| Submit your comments on this article |
| Iraq |
| ’Chaos’ ’mars’ talks on Iraqi self-rule |
| 2003-04-16 |
| The Guardian is up to its usual tricks today, so I'm putting the scare quotes into their eadline. The US and British governments yesterday formally began the Oh, you noticed! The meeting ended with only the broad outlines for a new government agreed Chalabi seems to be everyone's lint brush, doesn't he? Despite a Since the purpose of the meeting was to get something accomplished, it made sense to exclude the UN. US marines, standing behind barbed wire, blocked access to Iraqis wanting to attend the meeting. One of those outside, a former Iraqi major, Zamil Hamid, 54, said: "I tried to participate but they do not allow me to. One of the US soldiers told me I was not on the list." So take a hint, Zamil, and wait for the elections. Diplomats had said privately that simply holding yesterday's meeting without it descending into a bitter dispute would be regarded as a success, however modest. Many of the speeches met with lukewarm applause and the most vital questions for the future remained unanswered. Saddam spent 25 years wrecking the country, and the Guardian is aghast that it's taken us over a week to put it back together. "What model will we use?" asked Hoshyar Zebari, an official from the Kurdish Democratic party. "Will it be the Afghan model, will the United Nations be involved, what will be the role of the opposition? These are all things we have to decide." Mr Khalilzad tried to encourage the Iraqi representatives to work quickly towards an interim authority. "We want you to establish your own democratic system based on Iraqi traditions and values," he told the meeting. "I urge you to take this opportunity to cooperate with each other." There's a new concept in Iraq. A statement at the end of the meeting set out a 13-point framework for a new government. It was unclear who had suggested the points and whether the Iraqis had voted on any issue, other than the decision to meet again in 10 days. "The first vote of free Iraq should be about when the next meeting is," Gen Garner said. Spoken like a meeting chairman. The statement said the future Iraq should be a democratic, federal system and one not based on communal identity. It stressed the rule of law and the role of women, and said the meeting had discussed the relationship between religion and the state, although it did not appear to come to any agreement on this issue. The Ba'ath party, through which Saddam Hussein exercised ultimate control, was to be dissolved. "Its effects on society must be eliminated," the statement said. Sounds like quite an accomplishment: one meeting and they've already agreed to a framework that actually make Iraq a decent place to live. Several more meetings will be held in the weeks ahead before a final interim Iraqi authority is drawn up. "There should be an open dialogue with all national political groups to bring them into the process," the statement said. US officials who attended the meeting said they were likely to present their own proposals at the next gathering, an idea that many of the Too flippin' bad, boys. We brought the DJ, the drinks, the sound system and the mirror ball. You're invited to the party but don't get any strange ideas. |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #16 Hell, any meeting that goes better than the usual display of democracy in the Taiwanese parliment is a good meeting, so far as I'm concerned. No punches thrown, no one hospitalized. Read about the early days in the U.S. Congress, beatings, duels. Democracy is exciting. |
| Posted by: Chuck 2003-04-16 09:59:22 |
| #15 Phil B, Though I am anti radical Islam I have to disagree to you notion, how much you dislike it, it is almost the only religion wich is growing (at least in the US it is the number 1 religion in growth) Murat, this thread has gone on too long, but as secular atheist, I would point out that the issue is secularism versus religous dogma. Perhaps the most important mistake the Islamicists have made is to view this as a religous war. Its not! Its a war between secular liberal democracies and militant theism. Know thy enemy! |
| Posted by: Phil B 2003-04-16 09:08:54 |
| #14 "Despite a statement promise by the US president, George Bush, that the UN would have a "vital role" in Iraq, it was appropriately not invited to attend the Nassiriya meeting. " The guardian is being particularly disingenous here. The UN is not participating because there is not yet a UNSC resolution authorizing their involvement. If UNSC members truely want UN involvement, the burden is on THEM to speedily apporve a suitable resolution. That will require compromise among the permament members of the UNSC. Diplomatic activity to that end is now taking place, with Chirac talking to Bush, Blair talking to Schroeder, French businessmen talking to Chirac :), Syria thrown in as a bargaining chip, new discoveries in Iraq making certain countries look worse (note how hard the BBC today is trying to spin that Abu Abbas is not a "big fish") The situation is "dynamic" - meanwhile the process on the ground must advance, and itself serves to pressure the UNSC to act. |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-04-16 08:47:46 |
| #13 Murat,I wonder what those numbers are since 9/11?Especially the American Islamic communitys hesitation,obstruction,and support of thier radical elemnts. I have yet to hear the Islamic community openly,and forcefully condemn the terrorists.Much less pledge open and active support for the WoT.They certainly haven't done much to hunt down and turn over to the legal authorities the terrorist and suportters hideing in thier midsts. |
| Posted by: raptor 2003-04-16 08:40:30 |
| #12 Residents overwhelmingly expressed disapproval of Ahmad Chalabi, an exile who is being pushed by the Pentagon as the next Iraqi leader. I smell a plan. Chalabi is the fall guy, he gets to do the hard work of trying to set up a government, gets everyone mad at him, and when the time is right he bows out. The next guy is waiting in the wings, unseen, to come to the rescue to replace the hated Chalabi. |
| Posted by: Steve 2003-04-16 08:03:39 |
| #11 Going over the 13 points, it looks great. A federal democracy that recognizes the rights of women and minorities, ("not based on communal identity") rule of law, versus arbitrary imprisonment on the whim of the local strong man, and end to Ba'athsim, poltical violence (i.e. freedom of speech and assembly), and the group that boycotts are backed by Iran. Sounds great from here. Questions of the separation of mosque and state are still being hashed out, but still, this is the first meeting. Democracy is messy, but looks like they are off to a good start. Murat, think your numbers are a bit old, especially in the post 9-11 world. To far too many folks over here, Islamic terrorist is one word. There has not been enough vocal condemnation from inside to assuage the sense that the jihadi are a majority of the Muslim community. |
| Posted by: Ben 2003-04-16 05:44:05 |
| #10 Phil B, Though I am anti radical Islam I have to disagree to you notion, how much you dislike it, it is almost the only religion wich is growing (at least in the US it is the number 1 religion in growth) |
| Posted by: Murat 2003-04-16 04:30:18 |
| #9 Remarkable how much US papers dement or don't even publish how much USA serves the democratic rallies over there. Its remarkable the degree to which people in the Arab and Moslem world are willing to believe the lies and dis-information of their media! Murat, the thing that should worry you the most is that I (and others like me) consider this not our problem! Its up to you (and others like you) to fix it! If the Moslem world can't come to terms with reality then you (collectively) are on your way to oblivion! You should also ask yourself 'How much we would really care if Islam disapeared completely?' Answer = 'I remember Islam! Wasn't it that historically doomed religion that no one pratices any more.' Welcome to history! |
| Posted by: Phil B 2003-04-16 04:22:18 |
| #8 Phil B: that was very interesting commentary. That is hopeful then, not so bad after all! more land the kurds grab , the better if they can be sensible in administration. |
| Posted by: anon1 2003-04-16 03:48:07 |
| #7 Murat: cypriots armenians kurds... kurdistan |
| Posted by: anon1 2003-04-16 03:15:25 |
| #6 US soldiers kill 10 civilians in political rally Remarkable how much US papers dement or don't even publish how much USA serves the democratic rallies over there. |
| Posted by: Murat 2003-04-16 02:51:51 |
| #5 i am starting to think that it would have been better to have fiercer, longer , harder war psychologically crushing the Iraqis to the point where they were quiet and co-operative. I know that sounds fascist of me, but I am beginning to wonder if this wasn't part of a plan. After all, the Iraqi army just basically ran away and put civilian clothes on. Perhaps Sammy went to Syria or JOrdan 5 months ago and spoke only through Baghdad-doubles - maybe he thought 23 years of dictatorship was enough and it was time to retire, incognito, to the south of france with some of his stolen millions. Perhaps the army is planning just to loot and cause civil disturbance and trouble for the americans throughout any attempt at rebuilding iraq, making them look bad in the PR stakes as much as possible for as long as possible - or maybe I'm just letting the chickenlittle henny penny media get to me. btw: you can buy those 'deck of death' cards from www.greatusaflags.com they are only $6 as opposed to the $150 they've been selling for on ebay. |
| Posted by: anon1 2003-04-16 02:20:43 |
| #4 The Sunnis will play-ball because they are facing the well-organized (in Middle-East terms) Kurds to the North who have had a functioning semi-state for 10 years, and the, shall we say volatile, Shiites to the south who will be plagued by religous extremism for years to come. This is why there will be a federal Iraq, with each community having substantial autonomy and a weak central government. With the Kurds and Sunnis playing ball with the Americans, there is little the Shiites can do mess to the whole thing up, even though they are the majority. Probably the emergence a of Western oriented Shiite strongman like Chalabi is the best short to medium solution. BTW, be prepared for lots of negative spin from the Kurds. Bottom line is that America is their new best friend and they will do whatever the USA asks, but they have a vested interest in short-term instability. Reports of Kurdish fighters outside Tikrit and moving towards Baghdad from the NE indicates a major land-grab is underway. My guess is they have more than doubled (perhaps tripled) the territory under their control. They now need time to consolidate their control and to allow Kurdish civilians to move in. It will then be fairly easy for them to claim this as historically Kurdish territory. Overall I am very optimistic. Who was who said "Democracy is the worst form of government, until you compare it with the alternatives." |
| Posted by: Phil B 2003-04-16 01:21:14 |
| #3 Steve, about your comment: Chalabi is the fall guy, he gets to do the hard work of trying to set up a government, gets everyone mad at him, and when the time is right he bows out. The next guy is waiting in the wings, unseen, to come to the rescue to replace the hated Chalabi. While that's possible, I don't think it's very probable - mainly because I don't think Chalabi is that reasonable. I would believe that an even better solution could be achieved - talk, talk, talk, until Garner notices one or two local, reasonable, sensible, and liked people standing out, then the US cut Chalabi off and start working with those local people. The entire idea here is to encourage that kind of dialogue, and to help get the Iraqi people used to discussing government issues. For the last 35+ years, all they've been able to do is whisper such thoughts among themselves, and even that brought fear of being exposed. Creating a government in Iraq that meets the NEEDS of Iraq is going to take compromise, careful thought, and a lot of discussion. The more they do now with words, the less they'll do later with guns. |
| Posted by: Old Patriot 2003-04-16 10:30:17 |
| #2 oops link didnt work - ill try later for those really interested look for INC website. you can get there via US State Dept section on Iraq - links to NGO's |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-04-16 10:27:17 |
| #1 heres a scorecard for some of the major players From the INC site, but looks balanced |
| Posted by: liberalhawk 2003-04-16 10:25:59 |