Kurds unhappy with government plan

Post #82,208 by JayMehaffey 2/17/03 12:26:16 AM Reply	Kurds unhappy with government plan [link\|http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=379060\|Independent UK] The US is abandoning plans to introduce democracy in Iraq after a war to overthrow Saddam Hussein, according to Kurdish leaders who recently met American officials. The US appears to be quietly abandoning earlier declarations that it would make Iraq a model democracy in the Middle East. In Iraq, free elections would lead to revolutionary change because although the Shia Muslims and Kurds constitute three-quarters of the population, they are excluded from power in Baghdad by the Sunni Muslim establishment. Kurdish leaders are deeply alarmed by US intentions, which only became clear at a meeting in Ankara earlier in the month and from recent public declarations by US officials. Hoshyar Zebari, a veteran Kurdish leader, said: "If the US wants to impose its own government, regardless of the ethnic and religious composition of Iraq, there is going to be a backlash." I'm not quite sure what to make of this one. I didn't take the White Houses talk of creating a model democracy to seriously to begin with, so backing away from it doesn't surprise me. And some sort of military rule is pretty much unavoidable for the period right after the conquest. The questions are how long after the conquest before a real open election is held? The current White House plans of only being in Iraq for a couple of years strike me as hopelessly optimistic. It's liable to take a year just to get control of Iraq and get basic services restarted in the major cities. It could easily be 2 or 3 years before Iraq is in a condition to hold a really open election. On the other hands, I think the Kurds have a serious concern here that an open election will not be held. Instead, 2 or 3 parties selected because they are acceptable to the White House will be allowed to run. It's very likely that all the parties selected to run will be from the Sunni Muslim minority that produced Saddam in the first place. Jay
Post #82,221 by Another Scott 2/17/03 9:42:14 AM Reply	I think much of this is public posturing. It seems to me that the heads of the Kurdish opposition groups are complaining that they're not automatically and instantly going to be handed power as soon as the US deposes Saddam, while the US still hasn't worked out the details of an occupation and how the future government will be constituted. The fact that the Kurdish opposition is still divided doesn't help. AFAIK, the latest public statement of US policy regarding post-Saddam Iraq was given on February 11 (less than a week ago) by Marc Grossman before Lugar's Foreign Relations committee. [link\|http://www.state.gov/p/17616.htm\|Here]. Both we and the Iraqis we are meeting make the point that Iraqis on the outside will not control decisions that will, ultimately, have to be made by all Iraqis. The Iraqi diaspora is a great resource but not a substitute for what all Iraqis will need to do together to work towards democracy in their country. Both we and free Iraqis look forward to the day when all Iraqis are able to talk freely and work together to build a free and democratic Iraq. And while we are listening to what the Iraqis are telling us, at the end of the day, the United States Government will make its decisions based on what is in the national interest of the United States. What the Transition Might Look Like Mr. Chairman, let me conclude with a short observation about how we get to this future for Iraq, recognizing that no decisions have been made on structure or timing. The Administration is still considering these issues, and discussing ideas with free Iraqis who are in the political opposition, technocrats, intellectuals and others. We are also consulting with our close allies and with you. Conceptually, there are three stages: 1. Stabilization, where an interim Coalition military administration will focus on security, stability and order; laying the groundwork for stage 2. 2. Transition, where authority is progressively given to Iraqi institutions as part of the development of a democratic Iraq. 3. Transformation, after Iraqis have drafted, debated and approved a new, democratic constitution and held free and fair elections, the only way for any future Iraqi government to be truly legitimate. Mr. Chairman, I recognize my testimony today has been only the start of an effort to answer your questions about the future of Iraq. There are many uncertainties. What I am certain about is that we seek an Iraq that is democratic, unified, multi-ethnic, with no weapons of mass destruction, which has cut its links to all terrorists, and is at peace with its neighbors. We expect to stay in close touch with you over the coming weeks. As slowly as things move in Washington, I would take this to still be the US policy and take the Kurdish complaints as an attempt at public diplomacy. I don't think US policy has changed. But we'll see in coming weeks.... My $0.02. Cheers, Scott.
Post #82,246 by Brandioch 2/17/03 12:02:45 PM Reply	Why can't it be done now? After all, NOW is when we should be talking about these things. Draft various proposals for various forms of government. Will it be pure democracy? With whomever getting more votes winning? Will there be political parties? Or tribal/ethnic? Why don't we offer the same thing that WE originally started with? President and Vice-President can be from DIFFERENT parties? Will we have to draw "states"? Or "voting districts"? To ensure diversity in each? Will there be an electoral college? What about a modern Constitution? Can we at least get drafts of THAT out and commented on? Again, we know EXACTLY how much it will cost to pump a barrel of Iraqi oil. -but- We don't even have rough drafts of how we're going to "rebuild" their government yet. And rebuilding a government takes a LOT more work than pumping oil.
Post #82,261 by JayMehaffey 2/17/03 1:17:30 PM Reply	More then we can see I hope there is more being done then we can see, in terms of putting a new government for Iraq together. But for obvious reasons, talk of a new government in Iraq is quiet and careful. Doubly so, because last time we told the Kurds to revolt we left them out to hang. As for what sort of government I would like to see in Iraq? A single unified government is preferable to a bunch of semi-indpendent statelets. While that might make people happier over the short term, it would setup the country to collapse eventually. We should be promoting political parties rather then racial / ethnic / religous factions. But initially the parties are going to fall along those lines, it's unavoidable. For political reasons, it would be better for Iraq to draft it's own constitution. But would should have some drafts and models ready to help them along. Special care must be taken in drafting the section that covers the legal code, because we obviously don't want one based on Islamic law but neither will one that is anti-Islam be aceptable. A parlimentary democracy with a moderatly powerful president seems to me to be the best balance. In the US today the president has too much power, but governments with really weak presidents tend to be unstable. This has the added advantage that it is a fairly easy form of government to ease into. We can start by forming a parliment made up of all the powerful factions, serving as an advisory party to the military government. Later, once things are organized somewhat, elections can be held for membership in the parliment. This can easily be transitioned into a free government over a couple of years by giving them more power, till eventually an election can be held to choose a president. Jay
Post #82,280 by Brandioch 2/17/03 3:30:29 PM Reply	I don't think so. While I would LIKE to believe that we're doing all the required planning already, but just not talking about it.... We seem to have no trouble talking about sending 800 cruise missiles into Baghdad and so forth. A single unified government is preferable to a bunch of semi-indpendent statelets. While that might make people happier over the short term, it would setup the country to collapse eventually. Or they might have a civil war similar to our's. On the other hand, it MIGHT be the easiest way to ease them into a democracy. That's one of the things that should be openly discussed. We should be promoting political parties rather then racial / ethnic / religous factions. But initially the parties are going to fall along those lines, it's unavoidable. Again, this needs to be discussed openly. In a tribal society like Iraq, there will be attempts to get everyone in YOUR tribe into the government. But how can a government be setup that can handle a situation such as that? Aside from a dictatorship. I think it would be good to get that aspect out in the open and discussed. Particularly amongst the Iraqi people. It's their future we're talking about. They should know what we plan. For political reasons, it would be better for Iraq to draft it's own constitution. But would should have some drafts and models ready to help them along. Yep. The problem with that is, who decides what goes into the Constitution? The person(s) making that decision is, in effect, the government. Special care must be taken in drafting the section that covers the legal code, because we obviously don't want one based on Islamic law but neither will one that is anti-Islam be aceptable. We're actually fairly lucky on that score as Iraq has been secular for so many years. But will the law be based upon English common law (such as the US's is) or will people be guilty until proven innocent? What about trials and arrests and such? That last part is, to me, EXTREMELY important. A parlimentary democracy with a moderatly powerful president seems to me to be the best balance. In the US today the president has too much power, but governments with really weak presidents tend to be unstable. :) Yep. But the MOST stable form of government is a dictatorship. :) There are other options, also. No president. All decisions ratified by a council. That way, each faction would have to work with the other factions to accomplish anything. This often leads to lots of internal bickering, but that might not be a bad thing at this time for Iraq. I just don't see what would be GAINED by NOT discussing it now that hasn't already been LOST by discussing the invasion in detail. And I see a lot that could be gained by educating the Iraqi people about what other forms of government are available and what different legal systems protect what basic rights.
Post #82,263 by scoenye 2/17/03 1:38:56 PM Reply	Turkey The Kurds now have a semi-autonomous region. If Saddam exits, that autonomy will be reinforced. There is enough oil there to sustain it. Turkey will never agree to any plan that would allow this to happen and their cooperation with Bush's war plans depends on this. Given that Turkey is needed to stage attacks from, they have king George over a barrel. The Kurds are expendable.
Post #82,264 by scoenye 2/17/03 1:43:21 PM Reply	Whoops. Covered below... [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=82043\|http://z.iwethey.org...w?contentid=82043]

Welcome to IWETHEY!