August 30, 2005
No good choice for U.S. in Iraq constitution vote
Should Americans hope that Iraqis approve their proposed constitution or reject it? As with so much else concerning Iraq, it's hard realistically to expect a good outcome. If Iraqis ratify the constitution, it will pave the way for an Islamic state allied with Iran. A rejection would delay any hope of establishing sufficient political stability for U.S. troops to begin leaving.
Last week, President Bush was so worried about the draft document that he called Abdul Aziz Hakim, a Shiite leader, to lobby on behalf of changes sought by the Sunni minority. Over the president's objections, Shiites and Kurds gave up on reaching consensus with Sunni delegates and forced the constitution onto an Oct. 15 national ballot. It was strange enough to find the U.S. president lobbying on behalf of Saddam Hussein's favored Sunnis, whose fringes are believed to be the force behind the insurgency. It was even stranger when, after being rebuffed by the Shiites and Kurds, President Bush on Sunday praised the constitution he had been lobbying against.
So now, presumably, the Bush administration will work hard for passage, even though the constitution would set up a supreme court that could be dominated by clerics empowered to interpret the constitution according to their version of Islamic law. Did Mr. Bush really go to war to enable the birth of a nation in which Islamic clerics have more influence than they did under Saddam Hussein? Neither does the constitution guarantee equal rights to women, who could find themselves subject to religious law in matters of marriage and divorce. The administration no longer can pose as a champion of women's rights in Islamic societies.
The constitution, if approved, decentralizes government in a way that could hasten Iraq's breakup into a Kurdish state in the north and a Shiite state friendly to "axis of evil" Iran in the south. Sunnis hold a majority in four of Iraq's 18 provinces. If they can muster a two-thirds majority against the constitution in three provinces -- as Sunni leaders vow to do -- the document will be rejected, and the process will start all over again. While that might present an opportunity to produce a better constitution and to bring Sunnis more legitimately into the drafting phase, it is unlikely that radical elements would step back from the insurgency.
If Iraqis approve the constitution, they will elect a new government in December. If not, there is no telling when a permanent government can take office. Is it better to have a flawed constitution that provides an excuse for the U.S. to get out of Iraq, or to face a longer, deadlier occupation in the hope of a better Iraqi government far in the future? Those options are typical of the bad choices President Bush has created with his decision to invade.
Posted by Opinion staff at August 30, 2005 8:34 AMOf course there's a good choice for the United States, if Iraq drafts a constitution. It's a first step that will make this country more secure.
Anyone that expects the Iraqi constitution to resemble ours, is living in a fantasy world. I don't believe there is any nation, on our earth, that has a constitution that exactly resembles ours. Each country has their own little twists, designed for their particular needs. In Iraq, there is a need to recognize Islam, and how much the religion has control over the country is yet to be seen.
All of this is a process and, as long as the process is moving forward, it will always be in our best interest.
Posted by: Jim Temple at August 30, 2005 6:32 PMThis editorial is appalling. Unless, the Post was privy to the conversation between the President and Abdul Aziz Hakim, they are engaging in speculation and guesswork as to what was said. The conversation could have been as likely over the politics of getting something done as over the actual content of the constitution. I seriously doubt that the Post has a clue as to what was discussed.
But even more egregious is the lack of effort by the Post to learn what the document actually says. For example:
Article (2): (b) No law can be passed that contradicts the principles of democracy.
c) No law can be passed that contradicts the rights and basic freedoms outlined in this constitution.
2nd -- This constitution guarantees the Islamic identity of the majority of the Iraqi people and the full religious rights for all individuals and the freedom of creed and religious practices.
Article (14): Iraqis are equal before the law without discrimination because of sex, ethnicity, nationality, origin, color, religion, sect, belief, opinion or social or economic status.
So, unless the Iraqi’s end up with a Supreme Court which is more interested in reaching the result they wish rather than what the document actually says, there is little to fear.
As far as federalism is concerned, isn’t it a bit of a contradiction for the Post to fear a runaway Supreme Court, but then claim federalism is also a risk. One could be excused for thinking that federalism is a bar to a runaway court rather than a risk.
All in all, this editorial seems to be the work of people who have not actually investigated the constitution.
Who said that the “contempt prior to investigation� is a “bar to all progress�? The Post ought to be in Bartlett’s as an example of that saying.
Rick
.JPG)
-1.JPG)
Services »
