top
Iraq
Iraq
Indybay
Indybay
Indybay
Regions
Indybay Regions North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area California United States International Americas Haiti Iraq Palestine Afghanistan
Topics
Newswire
Features
From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature

The New Iraqi Constitution: A Manifesto for War

by Raed Jarrar (reposted)
From "Raed in the Middle", the blog of Raed Jarrar, an Iraqi blogger:

Wednesday, October 26, 2005

The New Iraqi Constitution: A Manifesto for War

r2791683078.jpg?x=380&y=309&sig=pFciIf3qWXVvUMb7hG3N_Q--"



2000 U.S. soldiers killed?
I feel very sorry for each of them. I feel sorry for their families and friends as well.

The 2000 U.S. soldiers, along with the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed, are the result of this administration’s lies. They’re one of the indicators of the big failure of the U.S. occupation.

The new constitution is another sad chapter of the US failure in Iraq. It won’t have any effects on stabilizing or solving the problems of the occupied country. It’s more like an announcement of the death of the political process in Iraq, and the death of any future potentialities of political solutions. The US interference and hijacking of the political process, packaged as a “constitution support”, will result in turning off most (if not all) of the pro-politics and anti-violent people involved in the Iraqi arena.

Extremist groups will have great recruitment time now!

Sistani is the face of the new Iraq. The new Islamic constitution is the face of the new US-made Iraq. The Badr brigades and their daylight kidnappings and assassinations are the new law in Iraq.

January's elections were a mistake, because they turned off Iraqis' political voices, but these constitution elections are a bigger disaster, because they assassinated the non-violent voice in the war torn country.

Some weeks before the beginning of the 2003 war, I was having a discussion with a couple of friends about what’s going to happen next, how would Iraq and the world look like after the fall of Baghdad. One of us said “it’ll be the dawn of the US Empire, but it’ll be the first step towards its end too”.

Nobody meant it literally though. It was more like discussing the idea of “the first day of someone’s life being also his first day towards his own death”. It seemed like a good argument then, especially with the cheap Fareeda beer!

But now, it’s more like a bitter reality. Iraq was the first step towards the US Empire, but it seems like it’s going to be the last step too.

The U.S. administration, going on and on with their mistakes, closed the last small windows of political action, and put a big welcome sign on the door of violence. Iraq has turned officially into a battlefield waiting for more "Major Combat": bigger and bloodier major combat.

Bush has turned the US from being the superpower that everyone looks up to (and usually fears too), to a universal clown. Hundreds of billions of dollars were spent to kill Iraqis and destroy their country searching for the fake WMD, while the US citizens need every dollar to build and develop themselves and their country.

I was listening to Castro making fun of the U.S. (with his propaganda thrown in as usual), telling the world how to have "a model country that protects the lives of its citizens", comparing how his poor country was more successful in dealing with Wilma than the US in dealing with Katrina. Musharraf of Pakistan didn’t make fun of his friend, bush. But he used the bush administration’s failure in dealing with Katrina as a good example and excuse when he declared, in a fit of exasperation, that it had only been 24 hours – even Bush had taken longer to start helping hurricane victims.

Bush is such a great gift from god to the corrupt governments of our world.

The miserable and pathetic bush administration’s capabilities and preparations in dealing with a domestic emergency were actually shocking. After four years of killing thousands of people worldwide for the sake of “protecting Ammmericaaaaaaaa”, and after four years of making the United States the new example of the “Republic of Fear”: putting U.S. citizens in daily fear of “terrorist” attacks, the administration couldn’t deal with a very predictable natural disaster and gave the world a first example of how a modern metropolitan can sink because of bad levees, and how thedead bodies of poor U.S. citizens decompose in the streets for weeks without having anyone paying attention.

Bush and his administration are giving the corrupt governments around the world great ethical examples too. If some governments used to feel ashamed of torturing their citizens, or putting people in prison for years without any legal actions, bush and his administration made the worst and most violent dictatorships around the world look humane and nice to their people. It made all the prisoners in the dirty dark jails under the ground feel like their going on a walk in the park comparing to what the U.S. would do to them. All of the world’s tyrants can smile now and tell their prisoners and citizens: feel happy you’re not in Guantanamo or Abu-Ghraib.

Even Saddam Hussein, one of the biggest examples of violent and authoritarian dictators in the world, can feel proud of his history comparing to what the US is doing in Iraq. Bush should consider himself the personal PR manager of Saddam and other dictators worldwide. Believe me, Bush is a Saddamist! The U.S. administration, and only the U.S. administration, made the image and reputation of the world’s war criminals and fundamentalist leaders look good in comparison.

Some days ago, some religious freaks blew up the statue of Abu-Jafar Al-Mansour in the heart of Baghdad. Al Mansour is the father of Baghdad. He's the Caliphate who built Baghdad and named it "The City of Peace". The same looney-toons who destroyed Al-Mansour are ruling Iraq now, supported by the U.S. administration.

The Sistani(s) in the "New" Iraq are the U.S.-enhanced-version-of-Taliban: they have all the cons of the backwards religious leaders, and they are slaves to the occupiers as well. At least the Afghani Taliban had dignity and national belonging.

I guess the Afghani Taliban should feel grateful to bush too; he made me become a Taliban Supporter!

*just kidding, don't Abu-Ghrieb me*

The U.S. Empire started and ended in Iraq. It ended some weeks ago, or maybe some months, or maybe a couple of years ago, no one can really tell.

But everyone can tell that the U.S. foreign policy Empire has already collapsed sometime after the fall of Baghdad. We're just waiting for the bubble around it to burst.

Robert Fisk wasn’t joking when he said: I speculated some weeks ago as to when the bubble will burst. With the insurgent capture (and massacre) of a US base in Iraq? With the overrunning of the Green Zone in Baghdad?

The huge and very well organized attack against Palestine Hotel and Ishtar Hotal in the heart of Baghdad was just some feet away from bursting the bubble. The first car bomber drove into the concrete barrier protecting the hotels and made a hole in it, and then a big truck filled with explosives made its way through the hole in the wall and was some hundreds of feet away from entering to the lobby and bringing the hotel down killing all the hundreds of private security and mercenaries hiding there, in addition to some stay-at-hotels-journalists.

Ukraine will pull out all its last 800 soldiers from Iraq in less than two months, and the shortage in U.S. army recruitment is not a secret anymore. The U.S. army is being defeated on the ground by small groups of Iraqi men with very primitive weapons.

I’m sure that everyone remembers all the details of the story about the four mercenaries killed and burned by Fallujans last year, and how the “revenge” of the “biggest Army in the world” burned Falujah. I remember what the U.S. soldiers and Marines used to say at that time, because they were actually capable of attacking back.

But now, things are different.

The U.S. army is not capable of fighting back anymore, and that’s why no one heard anything about the 4 contractors who were killed and burned last month in Ad-Doloia. No one mentioned that despite the fact that such news could have been used to balance the news of the U.S. soldiers burning two dead Taliban bodies.

I mean… bush, condi and the rest of the band should be telling us about that in the same way this angry dude is doing:

While US liberals, international human rights groups, and various media editorials agonize over whether US soldiers burned Taliban corpses, bear in mind that (if it happened) at least they waited until the guys were dead.

September 20th, a mob killed four American contractors driving north of Baghdad ... burned one of them alive and let their kids join in on the party...


But they can’t, because they can't "get revenge" anymore.

Bursting the empire's bubble may take days or months, but when it happens, the administration won’t be able to hide.

Nothing can be accomplished through politics in Iraq anymore.
The sounds of explosions and car bombs will mute pro-dialogue people.

Nothing can be accomplished through politics in Iraq anymore.
But there's a lot of politics that can, and should, be done in the U.S.

The U.S. people should make their government pull out all the troops from Iraq and pay compensation for all the death and destruction caused by little bush’s lies. The Americans should at least care about their soldiers and bring them back home.

Bush is a black page in the U.S. history, but he can be a turning point in the U.S. foreign policy.

Posted By Raed Jarrar at 4:41 AM

Comments and Forum Section: CLOSED!
§Iraq referendum produces a divisive and illegitimate result
by wsws (reposted)
The result of the October 15 referendum in Iraq endorsing the draft constitution will only deepen the catastrophe caused by Washington’s attempt to establish a pro-US client state in the country. According to the Iraqi Electoral Commission, 63 percent of registered voters, or some 10 million people, cast a ballot, with 79 percent supporting the constitution and 21 percent voting no. The breakdown of the figures, however, shows a population that has been bitterly divided along sectarian and ethnic lines by the Bush administration’s policies since the 2003 invasion.

The referendum itself was completely contrived. The Iraqi people had no say in the draft constitution, which was drawn up behind closed doors by pro-occupation parties and US officials, or in what questions would be asked on the referendum. If a free and fair vote had been taken on whether US troops should leave Iraq, the answer would have been a resounding yes. A recent survey by the British Ministry of Defence found 82 percent of Iraqis—from all backgrounds—“strongly oppose” the occupation.

Instead Iraqis were asked to vote on a constitution that creates the mechanisms for the transformation of the Iraqi state into a decentralised federation of “regions”, with the key oil-producing areas in the north and south in the hands of the Kurdish nationalist and Shiite fundamentalist parties that have worked with the US occupation. It obliges all future Iraqi governments to re-organise the economy, including the currently state-owned oil industry, on free market principles. Authority over the development of Iraq’s considerable untapped oil reserves, which will be contracted to private companies, is stripped from the Baghdad government and handed over to the regional states.

The beneficiaries of the plunder will be transnational energy conglomerates and a narrow layer of the Kurdish and Shiite elite. The predominantly Sunni Arab population in Iraq’s central and western provinces faces being marginalised in a resource-poor region. They will be ruled over, however, by a central government controlled by Kurdish and sectarian Shiite parties, whose main concern will be to suppress opposition to the neo-colonial exploitation of the country.

Sunni Arab bitterness toward the constitution found sharpest expression in two majority Sunni provinces where the anti-occupation insurgency has strong support and US repression of the civilian population has been intense. In Salah al Din province, the no vote was 81.75 percent, with large turnouts in rebellious cities such as Tikrit and Samarra. In the western province of Anbar, where the US military has slaughtered or detained thousands of Sunnis in cities such as Fallujah, Ramadi and Qaim, 97 percent voted no.

In four provinces where the population is a diverse mix of Iraq’s various communities, the outcome was a dangerous polarisation that can only intensify the sectarian conflicts that have been developing since the 2003 invasion.

In Baghdad, where the insurgency is most active, the vote was 77.7 percent for and 22.3 against, with the no vote concentrated in Sunni suburbs of the capital. In Tamin province, where the city of Kirkuk has already been the scene of bloody clashes between Kurdish militias with Sunni and Turkomen groups, the result was 62.9 percent yes and 37.1 percent no. In Diyala province, with its mixed Sunni-Shiite capital of Baquba, the vote was 51.2 percent for and 48.8 percent against.

In 12 provinces with a majority Kurdish or Shiite population, where the pro-occupation parties argued that the sectarian constitution was essential to improving the conditions of life for the common people, the yes vote ranged between 95 to 99 percent.

Across the Shiite south, however, growing distrust of the governing Shia parties—Da’awa and the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI)—saw the voter turnout fall markedly compared with the election in January. The government of Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari formed earlier this year repudiated its election pledge to demand a timetable for the withdrawal of foreign occupation troops as soon as it took up office in Baghdad.

The suspiciously high yes vote of over 90 percent in southern cities like Amara, Samawa and Diwaniyah, where there is considerable Shiite animosity toward the occupation and the governing parties, led to immediate accusations of vote rigging.

The greatest controversy, however, surrounds the official count in the northern province of Ninewa, where the majority of people in the capital Mosul are Sunni Arab, Turkomen or other ethnic minorities opposed to the constitution. After a 10-day delay, the no vote was declared to be 55 percent, against a yes vote of 45 percent.

Sunni political leaders responded to the result with allegations of blatant fraud. Saleh Mutlaq, one of the most public Sunni critics of the constitution, told journalists: “It [the result] is clearly a forgery. No respectful forger would produce such an obvious fake that could be seen through so easily.” Calling for a recount of the vote in Mosul, Mutlaq declared: “There was a fraud everywhere, but it is Mosul that matters because it was pivotal to defeating this unacceptable constitution.”

A no vote by two-thirds of the voters in just three provinces was all that was required to cause the rejection of the constitution nationally. According to figures published by the New York Times, if just 83,283 yes votes in Ninewa had been negative ballots instead, the constitution would have been defeated.

Mahmood al-Azzawi, a member of the Sunni-based National Dialogue Council, told Al Jazeeera: “Fraud occurred, especially in Mosul. It is too big to have any dispute about. Eighty-six percent of Mosul’s residents voted no and that was according to accurate statistics made by over 300 independent supervisors in the province.”

Read More
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/oct2005/iraq-o27.shtml
§Flawed Charter Beyond Repair
by IWPR (reposted)
Those who voted in favour of the constitution because they felt there was no alternative were mistaken.

By Rebaz Mahmood in Sulaimaniyah (ICR No. 149, 27-Oct-05)

Kurdish leaders told us that the constitution they drafted was the best they could present to the Iraqi Kurdish voters. Not all of our demands were satisfied, but for now nothing more could be done, the leaders admitted.

We must build the Iraqi house from the beginning with different rooms for different groups and windows shining light into each room. But what is the purpose of building a house when you know from the start that you will need to make major improvements? The constitution I voted against on October 15 requires too many repairs.

Among its problems are the provisions that no law can contradict Islam or democracy may prove contradictory in itself. The issue as to who will administer Kirkuk, a traditionally Kurdish city, is delayed until 2007. Kurdish rights to self-determination are not clear enough. And I worry that the Kurdish language will be, in practice, secondary to Arabic.

We demand as Kurds that Iraq be an open and democratic country. The legislators who drafted the constitution said they tried their best to achieve this by including an article that states, "No law that contradicts the principles of democracy may be established."

If this point stood alone we would have said Amen. But this is not compatible with the provision above, which states, "No law that contradicts the established provisions of Islam may be established."

A friend of mine cited a very simple example: If a person in Najaf wanted to open a liquor store, would he be allowed to do so? Thus the supporters of democracy and those of Islam may collide.

The Kurds fought hard to make Kurdish an official language in the constitution. And in Kurdish Iraq today, official documents are published only in Kurdish, and few young people speak or read Arabic.

Article 4, Item 1, names Kurdish an official government language used side by side with Arabic. But it comes with restrictions. A provision within Article 4 states that Kurdish or Arabic may be used in official speeches and writings. It does not require both languages. Yet the article states explicitly, "The federal institutions and agencies in the Kurdistan region shall use both languages." Is this equal?

Another point I cannot support is the constitution’s stance on Kirkuk.

The document postpones normalising the city and surrounding areas until December 31, 2007. The original residents of this once-majority Kurdish city should be able to return to Kirkuk immediately and receive compensation in order to correct an injustice.

The Arab settlers Saddam’s government sent to Kirkuk need to return to their places of origin and be compensated, as was promised under Article 58 of the Transitional Administrative Law. This issue was supposed to be resolved under the interim government, but it remains postponed.

I doubt this will be resolved in 2007, because the government refuses to make it a priority.

Another “great achievement” our leaders tout is that the Kurdish peshmerga force is kept as is, even though the peshmerga are never directly mentioned. Article 117, Item 5, states that regional governments can have their own internal security forces. Kurdish leaders who helped draft the constitution interpret "guards of the region" to mean peshmerga. But there is undoubtedly a big difference between the duties of the army and internal security forces, which will be part of the interior ministry or federal government.

The peshmerga forces historically were the only ones to defend Kurdistan. We were besieged on all sides by enemies, including the Iraqi army. We still cannot trust the Iraqi army because they used chemical weapons against us and tortured our people in the past.

Iraqi leaders amended Article 1 to include the sentence, “This constitution is a guarantee for the unity of Iraq."

I believe in a unified Iraq if there is total equality among all groups. But this constitution does not ensure that.

Thus we require that self-determination be an option. Our leaders claimed they achieved the right to Kurdish self-determination, citing the last line of the preamble, “The adherence to this constitution preserves for Iraq its free union, its people, its land and its sovereignty.”

Kurdish leaders interpret the declaration to mean that if the Arab Iraqis do not adhere to the constitution, we will have the right of self-determination.

But if there is murkiness over whether or not the preamble is to be abided by as part of the constitution, the federal supreme court will have the power to interpret and explain it.

For us, the Kurds, the concern is: How will the federal supreme court be formed?

According to Item 2 of Article 89, this court will consist of judges and experts in Islamic jurisprudence and law. A law passed by a two-thirds majority of national assembly members will decide how many experts are chosen and the method of their selection.

The Kurds are minorities in Iraq. Therefore, we will not have as many representatives in parliament and will not have the political weight of Iraq's Arab majority.

If the Kurds demand the right to self-determination, the federal supreme court may reject the demand with the legal justification that the preamble is not part of the constitution.

Under Article 62, a federation council will be formed that includes representatives from governorates, of which there are 18 in Iraq. The governorates will not have individual representatives if they are part of a federation.

The three Kurdish governorates currently make up the only federation in Iraq. That means if it were formed now, Kurdistan would have one representative and the governorates one each, limiting the power of the Kurdish federation.

The federation council’s main objective is to protect the rights of the federations, not the individual governorates.

There are those who believed that they needed to vote in favour of the constitution, because there was no alternative. But in my view, any alternative would have been better than this.

Rebaz Mahmood is an IWPR trainee journalist in Sulaimaniyah.

http://www.iwpr.net/index.pl?archive/irq/irq_149_1_eng.txt
Add Your Comments
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!

Donate

$70.00 donated
in the past month

Get Involved

If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.

Publish

Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.

IMC Network