Commentary on new Iraqi Policy

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2003
Commentary on new Iraqi Policy
16
Wed, 11-19-2003 - 6:32pm
Editor's Note: A new U.S. political blueprint for the return of sovereignty to Iraqis is flawed but fascinating, imposed but important.

When Colonial Adventures Begin to End

Commentary, Rami G. Khouri,

Pacific News Service, Nov 19, 2003

BEIRUT, Lebanon--If the "Agreement on Political Process" recently signed by the U.S. occupation authority in Iraq and the American-appointed Iraqi Governing Council were a commercial Web site, I would gladly put all its shiny democratic values into my shopping cart.

The United States gets an A+ for intent. But it gets a D- for implementation.

The document embodies powerful principles of democratic pluralism, equality before the law, representational federalism, and the consent of the governed. It is audacious in the sweep, speed and clarity of the proposed democratic transition. In just 66 lines, it offers a blueprint to wipe out three decades of Iraqi-engineered Baathist tyranny and the previous five decades of British-made post-colonial incoherence, and replace them with an American-inspired Thomas Jefferson on the Tigris.

The specifics are impressive, and hard to argue with. The document is packed with references to "freedom‚" "equality‚" "rights‚" "due process‚" "independence of the judiciary‚" "transparency‚" and other fine political values. Its democratization procedures include selection of representative individuals to regional bodies that will ultimately draft a national constitution, ratification of the constitution by the citizenry, caucuses to select individuals for a transitional national assembly, a constitutional convention of directly elected Iraqis and other ringing aspects of accountable democratic governance as practiced for so many decades in America.

In short, the document encapsulates the best and worst of America today. It spells out and offers others the finest American governance traditions. But the manner of Washington's attempt to transform Iraqi despotism into Iraqi democracy is naïve and unrealistic, and its realization will be bumpy, for at least four main reasons:

1. The plan totally ignores the points of tension, even incompatibility, that will surface during the meeting of American and indigenous Iraqi-Arab-tribal-Islamic-Kurdish-etc. cultural values. These tensions will be resolved over time by Iraqis, just as they were resolved in the European and American transitions from feudalism-and-slavery to democracy from the 16th to the mid-20th centuries. Forging a new Iraqi nationalism and democracy with the crucible and moulds of American republicanism is as unrealistic as it is noble.

2. It is fundamentally imposed by the United States, and includes numerous explicit American veto powers over implementation. This "democratization" process is peculiarly undemocratic, and at second glance seems more colonial than collegiate.

3. The Interim Governing Council itself was appointed by the U.S. occupation authority. Many of its members are credible national or tribal leaders, but the council collectively enjoys very mixed legitimacy and credibility among Iraqis. (Flash back to the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands: two decades ago the Israeli occupation authority created Palestinian "village leagues‚" tried to reach political accords with them, and failed miserably and predictably. Why? Because political bodies appointed by an occupying military power and designed to achieve the occupier's strategic goals enjoy no indigenous legitimacy or credibility, whether in Palestine, Iraq, South Vietnam, Afghanistan -- or 18th century Virginia.)

4. The agreement reflects American policy-making by panic, which is dangerous for all concerned. The agreement's content, power balance and hasty promulgation suggest that it aims more to get the United States out of Iraq than to allow Iraq to define itself. Intent and credibility usually drive implementation in the adult world, and Washington's intent and credibility here -- just as before its war on Iraq -- remain culturally confused, politically simplistic, motivationally suspect and diplomatically hasty. Washington has taken a good idea -- transforming tyranny into democracy -- and implemented it badly, because it largely acts unilaterally, militarily and through narrow American worldviews.

Thus the "Agreement on Political Process" to turn over sovereignty to Iraqis is flawed but fascinating, imposed but important. It mirrors a deeper history of how power and culture are exercised in the world -- how the strong influence the weak and try to reshape them in their own image, and how colonial adventures end.

So the United States embarrasses itself, acting as an incompetent and dizzy colonial power that changes governments and tries to reshape the entire Middle East. But Arab governments and peoples throughout the Middle East embarrass themselves even more, as they prove to be incompetent and docile spectators, passively watching their own post-colonial history of autocracy, passivity and powerlessness replayed over and over again.

The antidote must include a more realistic, humble and multilateral American policy, along with a more profound, activist, honest and credible policy from the Arab countries. America and all its united states became prosperous and democratic because their people demanded, and forged, good governance. America offers us ennobling lessons, along with ugly, imposed colonial treaties. We should beware of, renegotiate and improve the bad treaties, but embrace and achieve the promise of good governance.

PNS contributor Rami G. Khouri (rgkhouri@hotmail.com) is a political scientist and executive editor of the Daily Star newspaper in Beirut, Lebanon.

http://news.pacificnews.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=e188d089a1c794de821b4e704e8e8916


Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Thu, 11-20-2003 - 9:15am

>"Many of its members are credible national or tribal leaders, but the council collectively enjoys very mixed legitimacy and credibility among Iraqis."<


I imagine the occupying force has to start somewhere. With Ahmad Chalabi as a member of the council it lessens the credability of the council, IMO. He gave false/exagerated info. to the US & has the appearence of being a US pawn. His background is 'ify', with accusations of bank fraud I believe in Jordan.


>"Washington's intent and credibility here -- just as before its war on Iraq -- remain culturally confused, politically simplistic, motivationally suspect and diplomatically hasty. Washington has taken a good idea -- transforming tyranny into democracy -- and implemented it badly, because it largely acts unilaterally, militarily and through narrow American worldviews."<


Well said.


>"America offers us ennobling lessons, along with ugly, imposed colonial treaties. We should beware of, renegotiate and improve the bad treaties, but embrace and achieve the promise of good governance."<


I don't think these goals can be accomplished by force. This will produce more enemies & people with nothing to lose to follow the path of terrorism.


Or has the US gone too far to achieve democracy by a peaceful means? How can democracy be achieved through force?


 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-23-2003
Thu, 11-20-2003 - 11:45am

Excellent piece!


iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2003
Thu, 11-20-2003 - 11:49am
<>

He was convicted of bank fraud in Jordan. I can't understand, why the administration still backs him. He is a pawn until he can institute his own agenda, which is to replace Saddam.

<>

IMHO, the Iraqis must fight for their own democracy. Will they? This is the question that is yet to be answered. We can train and arm a military, but who knows what they will do when given an opportunity. Whose lead will they follow? And perhaps more telling, will they fall back on previous patterns of behavior and become victums of another dictator?

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-04-2003
Thu, 11-20-2003 - 1:32pm
I thought it was an excellent article and there's something in it for everyone.

<>

...and

<

The antidote must include a more realistic, humble and multilateral American policy, along with a more profound, activist, honest and credible policy from the Arab countries. America and all its united states became prosperous and democratic because their people demanded, and forged, good governance.>>

Well, maybe there isn't something for EVERYone...it still is of the opinion that this war (to achieve the goal of bringing democracy to Iraq) was ill-advised.....as far as helping to end terorism in the world, I'm still trying to get my head around that one.

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-25-2003
Thu, 11-20-2003 - 2:24pm
<>

And you know this how???

Renee

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-18-2000
Thu, 11-20-2003 - 5:23pm

Not just the opinion of Hayashig & mine.


>"The Pentagon had flown in its favourite puppet, the discredited exile Ahmad Chalabi, behind the advancing American troops in hopes of installing him as the new ruler, much like the British did back in 1921 with Prince Faisal. But the Shiites and Kurds balked."<


Quote from.....


http://www.khilafah.com/home/category.php?DocumentID=8708&TagID=2


>"Writing recently in The New Yorker, investigative reporter Seymour Hersh alleged that Cheney had, in effect, become the dupe of a cabal of neoconservative full-mooners, the Pentagon's mysteriously named Office of Special Plans and the patsy of an alleged bank swindler and would-be ruler of Iraq, Ahmad Chalabi."<


Quote from...........


http://bulletin.ninemsn.com.au/bulletin/EdDesk.nsf/All/9BE63F025C881AE4CA256DDA0001A287


>"Bush and Bremer had insisted that before the Iraqis could run their own country, they’d have to create a proper constitution first, and only then hold national elections. Instead, as the United Nations and various influential former exiles like Ahmad Chalabi and Sunni power elites have long wanted, the Americans agreed to a kind of quasi democracy on the “Afghan model.” This involves selection of delegates for a National Assembly by tribal leaders and “notables” in Iraq’s 18 provinces. That body in turn would form a provisional government of elites by next June that will “assume full sovereign powers for governing Iraq,” according to an agreement released Saturday. This is to be followed by a constitutional convention, a referendum and then national elections—but not until 2005-06, when the Americans will have less control. The upshot is that Bush’s grand designs for Arab transformation now depend far more on Iraqis who may not share all his goals."<


Quote from.............


http://www.msnbc.com/news/994237.asp?0cv=KB10&cp1=1


There's lots more, just type his name into a search engine.


cl-Libraone

 


Photobucket&nbs

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-25-2003
Thu, 11-20-2003 - 6:12pm
<<<>

And you know this how???>>

Am I misunderstanding this?

Since Chalabi was being backed by the Pentagon as a possible Iraqi leader, I take it that is what hayasig is referring to when she says, "he is a pawn." My confusion comes from her second assertion, "until he can institute his own agenda, which is to replace Saddam," which seems to impy that he is getting along to go along until he can seize power and become another in a long line of Iraqi dictators.

I'm not aware of anything he has ever said or done in the past to base such an assertion on; are you?



Renee

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2003
Fri, 11-21-2003 - 10:34am
<>

Sorry, I don't quite understand what you can't get your "head around".

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-16-2003
Fri, 11-21-2003 - 10:37am
Thanks for fielding the question. You did a beautiful job!
iVillage Member
Registered: 04-04-2003
Fri, 11-21-2003 - 10:55am
I can't get my head around how invading Iraq could be a tactic to end terrorism.

Overthrowing the Saddam government yes, ending terrorism no. Fueling more terrorsim....yes.

Pages