By Thursday night, Sunni leaders were declaring that they had been victimized by the majority Shiites, and they were already making plans to sink the constitution at the polls.

"We will call on people to say no to this constitution," said Kamal Hamdoun, a Sunni leader who is head of the Iraqi Bar Association. "This constitution was written by the powerful people, not by the people."

"This constitution achieved the ambitions of the people who are in power," he added.

The Sunni leaders adamantly oppose language in the constitution that could allow the Shiites to create a vast autonomous region in the oil-rich southern part of the country. In the current draft, the constitution says each province may form its own federal region and join with others.

In the debate over autonomous regions, the Kurds, who already have one such region in the north, largely stood on the sidelines. But the Sunnis say that such an arrangement could cripple the Iraqi state, and that the Shiite autonomous region would probably fall under the sway of their Shiite-dominated neighbor, Iran.

Despites their protests, there are widespread doubts about the sincerity of the Sunni negotiators. Most of the 15 members of the Sunni negotiating committee were members of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party, and there is a growing sense among Shiite leaders that their primary goal is to block any agreement at all.

In any case, the Shiite leadership has been ardent in its desire to set up a Shiite-dominated autonomous region, particularly Abdul Aziz Hakim, a cleric and the leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq. As advocated by Mr. Hakim, the Shiite region would comprise nine of Iraq's 18 provinces, nearly half the nation's population and its richest oil fields.

Mr. Hakim and many of the senior members of his group, the Supreme Council, lived for many years in Iran and even fought on the Iranian side during the Iran-Iraq war in the 1980's. The Supreme Council is suspected by American officials of receiving large amounts of assistance from the Iranian government.

The effort by the Shiites to bypass the Sunnis began Thursday afternoon, when they canceled a meeting of the Iraqi National Assembly, which was set to gather, and possibly vote, on the final draft constitution. While many Iraqi leaders first interpreted that decision as simply a delay, the Shiites made it clear that they were considering bypassing the Assembly altogether and of forgoing any further changes to the document.

Because the majority Shiites dominate the National Assembly, there is little the Sunnis can do to stop them from writing whatever constitution they choose.

The concern that a deal on the constitution was falling apart appeared to have to prompted Mr. Bush to call Mr. Hakim to urge a comprise. One Iraqi official, who was not authorized to speak publicly, said the Americans, who have already expressed their frustration with the Sunnis, have recently become irritated with what they regard as the stubbornness of the Shiites as well.

"The Americans are very angry that the Shia are not agreeing on this," the Iraqi official said. "They really want them to make these concessions to the Sunnis to keep them on board."

"They think that without keeping the Sunnis on board, many things will go wrong, including the security," the official said.

The other outstanding issue was whether the constitution would contain language banning any remnants or symbols of the Baath Party, which was dominated by Sunnis. The Sunnis are concerned that this may lead to their exclusion from government jobs and that they will be unfairly discriminated against in public life.

While some Iraqi leaders expressed hope that more negotiations would produce a breakthrough, there was also evidence that the more they talked, the more the distance between them grew.

When the negotiations began Thursday morning, Sunnis came in with an ambitious list of demands on issues like federalism and de-Baathification, both of which they ardently oppose and would like to excise from the constitution.

As the day wore on, no breakthrough materialized. "We discussed all the articles that we have a problem with, but we didn't find any solution," said Haseeb Aref, one of the Sunni negotiators.

Meanwhile, some of the Sunnis maintained that after all the missed deadlines, the current government had lost its own legal standing.

Under the language of the interim constitution currently in force, the National Assembly is required to dissolve itself if it does not complete a new constitution by the deadline, unless it amends the constitution. It failed to do either one of those on Thursday.

"The process was illegal," said Kamal Hamdoun, the Sunni member of the committee. "They don't have a right to extend."

At a news briefing late Thursday evening, Hachem al-Hassani, the speaker of the National Assembly, felt compelled to respond to those allegations. He said he believed that the assembly had proceeded strictly according to the law.

As common ground fell away, leaders of the majority Shiites expressed confidence that the Sunnis would fail to muster the necessary two-thirds majority in three provinces to sink the constitution.

Ordinary Sunnis, said Ali al-Dabbagh, a Shiite leader, "do not all have the same views and the same ideas." As a result, he said, opponents of the constitution "will not get 'no' in the referendum."

Mr. Hassani, a secular Sunni who has supported the Shiite leaders, expressed hope that the talks on Friday would produce the compromise that has eluded negotiators so far.

"We think the door is still open to find a solution," Mr. Hassani said.

-Mojo Jojo-

08-28-2005, 11:31 AM

Train-wreck in progress:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/28/AR2005082800268.html

BAGHDAD, Aug. 28 -- Shiite Muslim and Kurdish negotiators formally signed Iraq's new draft constitution Sunday, moving it toward a national vote over the strong objections of some Sunni Arabs in the talks, who rejected a final draft.

"I want to congratulate our people who struggled against dictatorship for democracy and freedom," said President Jalal Talabani, officially concluding the phase of writing the constitution and committing it to a referendum to be held Oct. 15.

"This constitution is a first of its kind written by representatives of important Iraqi factions," he added, a point noted by other speakers. But Sunnis afterward expressed no support for the draft charter.

Talabani spoke from his house in the Green Zone, with most of the constitution-writing committee, U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalizad and other officials in attendance.

Mishan Jabouri, a Sunni member of the National Assembly who was not on the constitution committee, called the process "a nice show for the president of the United Stats as he wakes up now, but for us it was very bad. I came today [due to] pressure from parts of the government. They tried to show even the Arab Sunnis are here, but we come here to cry, not to be happy."

Dutch

08-28-2005, 01:14 PM

I hope it's not a bad thing for them to have democracy.

duckman

08-28-2005, 01:25 PM

Glengoyne

08-28-2005, 02:57 PM

It's pretty obvious that the new constitution will be rejected in the October 15th election. The Sunnis have control of at least four of the provinces and they only need three to stop ratification.

It'll be rejected and new elections will happen in January. The process will start over again. It sucks, but at least the Sunnis will have a bigger voice in the new constitutional convention. I rather it be fair to all sides, so no one can have an excuse and the doom and gloom people will quit with the whole spiel of "another Iran".

...
I'm actually hoping you are right about that. I was hoping that there would be a concensus to include individual and religious freedoms in the Constitution. To be honest, I had felt that the agreement had to include those principles to be considered a success. Beyond that, the issue of Federalism versus a more centralized government would be the next hurdle. When I'd first heard that three provinces could essentially veto the constitution I had very high hopes that the Constitution would include these bare essentials. At that time I had misunderstood the process, and thought that the delegates of three provinces could "veto" a proposed draft. I didn't realize it would require an election.

If the Sunnis can't defeat this Constitutional "draft" at the polls, then this is a fairly significant blow to what the President has declared he is doing in Iraq. Namely delivering democracy and freedom to the people of Iraq. It is true that they are choosing to go down this path on their own, but I think that an agreement that slights the Sunnis puts the whole process in jeopardy.

flere-imsaho

08-29-2005, 05:44 PM

I
It'll be rejected and new elections will happen in January. The process will start over again. It sucks, but at least the Sunnis will have a bigger voice in the new constitutional convention.

Will they? You're assuming that the Shiites & Kurds will react to what they'll see as "Sunni obstructionism" with a magnimity that will cause them to accede to Sunni demands. Now, I'm not saying they won't, in this scenario, still come to some agreement. I'm just saying that we need to be realistic here.

People forget it wasn't a quick process when we developed our own constitution.

I'm not sure if I like this comparison. Comparing the situation of the Iraqis to people who lived over 200 years ago doesn't seem like a fair comparison. Is a better comparison the writing of the Russian constitution? How long did that take?

st.cronin

08-29-2005, 06:03 PM

flere-imsaho

08-29-2005, 06:12 PM

Is it true that the Sunnis are mainly objecting to language that condemns the previous regime? If that's the case, were I an Iraqi I'd be telling the Sunnis to go f*** themselves. Given all the slaughter of innocents committed by the Sunnis, that's pretty much my position anyway...

I think you may have heard that incorrectly. I know the Sunnis were objecting to provisions in the constitution that barred former Baath party members from government posts. I believe they argued that the language of this particular part was too restrictive. Basically, the language was along the lines of even if you had only been a Baath party member for a day, you can't even be a dogcatcher in the new Iraq (only with Iraqi equivalents ;) ).

The bigger issue they had was federalism and, more specifically, the creation of a Shiite super-state in the oil-rich south. Both were clear attempts by the Shiites to marginalize the Sunnis through the political process, post-constitution. Essentially Iraqi gerrymandering.

Some of these things (with the U.S. equivalents), of course, basically even happen in the States when one party gets enough control over the legislature (be it Congress or a state legislature). The difference here is that the approval process (i.e. the nationwide vote) effectively gives the Sunnis a veto.

ISiddiqui

08-29-2005, 06:15 PM

I believe most Sunnis are also against a Iran-ification of Iraq. The Ba'ath Party (Sunni led) were very modern in their view and not very religious. Though not all Sunni's, of course (like Sadr).

Klinglerware

08-29-2005, 06:16 PM

If that's the case, were I an Iraqi I'd be telling the Sunnis to go f*** themselves.

Unfortunately, that attitude runs counter to the reality that Iraq is a multicultural state that will likely fall apart unless some semblance of multi-ethnic cooperation materializes...

Dutch

08-29-2005, 06:17 PM

The Sunni's must have run out of bombs to be this interested in multi-ethnic cooperation.

Klinglerware

08-29-2005, 06:18 PM

I believe most Sunnis are also against a Iran-ification of Iraq. The Ba'ath Party (Sunni led) were very modern in their view and not very religious. Though not all Sunni's, of course (like Sadr).

Sadr is a Shiite, actually...

Klinglerware

08-29-2005, 06:26 PM

The Sunni's must have run out of bombs to be this interested in multi-ethnic cooperation.

Both Sunni and Shiite groups have led insurrections against the occupation. The Kurds of course have their own terrorist organizations (PKK, etc). No ethnic group has a monopoly on violence in Iraq...

st.cronin

08-29-2005, 06:27 PM

Unfortunately, that attitude runs counter to the reality that Iraq is a multicultural state that will likely fall apart unless some semblance of multi-ethnic cooperation materializes...

Well, Sunnis and Shiites are different neither ethnically or culturally (except in a very limited sense). It is true that historically they have competed for power within the Islamic world. It appears to me (albeit through the lens of the western media, and with only limited historical perspective) that the Sunnis in Iraq have not embraced the concept of rule of law. They keep storming out of various meetings and votes, they boycotted the first election (what was the point of that, exactly), etc.

flere-imsaho

08-29-2005, 06:27 PM

Sadr is a Shiite, actually...

Yes. To speak in broad generalizations:

Sunnis: In power under Saddam, many members were a part of his ruling Baath party. Eschewed fundamentalism for secularism, hate Iranians particularly. A minority in Iraq. A great many Baath party members were, of course, corrupt murderers.

Shiites: The largest demographic group in Iraq. Oppressed under Saddam, often tortured and killed. As a group, have a tendency towards fundamentalism, much of which is found in the constitution. Generally agreeable towards Iran (who no doubt funded many Shiite anti-Saddam movements).

Kurds: Large demographic group mostly based in the north. Repeatedly oppressed and murdered by Saddam, often using genocidal means. Could mostly give or take being a part of Iraq, and have used their demographic strength to wring from the Shiites a part of the constitution that more-or-less guarantees them a semi-autonomous region in the north. This upsets the Turks.

flere-imsaho

08-29-2005, 06:31 PM

Well, Sunnis and Shiites are different neither ethnically or culturally (except in a very limited sense).

Arguably, neither are Catholics and Protestants, but look at Northern Ireland. Anyway, Sunnis & Shiites feel very different from each other, and in this situation, it's their perceptions, not actual objective truth, which is what matters.

It appears to me (albeit through the lens of the western media, and with only limited historical perspective) that the Sunnis in Iraq have not embraced the concept of rule of law. They keep storming out of various meetings and votes, they boycotted the first election (what was the point of that, exactly), etc.

I refer you to the Republicans in Washington State (vis-a-vis the gubernatorial election last year) and the Democrats in Texas (vis-a-vis the redistricting that led to them fleeing across the border).

Their "negotiating" tactics aren't very helpful, to be sure, but I'd hardly view them as not adhering to a rule of law. Now, the terrorism (from both sides).....

ISiddiqui

08-29-2005, 06:39 PM

Oops :o, yeah Sadr is a Shi'ite.

st.cronin

08-29-2005, 06:40 PM

Oops :o, yeah Sadr is a Shi'ite.

I have a degree in this stuff, and I get mixed up all the time.

Klinglerware

08-29-2005, 06:41 PM

Oops :o, yeah Sadr is a Shi'ite.

And does bolster your point, since the Sadr rebellion was more religious/jihadist in nature than the Sunni insurgency.

Dutch

08-29-2005, 07:10 PM

Both Sunni and Shiite groups have led insurrections against the occupation. The Kurds of course have their own terrorist organizations (PKK, etc). No ethnic group has a monopoly on violence in Iraq...

I suggest you read this. It suggests the vast majority of those bombing mosque's and markets are Sunni.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_insurgency

Klinglerware

08-29-2005, 07:27 PM

I suggest you read this. It suggests the vast majority of those bombing mosque's and markets are Sunni.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_insurgency

A very good read that also suggests that the use of violence is not as clear cut as you believe: Moqtada al-Sadr has tremendous support within the Shiite underclass--this introduces a class element that also needs to be addressed if the Iraqi government is to function. As I alluded to before, the Kurds also have their own violent groups at their beck and call. The Kurds obviously don't have much incentive to use them at the moment, since the region has had US protection for the past decade or so, but they certainly have shown a historical willingness to go the terrorist route...

Dutch

08-29-2005, 07:31 PM

A very good read that also suggests that the use of violence is not as clear cut as you believe: Moqtada al-Sadr has tremendous support within the Shiite underclass--this introduces a class element that also needs to be addressed if the Iraqi government is to function. As I alluded to before, the Kurds also have their own violent groups at their beck and call. The Kurds obviously don't have much incentive to use them at the moment, since the region has had US protection for the past decade or so, but they certainly have shown a historical willingness to go the terrorist route...

The Sunni's are the BIG players right now in murdering innocents and disrupting the progress in Iraq. 95% of the bad news that's coming out of Iraq is Sunni or Al Qaeda related.

Al Qaeda doesn't get a say in Iraq's Constitution, so that's why I picked almost exclusively on the Sunni's.

They should be a part of the new Iraq, but they need to stop using terrorism as it's way to strong arm their way into power.

Glengoyne

08-29-2005, 09:10 PM

The Sunni's are the BIG players right now in murdering innocents and disrupting the progress in Iraq. 95% of the bad news that's coming out of Iraq is Sunni or Al Qaeda related.

Al Qaeda doesn't get a say in Iraq's Constitution, so that's why I picked almost exclusively on the Sunni's.

They should be a part of the new Iraq, but they need to stop using terrorism as it's way to strong arm their way into power.
I could be wrong but I'm thinking that the Sunnis participating or even condoning the bombings/terrorism are a distinct minority amongst Sunnis.

ISiddiqui

08-29-2005, 09:20 PM

The Sunni's are the BIG players right now in murdering innocents and disrupting the progress in Iraq. 95% of the bad news that's coming out of Iraq is Sunni or Al Qaeda related.

Al Qaeda doesn't get a say in Iraq's Constitution, so that's why I picked almost exclusively on the Sunni's.

They should be a part of the new Iraq, but they need to stop using terrorism as it's way to strong arm their way into power.
Of course it's the damned if you do, damned if you don't option. You can pick the Iranian-like Shi'ites who find nothing wrong with a fundamentalist state, or you can pick the terrorist using Sunnis who'd rather have a more secular state. The Kurds are just along for the ride, but may cause problems if no federalism.

Dutch

08-29-2005, 09:22 PM

Of course it's the damned if you do, damned if you don't option. You can pick the Iranian-like Shi'ites who find nothing wrong with a fundamentalist state, or you can pick the terrorist using Sunnis who'd rather have a more secular state. The Kurds are just along for the ride, but may cause problems if no federalism.

I don't care about the different groups. I think they should all be represented.

But what I really don't care for is the Sunni's who feel the best way to be recognized (as a group) is to kill people. It's taking advantage of the world media in the most horrific way possible. And should not be recognized as a legitimate way to prove you feel grieved over a political process. I don't feel that people who behave this way should be coddled.

To put it into perspective, if the white Afrikaans in South Africa behaved like this after Nelson Mandela assumed the leadership of that nation, we would not be so kind towards their grievances. Especially after all they had done to oppress the majority of that nation for quite some time.

ISiddiqui

08-29-2005, 09:43 PM

I don't care about the different groups. I think they should all be represented.
Yeah, that's kind of the problem. If they are all represented some Constitution is going to be passed that pisses off the other group who'll threaten to leave the government and fight.

But what I really don't care for is the Sunni's who feel the best way to be recognized (as a group) is to kill people.
So what's the solution, shut them out so they kill more people? They may be getting exactly what they (the insurgents) want, an all out Civil War.

Dutch

08-29-2005, 09:54 PM

So what's the solution, shut them out so they kill more people? They may be getting exactly what they (the insurgents) want, an all out Civil War.

As long as their only representation is bomb throwers, absolutely, no weak knee appeasement.

But, like it was stated above, most Sunni's are not bomb-throwers, I most definately agree. What they are is without a strong political leader. They should be leaning on the USA to ensure they are properly represented while in that void. That's what we are there for, to moderate this process.

The constitution should be well thought out (it seems to be in general), but it cannot be delayed indefinately because of terrorist acts or threats of terror or threats of civil war.

Also, how would a Sunni initiated civil war looked differently then what they are currently waging against US Troops and Iraqi civilians? I seriously doubt the ability of the Sunni's to wage a "civil war" beyond the limited terror actions they currently are taking. Not as long as we are there to protect the process.

flere-imsaho

08-29-2005, 10:27 PM

To put the comparisons to the American Constitution in context:

May 25, 1787: Representatives from every state but Rhode Island begin meeting in Philadelphia to flesh out the government of the new nation.

September 17, 1787: Delegates vote to recommend the newly-written constitution to Congress.

June 21, 1788: New Hampshire becomes the 9th state to ratify the constitution, making its adoption official.

First half of year, 1789: States elect officials, who then begin to travel to New York (the site of the capitol)

June 1, 1789: In its first act, Congress establishes the procedure for administering oaths of office.

ISiddiqui

08-29-2005, 10:27 PM

As long as their only representation is bomb throwers, absolutely, no weak knee appeasement.
You've doomed Iraq to a decades long Civil War because of a few dissatisfied Sunnis. Congratulations.

I seriously doubt the ability of the Sunni's to wage a "civil war" beyond the limited terror actions they currently are taking. Not as long as we are there to protect the process.
Hehe... do you think we're going to be there forever. I have no doubt Bush starts pulling out a LOT of troops in mid 2006 to help Republicans in mid-term elections, by saying the Iraqi police force is ready, etc.

An actual civil war would be much bloodier than the terror acts now. If the Sunnis get shut out, there WILL be holy Hell (as most of them decide to take up arms), and we'll be running to get the Hell out of Dodge before we're stuck in a quagmire.

You know there IS a reason why the Shi'ites and Kurds didn't go ahead with passing a Constitution over shut out Sunni population (well, under the ratification terms, the Sunnis would probably block it anyway, though).

flere-imsaho

08-29-2005, 10:28 PM

95% of the bad news that's coming out of Iraq is Sunni or Al Qaeda related.

How do you arrive at this number?

flere-imsaho

08-29-2005, 10:33 PM

As long as their only representation is bomb throwers, absolutely, no weak knee appeasement.

I believe the Sunnis have had actual representatives at the constitution negotiations. It's just that for the past month the Kurd & Shiite negotiators haven't talked with them.

Dutch

08-30-2005, 12:02 PM

Hehe... do you think we're going to be there forever. I have no doubt Bush starts pulling out a LOT of troops in mid 2006 to help Republicans in mid-term elections, by saying the Iraqi police force is ready, etc.

An actual civil war would be much bloodier than the terror acts now. If the Sunnis get shut out, there WILL be holy Hell (as most of them decide to take up arms), and we'll be running to get the Hell out of Dodge before we're stuck in a quagmire.

You know there IS a reason why the Shi'ites and Kurds didn't go ahead with passing a Constitution over shut out Sunni population (well, under the ratification terms, the Sunnis would probably block it anyway, though).

If Bush was only interested in mid-term elections and elections, I doubt we would be there right now. He was willing to sacrifice his presidency for this cause (but thankfully pulled off the upset victory), and now you think he wants to give up to "help Republicans in the mid-term elections"? You can't have your fat-free liberal cake and eat it too.

Dutch

08-30-2005, 12:03 PM

How do you arrive at this number?

I put 2 and 2 together and came up with about 4. Close enough.

MrBigglesworth

08-30-2005, 11:05 PM

Also, how would a Sunni initiated civil war looked differently then what they are currently waging against US Troops and Iraqi civilians? I seriously doubt the ability of the Sunni's to wage a "civil war" beyond the limited terror actions they currently are taking. Not as long as we are there to protect the process.
How are we going to keep 100k soldiers in Iraq for 50 years?

ISiddiqui

08-30-2005, 11:13 PM

If Bush was only interested in mid-term elections and elections, I doubt we would be there right now. He was willing to sacrifice his presidency for this cause (but thankfully pulled off the upset victory), and now you think he wants to give up to "help Republicans in the mid-term elections"? You can't have your fat-free liberal cake and eat it too.
Oh please. The only reason he's even President right now is because of Iraq and the "War on Terror". Without that, he'd be dead. The economy was not moving and there were various domestic problems, not including the massive debt.

However, now the war itself is getting unpopular, what better way to say we are winning, by pulling out massive number of troops, saying the Iraqi police force is ready. It'd definetly help the Republicans in the elections.

Bush (or Rove) is nothing if not entirely political.

MrBigglesworth

08-30-2005, 11:32 PM

I want to thank my friend, Dr. Raja Khuzai, who's with us today. This is the third time we have met. The first time we met, she walked into the Oval Office -- let's see, was it the first time? It was the first time. The door opened up. She said, "My liberator," and burst out in tears -- (laughter) -- and so did I. (Applause.)

Dr. Khuzai also was there to have Thanksgiving dinner with our troops. And it turned out to be me, as well. Of course, I didn't tell her I was coming. (Laughter.) But I appreciate that, and now she's here again. I want to thank you, Doctor, for your hard work on the writing of the basic law for your people. You have stood fast, you have stood strong. Like me, you've got liberty etched in your heart, and you're not going to yield. And you are doing a great job and we're proud to have you back. Thanks for coming. (Applause.)
This is the future of the new Iraqi government - it will be in the hands of the clerics. I wanted Iraqi women to be free, to be able to talk freely and to able to move around. I am not going to stay here.
I'm sure Bush wouldn't of said all those nice things about her if he knew she hated freedom.

flere-imsaho

10-05-2005, 10:28 AM

Update: Vote on 10/15, a week from Saturday

Last Minute Shenanigans Reversed (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/05/international/middleeast/05cnd-iraq.html?ei=5094&en=de604d04a6e9c768&hp=&ex=1128571200&partner=homepage&pagewanted=print)

Short Version: "At the center of the dispute was the definition of the term "voters." Under the rules that were passed on Sunday, the constitution would have failed only if two-thirds of all registered voters - rather than two-thirds of those actually casting ballots - had rejected it in at least three of the 18 provinces. Given that less than two-thirds of voters participated in the January legislative elections in Iraq, that would have made it almost impossible for the document to fail."

The Iraqi Parliament reversed this decision (made on Sunday) today, meaning it still remains possible that the referendum will fail if the Sunnis can get enough "no" votes out.

Long Version:

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Oct. 5 - Following sharp criticism from the international community and Sunni leaders, Iraqi lawmakers voted today to reverse changes they made to rules governing next week's referendum on a new constitution.

The National Assembly overwhelmingly voted to clarify that the passage of the Oct. 15 referendum would depend on actual ballots cast rather than on the total number of registered voters.

The decision, by a 119-28 vote, comes three days after Kurdish and Shiite lawmakers quietly agreed on last-minute changes that would have made it virtually impossible for the charter to fail, infuriating Sunni opponents and prompting the United Nations to press for a reversal of the rules.

"The U.N. said it was not just," said Mahmoud Othman, an independent Kurdish member of the National Assembly. "Today they reversed it."

A spokesman for the United Nations Secretary General's office in New York, Farhan Haq, said today: "We are pleased that they so swiftly took this decision. We had informed them of our concerns about the previous change made on Sunday. It seems that the Iraqi National Assembly was willing to hear our arguments and that they were willing to make the changes necessary to bring the election law back into line with international standards."

"The language that had been used on Sunday created a bit of a contradiction," Mr. Haq said. "That confusion has now been cleared up."

The criticism by the United Nations on Tuesday was especially significant because the organization was brought in to supervise the referendum and confer a stamp of legitimacy on it.

International observers as well as some members of the National Assembly had warned that the rule change would seriously damage the credibility of the vote, a crucial moment in Iraq's transition to full independence. Sunni Arab leaders had threatened to boycott the referendum.

At the center of the dispute was the definition of the term "voters." Under the rules that were passed on Sunday, the constitution would have failed only if two-thirds of all registered voters - rather than two-thirds of those actually casting ballots - had rejected it in at least three of the 18 provinces. Given that less than two-thirds of voters participated in the January legislative elections in Iraq, that would have made it almost impossible for the document to fail.

The fact that elsewhere in the legislation the term "voters" referred to actual ballots cast had prompted accusations of an unfair double standard that violated the intent of the law. "When there is a contradiction on two different interpretations within one text, that would become an issue," Stéphane Dujarric, a spokesman for Secretary General Kofi Annan, said during a news conference at the United Nations in New York on Tuesday. Shiite representatives had said they modified the law because they feared that violence in some provinces could keep people away from the polls and allow a small number of voters to overturn the constitution, even if much larger numbers approve it elsewhere.

Mr. Othman said Shiite and Kurdish representatives had floated a compromise proposal on Tuesday under which the rule change would be canceled. But they added a proviso: rejection of the constitution would be valid only if voter turnout in the three provinces voting against it was equivalent to the average turnout across Iraq.

That kind of turnout is very unlikely, given past instances of violence and voter intimidation in the Sunni-dominated provinces where opposition to the constitution is high, and the United Nations rejected the proposal, Mr. Othman said.

The political struggle unfolded as about 2,500 American and Iraqi troops began a major offensive along the Euphrates River west of Baghdad, in an effort to root out insurgents loyal to Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and prevent them from intimidating voters.

It was the latest attempt by the American command to strike at insurgents who have used the river corridor to smuggle fighters and weapons from the Syrian border to the center of the country.

The sweep, focusing on three river towns, Haditha, Haqlaniya and Barwana, in Anbar Province, follows large-scale operations intended to choke off insurgents' supply routes. Past efforts have secured only limited gains, because insurgents mostly just melted away in the face of the offensives and returned once the troops had left.

Military officials also announced Tuesday that four American soldiers and a marine were killed Monday in three incidents. Three soldiers were killed by a roadside bomb in Haqlaniya while on a mission before the offensive in Anbar, officials said. A marine was killed by a roadside bomb near Qaim, on the Syrian border, where about 1,000 troops have been conducting a separate counter-insurgency sweep.

A fifth American died in a shooting near Taqaddum, close to Falluja, though military officials did not explain the circumstances of the shooting or whether it was combat-related, mistaken fire by friendly troops, or self-inflicted.

American and Iraqi military officials have warned that insurgents are likely to step up their campaign of violence as the vote approaches.

Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, the terrorist group led by Mr. Zarqawi, is using the holy month of Ramadan, which began Tuesday for most Sunnis and will begin Wednesday for Shiites, to encourage his loyalists to step up their attacks on foreign forces. He called Ramadan "a month of serious work, jihad and initiative."

The latest Anbar offensive came on a day of scattered violence around Iraq, including a gun battle that broke out in southern Baghdad between guerrillas and a combined force of Iraqi and American troops, officials said. More than three dozen insurgents were killed, wounded or captured in the fight, according to the American military.

In another clash, insurgents battled with Iraqi police commandos in Yusifyia, south of Baghdad, killing at least 4 commandos and wounding 12, an Interior Ministry official reported.

In Baghdad, a suicide car bomb exploded at a busy entrance to the heavily fortified Green Zone, killing two Iraqi soldiers and a civilian and wounding seven people, an Interior Ministry official reported. The gate, one of several leading into the zone, had been a target before: in July insurgents carried out a dramatic triple attack there involving a suicide car bomb and two suicide bombers on foot.

MrBigglesworth

10-05-2005, 10:40 AM

The rules were arbitrarily made initially, but still it doesn't send a good message to change them right before the election. Not a good way to show the Sunnis that they can change the country through voting and not guns. So it's a good thing they reversed it.

Dutch

10-05-2005, 12:47 PM

If the Sunni's fail they are gonna have to pick up the pace on blowing up Shia and Kurd registered voters.

flere-imsaho

10-17-2005, 03:05 PM

Update (NYT) (bolded parts mine): (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/17/international/middleeast/17cnd-ballot.html?ei=5094&en=6b936c6ff54e6da8&hp=&ex=1129608000&adxnnl=1&partner=homepage&adxnnlx=1129578777-8y8t7UabSs5IUip97eonUg&pagewanted=print)

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Oct. 17 - Iraqi election officials said today that they were investigating what they described as "unusually high" vote totals in 12 Shiite and Kurdish provinces, where as many 99 percent of the voters were reported to have cast ballots in favor of Iraq's new constitution, raising the possibility that the results of Saturday's referendum could be called into question.

In a statement released this evening, the Independent Election Commission of Iraq said the results of the Oct. 15 referendum would have to be delayed by "a few days," because the apparently high totals in favor of the constitution required that election workers "recheck, compare and audit" the results.

The statement made no mention of the possibility of fraud, but said the re-examination of the balloting was being done in order to comply with internationally accepted standards. Election officials say that under such standards, voting must be re-examined any time a candidate or a ballot question receives more than 90 percent of the vote.

The passage of the draft charter would constitute a significant step toward restoring Iraq's full independence and pave the way for a new round of elections Dec. 15 for a permanent government.

Careful not to preempt the outcome of the referendum, President Bush said earlier today that he welcomed the strong Sunni turnout at the polls.

"My first reaction to the vote was that an increase in turnout was an indication that the Iraqi people are strongly in favor of settling disputes in a peaceful way," Mr. Bush said in joint remarks with the president of Bulgaria, Georgi Purvanov, in the Oval Office. "Secondly, I was pleased to see that the Sunnis have participated in the process."

Sunni Arabs, who lost control of Iraq after Saddam Hussein was ousted from power in the American-led invasion in 2003, make up just 20 percent of the country's population. The Sunnis, who widely opposed the new constitution, fear the new charter will pave the way for a breakup of Iraq and deprive them of oil resources in the north and the south of the country. The constitution will fail if two-thirds of voters in at least three provinces block it; Sunnis dominate 4 of Iraq's 18 provinces.

Members of the Iraqi election commission declined to speak about the announcement of the investigation. But an official with knowledge of the ballot counting said that the 12 provinces where the "yes" votes exceeded 90 percent all had populations that were either majority Shiite or Kurdish. Leaders from those communities strongly endorsed the proposed constitution. More than one of those provinces, the official said, reported that 99 percent of the ballots counted had been cast in favor of the constitution.

None of the provinces cited for a closer look had Sunni majorities.

"When you find consistently very, very high numbers, then that is cause for further checking," said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, citing the sensitivity of the information. "Anything over 90 percent either way usually leads to further investigation."

Even if no evidence of fraud is found, today's announcement seems likely to trigger suspicions among many Iraqi voters, especially Sunnis, many of whom are deeply suspicious of the Shiite majority and of the Kurds.

The Independent Election Commission of Iraq, which is composed of six Iraqis and one non-Iraqi, has the authority to overturn the results of the election if the panel finds that it was conducted unlawfully.

The announcement that voters in some provinces voted in inordinately high numbers in favor of the constitution follows concerns, publicly expressed by Shiite leaders before the balloting, that the constitution could fail. To address those concerns, the Iraqi National Assembly passed a measure that would have modified the way that votes are counted to make it easier for the constitution to pass. The assembly rescinded the measures in the days leading up to the election.

If the 99% votes come from provinces where Shiites are in the vast majority, I guess I can see that as plausible, sorta.

There's also allegations of vote fraud. Prior to the vote, it was postulated that the Sunni-dominated provinces of Nineveh, Anbar & Salahadeen were likely to get 2/3rds "No" votes. However, Nineveh is reporting 75% "Yes" votes.

MrBigglesworth

10-17-2005, 03:52 PM

99% is actually a close election for Iraq. Saddam used to get 100% :rolleyes:

Dutch

10-17-2005, 10:19 PM

99% is actually a close election for Iraq. Saddam used to get 100% :rolleyes:

Kind of a big difference. The only people voting against the Constitution are Saddam Loyalists who are boycotting the vote. Not to mention that back in the day, a vote cast against Saddam meant somebody was going down.

But, there's no pulling the wool over your eyes. ;)

flere-imsaho

10-25-2005, 02:51 PM

Constitution Passes (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/25/international/middleeast/25cnd-iraq.html?ei=5094&en=8bb546c90de6e202&hp=&ex=1130299200&adxnnl=1&partner=homepage&adxnnlx=1130259843-vyK8FiEjiSA/0gY/I6CG0A&pagewanted=print)

Despite allegations of vote-tampering in Nineveh province, they're going ahead and saying it passed.

Next step is elections for the all-new Parliament in December.

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Oct. 25 - Iraqi electoral officials announced today that a new constitution had been passed by voters, enshrining a legal foundation for the future governance of the country and paving the way for elections for a full-term government in December.

Seventy-nine percent of voters approved the constitution in the nationwide referendum held on Oct. 15, the officials said. But because of the specifics of the electoral law and a strong effort by Sunni Arab voters in some provinces, the document only narrowly passed in the end, to the surprise of Iraqi and American officials.

The overall vote was sharply divided along ethnic and sectarian lines. The biggest support came from Shiites and Kurds, who make up about 80 percent of the population, while Sunni Arabs largely rejected the document.

It seemed, until the final count was announced, that the Sunnis might have rallied enough votes to defeat the constitution in a three-province rejection. Under the electoral law, if two-thirds of voters in three provinces had turned down the constitution, then the document would not have passed. Officials said on Monday that two Sunni-dominated provinces had rejected the document; the results for a third province with a Sunni majority, Ninevah, were not released until today.

Officials said that after an audit of the tally for Ninevah, they had determined that 55 percent there had voted "no" on the constitution, only 11 points short of the two-thirds threshold. If 83,283 of the 322,869 people who had voted "yes" had voted "no" instead, then the constitution would have been defeated. In other words, as in the past two presidential elections in the United States, the vote in Iraq came down to a small group of voters in one particular area of the country.

The document's approval "will convince many Iraqis who said 'no' to this constitution that the overwhelming majority of Iraqis respect it," said Hussein al-Shahristani, the deputy speaker of Parliament and a conservative Shiite politician. "However, there will always be terrorists linked to the previous regime or international terrorists who come from the outside who will refuse to accept this constitution."

With the December elections looming, political parties are already furiously jockeying to form coalitions. The parties must present slates of candidates by a Friday deadline. Already, the religious Shiite parties are negotiating to see whether they will run as one bloc, as in the elections last January, while Ayad Allawi, the former prime minister, is trying to form a large secular alliance.

The Iraqi electoral officials, at the suggestion of United Nations advisers, had also audited a random sampling of provinces in which more than 90 percent of voters had approved the constitution. The officials said today that they had found no evidence of voter fraud in those provinces, which were Basra and Babil, dominated by Shiites, and Erbil, a Kurdish province in the north. The officials said it is standard international practice to scrutinize vote tallies when numbers are so heavily skewed in one direction.

Turnout among Sunni Arabs was high in the northern and eastern parts of the Sunni Triangle, a marked changed from last January, when Sunni Arabs largely boycotted elections for a transitional government. Their participation in the referendum has been hailed by American officials as a positive step, a sign that people opposed to the American enterprise here, including insurgents, may be co-opted through the political process. But the widespread rejection of the constitution among Sunni Arabs also shows a fierce hostility toward a document that was seen to be written by Shiite and Kurdish leaders.

The last-minute approval of the constitution by one Sunni Arab group, the Iraqi Islamic Party, seems to have done little to win support among voters for the document. That approval came after American officials helped negotiate a compromise that would allow the constitution to be amended in the first four months of the new Parliament, to be elected in mid-December.

With that in mind, Sunni Arab leaders are now calling for participation in the elections. They say they fear that the constitution will lead to the break-up of Iraq, because it allows regions to separate from the central government into virtually independent entities. The Shiites and Kurds, who each control oil-rich areas in the south and north, pushed hard for the right to create autonomous regions.

Sunni Arab leaders say they intend to win seats in the new Parliament and push through changes to the constitution that will water down those powers. An amendment must be approved by a simple majority of members of the new Parliament before being put to voters for a referendum.

Much work remains to be done on the constitution. Major issues such as the allocation of natural resources and oil revenues still have to be worked out, as well as the exact language that will determine how an autonomous region is created. One Western diplomat said he had counted 55 places in the constitution that put off resolution of an issue for the future Parliament.