Posted on 11/22/2004 3:49:36 PM PST by freakboy
Violence and boycotts could yet stop promised Iraqi elections going ahead on time, Arab ministers said, despite Baghdad's confident assertion the landmark vote would be held on January 30.
Iraq had somewhat upstaged a major international conference in Egypt on its future by announcing the date for the first post-Saddam Hussein elections a day before the meeting opened.
But not everyone was impressed by its confidence.
Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Abul Gheit, hosting the conference in the Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheikh said the meeting would be deciding whether the vote could be held on time, adding that "the question needs to be re-examined".
"The debates that will take place ... are very important because they will look at the question of the elections and decide on whether they can take place on the date envisaged or whether it needs more reflection."
Jordanian Foreign Minister Hani Mulki, asked if the election date was not over-optimistic given the relentless violence in Iraq said: "Dates are not sacred. What is sacred is the process."
As Iraq faces its first democratic test for decades, violence is still plaguing the country on a daily basis and several Sunni Arab groups have said they will boycott the vote.
Whether the Sunni Arab minority -- which dominated Iraq under Saddam Hussein and previous regimes -- take part in large numbers will be a major factor in determining the credibility of the elections.
"It is important to assure participation in the elections of all the Iraqi forces, even if it is necessary to have another look at the date of the elections," said an Arab delegate to the conference, speaking on condition of anonymity.
"If the elections took place but were boycotted, there would be a lack of equilibrium in the Sunni representation," he warned.
The diplomat said that many Arab countries shared this view, even if they were not saying so openly.
Abul Gheit said that the possibility of a Sunni boycott would be raised with UN Secretary General Kofi Annan when he attends the conference on Tuesday.
"He will be asked to give us an idea of what will be done in this respect, given that the United Nations is charged with helping to prepare the Iraqi election."
But the violence is also a major concern, raising questions about how democratic elections can be organized in a country were large bands of insurgents are still at large and capable of striking hard at civilians and security forces alike.
"We support all the measures taken for the conduct of the elections with the participation of the factions of the Iraqi people," Jordanian government spokeswoman Asma Khodr said in Amman.
But she added: "We are worried that the conditions could prevent the realisation of that objective ... The situation in Iraq worries us and we think it could have negative repercussions on holding the general elections on the date fixed."
In Syria, the state-owned daily Ath-Thawra said that the Sharm el-Sheikh conference represented "the best chance for the international parties to affirm the importance of the United Nations and neighbouring countries" in organizing the elections.
But it also warned: "The elections must take place on all Iraqi territory and not on 75 percent of the country as the United States hints at due to the insecurity in regions where resistance actions are taking place."
If it were up to the "Arab Ministers" there would never be an election in Iraq. That's their plan.
Delaying the elections will not benefit the cause of Democracy in Iraq in any shape. It will only encourage the insurgency. They have to take place as scheduled, no matter what.
If this boycott works in delaying the election, look for the Democrats to boycott future elections.
It sure is, and this is the beginning of their push to stop the elections. I would put money [if I had any :)] on ALL of THEM giving support to the terrorists in Iraq in some way shape or form to STOP these elections. They don't fear Afghanistan too much because it is too far in the 'backwoods' and has a lot of developing to do yet, but Iraq scares the pants off of them!!!
Jordanian minister says "the process is sacred"....HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.....now that's funny....a constitution monarchy considers elections sacred....HAHAHAHAHAHA
Who cares what "Arab ministers" say?
The other Arab countries were opposed to the US interfering in Iraqi affairs, but, it alright for them to do it. I know this is a whine, but, when confronted with such a delusional paradox one can only laugh or whine. As I got water in my mouth a laugh isn't safe.
"It is important to assure participation in the elections of all the Iraqi forces, even if it is necessary to have another look at the date of the elections," said an Arab delegate to the conference, speaking on condition of anonymity.
Nobody is stopping Sunnis from participating peacefully in free elections. If Sunnis do not participate, then I don't think they have any right to complain if they don't like the results of the election.Why should they have a veto over the establishment of a democratic process for the whole country?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.