For archive purposes, this article is being stored on TheWE.cc website.
The purpose is to advance understandings of environmental, political,
human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues.

 



“As I walked in front of the first checkpoint I noticed a battered red car had stopped near me.

Peering through the grubby windscreen I saw an elderly man who looked confused about where he was.

The soldiers started frantically shouting at him to move, fearing he was a bomber.

They then almost immediately opened fire, the bullets passing close overhead.

I took refuge behind a concrete wall.

Seconds later the red car shot forward, the old man cowering over the wheel, and disappeared around a corner.”


Patrick Cockburn in Baghdad
October 24, 2005
 







 Sunday, October 23, 2005
Viewpoint: The ploy of the Iraqi referendum
Elias Akleh
October 20, 2005

 —  The Iraqi referendum had been played so cleverly that all types of media, although most British papers were more cautious than others, and all political figures could not but call it an expression of democracy.   Yet this "democracy" is being used to manipulate Iraqis into accepting the dictates of the American administration.

The American power elite has been very proficient in this type of manipulation; after all, they had used the same tactics for almost 227 years since the establishment of the American Constitution, to impose their own ideologies on the people, and make them believe that these ideologies are their very own.

The trick started with Paul Bremer immediately after the invasion of Iraq.   He canceled the old Iraqi constitution and all the previous laws claiming that they are the laws of the tyrant Saddam Hussein, and replaced them with American imported laws - the laws of American democracy that should fit all other nations.   Iraqis had no say but to accept these laws.

The new Iraqi interim National Assembly members were so pleased to have political jobs with American dollar salaries that this made them eager to please their "American liberators", and they did not question nor criticize these laws.   Bremer's laws became the basis for the Iraqi government, the Iraqi elections and the Iraqi constitution.

The articles in the draft of the Iraqi constitution were carefully "cooked" by the "appointed" members of the National Assembly, who are not, really, true representatives of the people.   The mostly Shia and Kurdish government, with the directives of the Americans in the background, had written the draft constitution by themselves for themselves.

The draft has nothing to do with the will of the people.   It is a decree imposed from top to bottom, and comes from the political elite who run Iraq along with the Americans out of the 'green zone' of Baghdad.   All negotiations about the constitution were done within the isolated 'green zone' away from the average common Iraqi.

The negotiators were out of touch with the people.   The Iraqi people were alienated from the process.   They were not invited to participate in the discussion to offer their own views and to listen to and to understand the views of others.   They were barred from this democratic process, therefore they lack any sense of ownership of this constitution.   To them it is a foreign imported product imposed on them.

A draft constitution is a very complex legal document with a lot of legal obscure terms that could be understood only by those who had studied the law.   Its language is written in a way that allows different interpretations, of which many could be contradictory.

The average Iraqi would have difficulty reading and understanding the exact meaning of the draft.   The majority of them would vote according to the recommendations of their religious and tribal leaders rather than according to their own understanding and their own conviction of the constitution.   This makes it an ethnic voting, which is exactly what the American administration is aiming for: ethnic division of the people.

The occupational forces succeeded in creating ethnic division among Iraqis.   They favored Kurds and Shias, and discriminated against Sunnis.   They have used Kurdish and Shia militias to raid Sunni cities in an attempt to create hatred among these groups.   All the military and political statements regarding Iraqis are deliberately loaded with ethnic terminology.

The media outlets, even the independent and the opposing media outlets, had fallen into the ethnic terminology trap; they talk about Iraqis in terms of the three major ethnic groups.   Iraqis, at the beginning, fought this ethnic division and emphasized unity, yet the discriminatory policies of the Shia majority government, the car bombings and the Kurdish and Shia militia raids in the Sunni cities had led the majority of the people to fall into the same ethnic trap.

This growing ethnic hatred affected the way that people voted in the referendum.   The majority of Shias and Kurds tended to vote yes on the draft, while the majority of the Sunnis tended to vote no.   The Shias, making up about 60 percent of the population, were urged during Friday religious sermons to vote yes for the constitution.   Their leading cleric, the Grand Ayatollah Ali Al Sistani, declared it a religious duty to vote yes.   A yes vote will provide them autonomy in the southern Iraqi regions.

Likewise the Kurds, about 20 percent of the population, largely support the constitution to guarantee their own independence in the north as the nucleus for a Kurdish State.   The Sunni Arabs, on the other hand, widely oppose the constitution because they are convinced that its federalist system will tear the country into Kurdish and Shia mini-states in the oil-rich regions of the north and the south, and leave the Sunnis weak in the center without any shares in the oil revenue.

During the elections last January the Sunnis boycotted the elections and found themselves, later on, without any voices in the government and out of the circle of political decision making.   It seems that they have learned from this mistake, for this time they hit the polling centers in greater numbers in an attempt to vote down the draft constitution.   They have learned the importance of voicing their opinion.

There was only one question on the ballot paper, written in Arabic and Kurdish, which the voter should answer: "Do you support the draft constitution?"

This is actually a stupid vote and gives the illusion that a person had made a real choice.   A constitution is comprised of many articles.   Some of them are good for a certain group of people, and not good for other groups.   Some articles are good for the public good but would hurt a minority.   The question limits the voter to either accept or reject the draft as a whole.   This creates a dilemma to voters, who are not given the opportunity to reject some articles and accept others as is the case in other countries.

The democratic spirit that the Iraqis are exhibiting in this referendum is cheated by what is offered to them.   The draft constitution does not offer unity and democracy to Iraqis, but division and chaos.   Most educated Iraqis understand this fact and want to vote against the draft.

Iraqis abroad want to defeat the draft because they oppose religious federalism, and seek sectarian rule, human and women's rights, and a solid fair constitution that would serve the coming generations of Iraqis.   Unfortunately Iraqis abroad were not allowed to vote this time around, although their voices were sought in the January elections.

There are two versions of the draft and each has a different introduction in Arabic.   The first version starts with "We the peoples of Iraq ..." while the second starts with "We the peoples of the valley of the two rivers ..."   This introduction strikes at the heart of the Arab nationality of the Iraqis by hinting that Iraqis are comprised of different nations.

This is very dangerous especially when combined with articles 115 and 116, which call for the right of each province to tear itself apart from the whole country and to form its own mini state at the request of only one-tenth of its voters.   This mini state would have the right to write its own constitution, to define its own laws and to take its own local language.   If this is not dividing Iraq what is?

Moreover, this would allow Israeli Jews, who immigrated from Iraq to Israel, to return to Iraq, and according to article 133 reclaim properties, form their own region, then turn it into a second Israeli state that would have its own language, its own laws, and more dangerously its own army.   Such a mini-Israeli state would become part of the "Iraqi Federation" and demand to voice its opinion in the political decision making, and eventually, with the backing of both USA and Israel, would control Iraq.

This American imported constitution does not serve Iraqis.   Its goal is to fragment Iraq into weaker religious federations for ease of manageability and control.


Elias Akleh is an Arab writer from a Palestinian descent, born in the town of Beit Jala and lives in the US.   Acknowledgement to Arab Media Internet Network (AMIN)



Copyright © 2005 News World Communications Inc.









Confusion and Fear in the Courtroom and Iraq
By Patrick Cockburn in Baghdad     Oct 24, 2005

It should have been a moment of supreme triumph: Saddam Hussein finally brought to bay, standing in the dock in Baghdad to answer for his crimes.


The trial ought to have marked the victory of the new Iraqi state, but instead served only to underline its fragility.

Human rights groups in Britain and the US criticised the proceedings against the former president of Iraq and six other defendants as "victor's justice".

But in Baghdad there were few signs of victory.

If the Iraqi government was so victorious, why did four out of five of the judges and all but one of the prosecutors need to hide their faces and identities?

Why were 30 to 40 witnesses too scared to turn up?

Why did the court building have to be more heavily defended, as a US marshal jocularly remarked, than the White House?

War crimes tribunals in Germany and Japan after 1945 left nobody in any doubt about who had won the war.

In Baghdad, the first day of the trial of Saddam — now set to resume on 28 November — certainly showed the former dictator in defeat, but also demonstrated how difficult and dangerous it is to replace him.

The lethal anarchy of life in Iraq outside the Green Zone inevitably revealed itself within a day of the trial being prorogued.

Sadoun Said al- Janabi, the lawyer for Awad Hamed al-Bandar, a revolutionary court judge on trial with Saddam, was kidnapped by seven gunmen and later shot dead.

The court proceedings were a telling symbol of the fragmentation of power in Iraq.


In theory

In theory, Iraqis are in charge of the trial.

In practice, some 50 American, British and Australian lawyers and legal support staff underpin the proceedings.

"In private Iraqis blame the Americans for the confusion, and vice versa," said one observer.

Why is the Iraqi state so weak?

It is now two-and-a-half years since Saddam Hussein was overthrown.

Vastly expensive US army

A vastly expensive US army of 145,000 men is stationed in the country.

They have trained an Iraqi army of 80,000 men.

There are also supposedly 120,000 police and other security men spread out across the country.

But even as Iraqis waited for Saddam's trial to start, the boom of mortar shells exploding in the Green Zone resounded across the capital.

US and Iraqi government officials live a strangely isolated existence in this enclave.

It is the world's largest gated community.

Its inhabitants have a limited idea of the world in which Iraqis live beyond the heavily fortified gates and checkpoints.

Paranoia about their own safety and callousness or over-confidence about that of others

Their attitude is a mixture of paranoia about their own safety and callousness or over-confidence about that of others.

Two days before the referendum on the constitution on 15 October, the US embassy asked journalists to come to the Convention Centre to attend a press briefing on the vote given by a State Department official.


I gingerly approached the appropriate entrance to the Green Zone on foot.

It is unwise to bring a car too close because suicide bombers have repeatedly targeted this entrance with its massive concrete fortifications, so Iraqi and US soldiers are understandably prone to open fire on suspicion.

As I walked in front of the first checkpoint I noticed a battered red car had stopped near me.

Peering through the grubby windscreen I saw an elderly man who looked confused about where he was.

The soldiers started frantically shouting at him to move, fearing he was a bomber.

They then almost immediately opened fire, the bullets passing close overhead.

I took refuge behind a concrete wall.

Seconds later the red car shot forward, the old man cowering over the wheel, and disappeared around a corner.

After passing through no less than seven lines of sandbags and razor wire I got to the Convention Centre, only to discover that the briefing had been cancelled.

A bored voice on the phone from the US embassy explained that the senior diplomat had been unavoidably detained.




Last desperate remnants of insurgents relentlessly hunted down

I heard an American general explain how the last desperate remnants of the insurgents were being relentlessly hunted down.

Green Zone inhabitants are far more circumspect about their own safety.

Ibrahim al-Jaafari, the Prime Minister, recently wanted to visit President Jalal Talabani, whose house is five minutes drive from the Green Zone.

Mr al-Jaafari was told by his Western security men that he must delay the visit for a day because it would take 24 hours to arrange for him to travel safely even half a mile from the Green Zone.

Iraq has had three administrations since the fall of Saddam Hussein.

The first was under Paul Bremer, the US viceroy, to be followed by Iyad Allawi, the interim prime minister for eight months from June 2004, and then Mr al- Jaafari this year.

All three have failed.

The insurgency in Sunni Arab districts has not diminished.

Some time this week the number of US soldiers killed in Iraq, currently at 1,992 will probably hit the 2,000 mark.

The number of casualties per day is not going down.




The present government was popularly elected, representing a Kurdish-Shia alliance from the two communities to which 80 per cent of Iraqis belong.

But it has never truly gelled as an administration.

The Kurdish leaders are far more effective and efficient than their Shia opposite numbers but their basic interest is in securing the quasi-independence of Kurdistan.

The Iraqi government and army are not quite what they look.

For instance, the Iraqi army is meant to have 115 battalions containing 80,000 men.

But Peter Galbraith, the former US diplomat, citing senior officials at the Iraqi Ministry of Defence, claims that in reality there are only 40,000 soldiers.

Given Cash

This is because commanders were given cash to pay their men and inflated their numbers so they could pocket the pay of non-existent forces.

Nor will this army be easy to use against insurgents because its composition is highly sectarian.

It has 60 Shia battalions, 45 Sunni and nine Kurdish.

Only one battalion is mixed.

The Shia and Sunni units provoke hostility outside areas in which their own communities live.

The first day of the trial of Saddam Hussein turned out not to be a demonstration of the victory of the new regime over the old, as was intended.

But, ironically, the atmosphere of confusion and fear in the court was a far more apt, if unintentional, symbol of Iraq today.











 
 




































































































































































































































































































































































































































 
 





 
For archive purposes, this article is being stored on TheWE.cc website.
The purpose is to advance understandings of environmental, political,
human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues.