The Prez and his people continue to crow to the US citizenry about the Iraqi negotiators’ “agreement” on the text of a Constitution– even while Viceroy Zal Khalilzad is also reported by AP as saying that further “edits” might be made to the text.)
I would be very happy if the Bushies could somehow just “declare victory” and, more to the point, pull all the US troops speedily out of Iraq. But they aren’t about to do that. Indeed, in the US press today, administration people were quoted as saying there would be an increased troop deployment at least through January, to try to “assure safety” for both the October referendum and the December election.
The administration’s entire attempt at the political reconstitution of Iraq is crumbling into chaos with every minute that passes.
Is there the text of a constitution– or not?
Has the conclusion of an agreement on this text met the (arbitrarily made-in-the-USA) TAL deadline– or not?
Should it be the Prime Minister who represents “Iraq” at important international gatherings like next month’s UN Summit– or not?
Indeed, is there even an elected Iraqi Transitional Assembly in place in Baghdad these days– or not?
The answers to all these questions appear to be “no.” (How many of you went to the link that Juan Cole provided that went to this Reuters story about the National Assembly not even nowadays being able to reach the required quorum to make a decision? That’s a reveealing and sobering piece of reporting.)
Some people on JWN and elsewhere have asked, quite reasonably, what anyone’s specific objections are to the text of the constitution. As I understand it, nearly all Arab Sunnis in Iraq and an unknown (but probably not trivial) number of other Iraqis have two kinds of objections to the constitution:
(1) They object to specific clauses (or absences) in its text. Most of these center around the decentralization question– the devolution of powers previously held by the central government to the provinces or the new entity of “regions.”
In particular there is opposition to Art. 110, part 2, which states “The federal government and the governments of the producing regions and provinces together will draw up the necessary strategic policies to develop oil and gas wealth…” This mandates central government power-sharing with the regions in the case of new (but not existing) oil developments. Also, Art. 150 states that contracts that the Kurdish region has already, earlier, concluded are effective; and the Kurdish has already– according to a rceent piece in Al-Hayat signed a number of oil-development contracts in recent years.
There is also objection to the absence from the text of any mention of Iraq being “part of the Arab world.” (This could be a concern to people who are worried about Kurdish separatism– but also those worried about Iran’s influence in the new order.)
(2) In addition to those and other objections on matters of the content of the constitution, many Iraqis– and certainly, nearly all Sunni Iraqi leaders and personalities– have expressed very strong objections to the way the constitution negotiations have been conducted. Especially, as they see it, the fact that the “final” draft– or as it now turns out, perhaps the “near-final” draft– was rammed through by Khalilzad acting in concert only with the Kurds and with the pro-SCIRI Shia.
There are all kinds of other allegations of misdoing out there, as well, including reports of massive bribes being offered by the Americans and taken by some Iraqi pols.
I think these objections to the process of constitution-making are much more serious than the objections to the content of draft now being discussed.
To succeed, this constitution– like any other in a situation of radical transition– needs to be seen by the vast majority of the electorate involved as being the result of a credible and legitimate negotiation. So far, this looks far from being the case with the various pieces of paper being floated around Iraq.
Credible? Legitimate? Negotiation?
I don’t think so… Especially not on a day in which US forces were reported as having killed 47 people in an air-strike in the west of the country.
The problem with the “negotiation” over the Iraqi constitution at this point has little to with the representativity or otherwise, or the degree of organization or otherwise, of the various Iraqi parties to it. (Though over the long haul those are certainly legitimate concerns.) It has to do with the credibility and legitimacy of its US sponsors– in the eyes of the Sunnis, and others.
Hint to the Bush administration: “You don’t win ‘legitimacy’ as a political-diplomatic coordinating force through the barrel of a gun. All you win that way is continued enmity, strife, suffering, and division.”
You’d think they might have learned that lesson with their brutal and unnecessary escalation against Fallujah, last November? But no. Now it looks as if the preparations for the October referendum and the election to follow might similarly include US escalation rather than any attempt at skilled and inclusive diplomacy.
(You also might think that at a time when their faithful friend Hosni Mubarak is up for re-election in Egypt, they might have tried to avoid arousing Sunni passions throughout the Arab world… But again: no. What do they care?)
A tragedy, a tragedy. With these cynical and deeply ignorant people in charge in Washington, the future can only bring further terrible suffering to the Iraqis– and also, to use Americans.
41 thoughts on “Iraq: constitution as process”
Comments are closed.
Agreeing to Disagree in Iraq
By NOAH FELDMAN
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/30/opinion/30feldman.html?ei=5040&en=4aeb8c9a7b8b5fb7&ex=11&oref=login
This what Noah cooked when he was working in Iraq and the harvest we got today is due to his drafted with some Iraqi folks early 2003?
Also Helena not just Iraqi objected the text of this paper, but their many Arabs voices raises last week
1- The Kuwaiti Foreign Minster visited Tehran for unexpected visit last for hours asking Iran about Iraq unity
Hi salah. I’m glad you put ina reference/link to Noah Feldman’s pieceA constitution is just a piece of paper, no better than the underlying consensus – or lack thereof – that it memorializes. If Iraq adopts a constitution that reflects a profound and unresolved national split, violence and eventual division of the nation will follow. Ordinary Iraqis and American soldiers will be the losers. So will the ideal of constitutional government.
I hope everyone heeds that warning.
About the Arab states. You’re right to mention those, too. Including especially Amre Musa’s very angry statement reported yesterday. (Your #2.)
About the Arab states. You’re right to mention those, too. Including especially Amre Musa’s very angry statement reported yesterday. (Your #2.)
Although this provides an interesting counterpoint to some remarks you’ve made about another regional ethnonationalism. I remember you arguing that Israel should not define itself as a Jewish state in a way that excludes its non-Jewish citizens. As it happens, I agreed with you and still do; I think that, in order for Israel to be both a Jewish and democratic state, it must also define itself as a state of all citizens and recognize that it is both a home and a homeland for non-Jews.
So why should this be different in the case of Iraq? There are Arab and non-Arab peoples in Iraq, and the state belongs to all of them. The draft constitution doesn’t deny or negate Arab nationhood; indeed, it specifically affirms that the Arab peoples of Iraq are part of the Arab nation. So why should the non-Arab peoples of the state (i.e., those who choose to define themselves as something other than Arabs) be excluded?
so why should this be different in the case of Iraq?
This far from the realty and the understading what exactly Arab nation adentity.
1- Israel had never been as state in the history I know you will not agree, Israel crated by special case by the West to forgiveness whom the Jewish suffered more racists and killing all sorts in France, Italy finally Germany, so it was a project for forgiveness and guilt, this came inline to Zionist ideology that help to push the project forward.
for Iraq there is 5000 years singed to the land and to the citizens of that land and marked as Arab land even though there are minorities which is common, there are never been a pure nation of one blood.
More over the borders which introduced by Britts colony after WWI divided the Arabs against there wish in fact the Britts and others mislead the Arabs and broken their promises to them to be as before one Arab nation.
2- There is misleading or miss reporting of the case in Iraq, there is Moslems and others what ever US and other pro-Israeli try to push forwards the reality it
Salah, I don’t want to hijack this thread, but a nation is a group of people with a common culture, history and self-identification. Israel has existed as a state for only 57 years, but Jews have existed as a nation for many centuries.
In addition, it is possible for nations to be created over time, as cultural groups form and coalesce. 1000 years ago there was no such thing as a Swiss nation, today there is. Whether or not there was a Jewish Israeli nation a century ago, there is today. I would never deny the nationhood or peoplehood of Arabs, why do you deny it to Jews?
And as far as Iraq, aren’t the Kurds and other minorities entitled to decide for themselves whether they are Arabs or not – and if they decide not, then are they any less Iraqi?
This may be a little off-topic, but at least it’s about Iraq. There was a very curious assertion today in a WP article by Ellen Knickmeyer that recent U.S. bombing of towns near the Syrian border was carried out in support of an “unprecedented tribal push to drive out Zarqawi’s forces.” The suggestion is that Sunni tribal leaders in the area are somehow cooperating with the U.S. airforce in the destruction of their villages, although later in the article she says: “There was no word from the U.S. military on the level of coordination, if any, between the U.S. air strikes and tribal opponents of Zarqawi.”
I fear this will be the new propaganda line that justifies an intensified bombing campaign in Anbar province. “We’re helping the good local tribal people defeat the evil terrorist infiltrators.” How do we tell them apart? Why, by their “Western-style clothes and athletic shoes” of course!
I have been predicting that as the ground war deteriorates into an obviously lost cause, the air war will accelerate. Is anyone still arguing that this is nothing like Vietnam?
there was no such thing as a Swiss nation, today there is.
Yah, Swiss case the Federalisation used to create a State, in case of Iraq, Federalization planed to breakdown a State, in favour of the only Democratic State in ME
P.S. – Maybe someone with more technical knowledge can explain to me how F-16 pilots are able to single out individuals sporting “Western style clothes and athletic shoes” when targeting their 500 lb bombs.
Jewish Israeli nation a century ago
Then I put it like this “Muslem Iraqi Nation its for more 1000 yeras ago” so why you like to berak it now?
John C.,
more details US Air forces strike a medical centre in that area ”Alkarablah” and many medical stuff kills and injured also civilians they clamed they used 500 lb Smart bombs “Laser Guided Bombs” looking laser beam drifted from its smart target!!!!
Salah, OK but what I want to know is: were the medical staff wearing “Western style clothes and athletic shoes?”
On 10 March 2004, Iranians Parliament pass a new law which gives the women the same right of men for dividing the deseed assets (Alsharq Alwasate, 11March 2004).
So why then Alhakeem and Alja’afry argue with this point with the Iraqi moderates?
Saddam’s Trap Closes on George W.
http://www.watchingamerica.com/tunishebdo000009.html
“a nation is a group of people with a common culture, history and self-identification” wrote Jonathan Edelstein.
This is not identical but not different in kind to Stalin’s definition, in his book on the “National Question”.
What I mean is that it is empirical. The trouble with empirical definitions is that each person can have his own.
Which is precisely the problem with the national question.
Depending on who you are, and what your purposes are, you may not of course think of this as a problem. For Jonathan, it appears to be a convenient source of endless special pleading. In his case principles are not required, only pretexts or expedients.
At some stage I suggested that people might consider bourgeois and proletarians as more fruitful categories than, say, Sunnis and Shias. I’m sure you all thought I was joking. I was not. Normal politics in a nation-state is a negotiation between bourgeois and proletarians. The constitution is primarily for the purpose of keeping this negotiation within boundaries. Why have you all forgotten this?
Let me put it more directly. A nation-state is a historical development and is bourgeois. Its constitution fixes the boundaries of negotiation between bourgeois and proletarian in such a way that the bourgeoisie remains in charge at all times. If the proletariat were to have its way the nation-states would be wound down (drawn down, perhaps we could say). Bourgeois and proletarian are institutionalised into the nation state by its constitution. That’s the whole shtick.
All the rest, the ethnic rubbish and the confessional rubbish, is going to take away from the clarity of constitution-writing. Instead of seeing this, you are elevating the redundant rubbish as if it was the essence.
Question: Was this clause dictated by the occupying power?
Article 7
“The principles of Islamic Shari’a shall be a major source of legislation. The civil and religious matters of the followers of monotheistic religions shall be organized in accordance with their religious teaching and their denominations, within the framework of law and in a manner that preserves the unity and independence of the… people.”
Exactly, JES.
Your friends made an elective war on Iraq for one purpose, which was to take Iraq backwards and to reverse its progress as a modern nation-state.
This is the truth. The rest is a pack of lies.
Dominic,
Thank you for not answering the question I asked.
“Your friends made an elective war on Iraq for one purpose, which was to take Iraq backwards and to reverse its progress as a modern nation-state.
“This is the truth. The rest is a pack of lies.”
Now, would you care to substantiate the “truth” of your statement, or are we to accept it simply because you said it?
On the positive side, I’m very pleased that you have that quaint 19th century social-evolutionary theory to fall back on. Now, if you could define for us exactly who are the bourgeois and who the poletariat, and why this Western theory, developed by a German-Jew based largely on a study of British history, should apply in the specific social-cultural environment of 21st century Iraq, your argument might be a tad more convincing.
Don’t be a bore, JES. Of course I answered your question. I wrote “Exactly”. That means “Yes”. Now go back and look at it again.
I live in South Africa. My President, Thabo Mbeki, has written that our task is to make South Africa a normal society, which most people agree, it was not before, under the old regime. What does he mean by a normal society? He means a society where capital and labour negotiate their different interests under a constitution.
Now tad off.
Dominic,
Sorry. I didn’t understand that your “exactly” was the response to my question. Now let me quote that article in full:
“Article (7)
The principles of Islamic Shari
I thought that you were going to run away from this argument as soon as you tried to accuse me of “not answering your question”.
Well, good riddance to you. I’ve had enough of being patronised and condescended to, anyway.
Now, anyone else: how is this constitution going to work as a basis for business?
I suspect it amounts to socialism for the Foreign Direct Investor and low-grade survivalist capitalism for everybody else. Probably the Yanks are slapping each other on the back in their Green Zone bunker right now and shouting “Never give a sucker an even break” at each other.
I repeat, all this confessional-ethnic eyewash is nothing to do with it. Follow the money.
Oy veh is mir!
Ki kulacho ki nguoni mwako.
Salah, this is off-topic, but what happened today in Baghdad is really horrible. You and all the families of the dead have my sympathy.
And Dominic, is it really endless special pleading when I make the same plea on behalf of everyone? Universal special pleading, perhaps?
Hi Jonathan,
I’m sorry if I was a bit sharp, but I’m afraid what follows may come across even sharper. I just don’t know how else to put it. The old regime in SA used to talk about people’s “own affairs” and “separate development”. It was all as reasonable as could be and based on the utmost fairness and consideration for everybody – on paper. That’s why I don’t have a lot of time for this ethno-confessional stuff. Because of course the old SA regime was a rip-off of the most shameless kind.
I’m sure I don’t have to tell you that the ancient meaning of “economy” is simply “the arrangements” (of the household). South Africa was and is one household, and so is Iraq one household. “The arrangement” are written in the constitution, but they are not different from the material arrangements, otherwise known as “the economy”.
What about the economy of Iraq, Jonathan? What about the relationship between this colonial constitution-making and the economy of the country, most especially in relation to the imperial power? Pecuniae non olet. Money has no smell, ethnicity or religion. So without hedging it around with race and religion, where’s the beef?
RE: the consitution process –Herbert Docena (from Focus on the Global South) has an interesting article in today’s Asia Times: atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GI01AK01.html, suggesting that the Bush Administration tolerated the religious provisions of the constitution in exchange for inclusion of its neo-liberal economic demands, meaning that Iraqi assets will be privatized and available to foreigners and multinational corporations. There are other cited constitution inclusions that the majority of Iraqis would not accept. How and how much of the constitution will be revealed to the Iraqi people?
I can understand Dominic not wanting to defend Marxism as a viable, universal economic and political theory. I wouldn’t either. But I wasn’t being sarcastic with my questions, particularly:
“…why this Western theory, developed by a German-Jew based largely on a study of British history, should apply in the specific social-cultural environment of 21st century Iraq….”
Reducing everything to the “economy” in a socio-cultural context that is greatly removed from the Western European (and primarily 17th and 18th century British) underpinnings of the theory is simply absurd. Of course ethnic and confessional considerations are window dressing for the real issues, which have to do with political control. But in the Middle Eastern setting, these have more to do with tribal and clan based prestige and “honor” than they do with “class struggle”.
To give an example from closer to home, Yassir Arafat was a good Marxist revolutionary to the outside world, because that’s what his patrons demanded of him. To his own people, however, he had to cultivate his status and standing as scion of the al-Husaynis.
Now, as far as the constitution goes, I see the objections brought up by Helena as follows:
Class (1) objections, concerning the wording, are pretty much irrelevant outside the context of “honor”, particularly of the Sunnis, who are, quite naturally, not happy with giving up power over the entire country.
Either the country manages to develop a national economy based on oil and gas production, or it doesn’t. That’s macroeconomics, and it shouldn’t have to be affected by ethnic or ecumenical considerations (or even the underlying issues of honor and prestige). As long as the constitution and legislation ensure equal opportunities, there is no reason why this – or any other – industry needs to be centralized (and from most socialist experiences with centralized, planned economies, I’d say there is every reason why it shouldn’t).
As to the issues of whether or not the constitution defines Iraq as part of the Arab world, this again is a moot point. Kurds, Turkomen and Assyrians are simply not Arabs, and should not be expected to welcome Arabization as a step forward. Again, either the state of Iraq is able to hold itself together, or it is not.
Finally, there are concerns about personal status, and particularly the status of women. There is no reason why this can’t be taken care of through legislation, even if not spelled out explicitly in the constitution. The US, for example, failed to institute the ERA, but this has not halted the progress of women in gaining equal rights (and affirmative action).
As to the Class (2) objections cited by Helena, all I can say is that Germany and, to even a greater extent Japan, were pretty much assigned constitutions after World War II. In the case of Japan, my understanding is the Douglas McArthur pretty much drafted the Japanese constitution himself! The Japanese have succeeded in developing a pretty thriving society and modern economy despite the intervention of the occupier. In fact, they have, apparently, managed to free themselves of much of the issues of “honor” that got them into and aggressive and imperialistic war in the first place. I’d say that the Iraq people would do well to look at their example.
I’m sorry if I was a bit sharp
Hardly. As you should know by now, it’s nearly impossible to offend me with an honestly expressed opinion.
The old regime in SA used to talk about people’s “own affairs” and “separate development”. It was all as reasonable as could be and based on the utmost fairness and consideration for everybody – on paper.
Again, I don’t want to hijack Helena’s thread with a debate on the nature of nationalism, so I’ll just point out the fallacy in equating a particular application of an idea with the idea itself. I’m sure you’d agree that the excesses of Stalinism or Maoism don’t invalidate socialism as a concept. Likewise, South African apartheid isn’t the only possible form of nationalism and doesn’t invalidate nationalism as such. (If you think about it, “separate development” is the entire basis of the Westphalian system of state sovereignty, but does that mean that the entire framework of international law is one colossal apartheid system?)
And now, returning to the topic at hand:
What about the economy of Iraq, Jonathan? What about the relationship between this colonial constitution-making and the economy of the country, most especially in relation to the imperial power? Pecuniae non olet. Money has no smell, ethnicity or religion. So without hedging it around with race and religion, where’s the beef?
I assume that you primarily had Article 25 in mind when making this statement:
That seems to be the provision most often cited by those who view the draft constitution as a blueprint for neoliberal economics and takeover by foreign capital. Its language, however, is what is referred to in American law as “hortatory” – i.e., it establishes a national goal, but leaves it to the legislature to determine how and in what degree to pursue that goal. Not to mention that “diversifying” the sources of investment can mean anything, and in light of the quasi-protectionist clauses in Articles 23(3) and 24, might be interpreted to mean increasing the diversity of Iraqi (rather than foreign) ownership.
There are also mediating factors external to the article. One is the provision that federal laws be evaluated by the constitutional court interpreted in conjunction with the principles of Islam, which means that any legislation to implement Article 25 will be subject to Islamic principles of workers’ rights and economic justice. (Islamic law, by and large, isn’t very friendly to neoliberalism.) Also, the workers’ rights provisions of Articles 21 and 22 will counteract some of the remaining effect of Article 25.
The only economic policy that’s really hardwired into the constitution is national ownership of oil and gas resources, in Articles 109-110. Incidentally, I think Helena’s wrong in stating that power-sharing and equitable distribution are only mandated for new wells; Article 110(1) requires the same for existing wells. Notwithstanding Article 25, I wouldn’t call this constitution a neoliberal’s dream.
Thanks, Jonathan, you’re a gentleman, and you are very informative.
Judy’s idea that “the Bush Administration tolerated the religious provisions of the constitution in exchange for inclusion of its neo-liberal economic demands” doesn’t seem right to me.
The way I see it the more sectarian the constitution is the better the imperialists are going to like it. Imperialism is monoply finance capitalism. What does it care about the free market? What it really doesn’t like is an independent national bourgeoise. A sectarian constitution guarantees that the national bourgeoisie will be hobbled, while the international firms will be insulated from its effects, no doubt.
Can somebody please explain exactly what “monoply finance capitalism” is?
Also, is there some sort of proof, or at least objective substantiation of the following remark, or are we simply supposed to accept it because it was stated?
“…the more sectarian the constitution is the better the imperialists are going to like it. Imperialism is monoply finance capitalism. What does it care about the free market? What it really doesn’t like is an independent national bourgeoise. A sectarian constitution guarantees that the national bourgeoisie will be hobbled, while the international firms will be insulated from its effects, no doubt.
”
A sectarian constitution guarantees that the national bourgeoisie will be hobbled, while the international firms will be insulated from its effects, no doubt.
On the other hand, there’s Article 24:
This would seem to preclude regional or sectarian protectionism and ensure that Iraqi capital and workers will have at least as much freedom of movement as foreign capital. (Note that only Iraqi capital is guarateed this freedom, and that regulations on foreign capital are permissible.)
BTW, there are no workers’ rights provisions in Article 21, so the reference in my previous comment should be to Article 22 only.
Curioser and curioser, Jonathan. Perhaps this really is a Boston-tea-party kind of constitution. I’ll be amazed, but stranger things have happened, I’m sure.
Jonathan, you are the only one who has registered any sort of condolences for the people who died in Iraq in the stampede today. It is unbelievably shocking and I am sure many people have no words, like me, to express themselves about this awful event in the world today. I have no words. I fear for the people. I cannot imagine how, but I must wish them to find peace.
The only economic policy that’s really hardwired into the constitution is national ownership of oil and gas resources, in Articles 109-110. Incidentally,
First you said you steadied very well the paper, now I think you are not really looked carefully to all of it.
Not just the oil and the Wells, there are 149 projects also will be privatized by this paper for foreigners
-Steel factory in Basrah
-Petrochemical Factory in Basra
-Phosphate Factory in Alanbar
These projects are the biggest in ME when are builds late 1970th and early 1980th.
More and more than that, Iraq full of richness if you think its just oil and all related infrastructures you are very wrong in this Iraq, there is a lot of mining and the most important its the agricultures sector which is (Food Basket) its a huge and very rich.
Of course
Not just the oil and the Wells, there are 149 projects also will be privatized by this paper for foreigners
I looked again at the draft text and could not find any mention of these projects or their privatization. I have seen proposals to privatize state enterprises but these were separate from the constitution. Maybe I’m missing something – can you tell me which parts of the constitution would affect these enterprises?
SECRET U.S. PLANS FOR IRAQI OIL
http://www.gregpalast.com/opeconthemarch.html
This has been a really stimulating and informative thread, and I thank you all for it.
On the provisions for foreign capital, I think we should remember that not all such capital is American, or even Western. Arab firms like to invest in new oil projects, too. Here in the UAE, ‘foreign’ ownership clauses, while generically written, apply principally to other Arab enterprises (they are somewhat more liberal for GCC members) based outside the country. Those extend far outside the energy sector. There is a great deal of excess petro-liquidity here in the Gulf looking for investments and competent local financial markets to manage it. Obviously, that has an impact on Iraq.
Were I doing strategic planning for a Western company looking for such investments in Iraq, I might feel at a distinct competitive disadvantage right now. The early footing American firms have gotten (and the chicanery they’ve gotten away with) might well have a short life after all; in any case, the constitution appears silent on this.
Dominic,
Your expressions of grief for the dead in Baghdad were very well said. I’ve been on the phone today myself to the handful of people I know whose families might have been in the processional. Most of them are fine, the status of others is unknown. I’ve been using words all day, but I find that I don’t have any either, at least none that could be of any use.
Constitution, schmonstitution. You’re watching the decoy. You should be paying attention to General Jumper, who would like you to know that “American warplanes [will] have to support Iraq’s fledgling security forces well after American ground troops eventually withdraw from the country.” Think about what the General is saying here for five minutes, folks. . . . . . . .
OK, now do you still want to argue about Article this and Section that?
What is it with these Air Force Generals, anyway? They all seem to have viewed “Dr. Strangelove” as a training film.
Great thread! Way over my head technically, but witty and enjoyable. Thanks to all.
David
Realy good site!