The Basics of the New Iraqi Constitution

United Press International ^ | 28 April 2003 | John Armor (Congressman Billybob)

[Congressman Billybob]

My editor at UPI has just accepted this for publication tomorrow. This is a "Special to Free Republic." Because of a change this week in UPI's procedures, neither the UPI URL nor Drudge will bring this article up.

I think Freepers will find this interesting. It is a better analysis of the necessary framework than anything that has yet appeared in the print and broadcast media. The best prior piece is from George Will on 24 April, but his was too focused on the example of the US Constitution to the exclusion of lessons from constitutions of other nations.

Let me know what you think.

J / BB

[sackofcatfood]

Highly insightful, but I would venture one small unanswered question: how will the initial constitution be decided?

America had elected and appointed representives fed by an aristocracy at the time of the Revolution to vote on a new constitution.

The Iraqis, on the otherhand, have no government. And whatever may remain of the former government should certainly not be reintroduced to power.

[a_Turk]

>> Turkey seeks to encroach on northern Iraq

You're influenced by creative news sources. Turkey had all along lobbied for the preservation of Irak.. In fact, you might say that she has had some success..

Too bad you had to do this..

[Imperialist]

Good read. Thanks.

[nevergiveup]

Excellent article. I appreciate your posting since constitutions are a subject of great personal interest to me (no I'm not a lawyer but a physicist).

If I may, however, at the risk of sounding like a Clymer, I hesitantly point out one submicroscopic fly in the ointment....Madagascar.

[Congressman Billybob]

You are absolutely right about Madagascar. My bad.

My interests are the opposite of yours. I was a physicist with advanced standing at Yale when I started. I came out as a liberal arts major with a passion for Constitutional Law. So now, physics is my avocation.

Cordially,

John / Billybob

[Nick Danger]

Good stuff. What do you know of the recent experiences in Eastern Europe with recovering from decades of despotism? Is there a particularly apt example that Iraq could use as a guide?

[billbears]

1958: The merger of Syria and Egypt into the "United Arab Republic," the overthrow of the pro-U.S. King Feisal II in Iraq by nationalist military officers, and the outbreak of anti- government/anti-U.S. unrest in Lebanon lead the U.S. to dispatch 70 naval vessels, hundreds of aircraft, and 14,000 Marines to Lebanon to preserve "stability." The U.S. threatens to use nuclear weapons if the Lebanese army resists. And to prevent an Iraqi move into the oilfields of Kuwait, the U.S. draws up secret plans for a joint invasion of Iraq with Turkey. The plan is shelved after the Soviet Union threatens to intervene.

Once

1960: U.S. works to covertly undermine the new government of Iraq by supporting anti- government Kurdish rebels and by attempting, unsuccessfully, to assassinate Iraq's leader, Abdul Karim Qassim, an army general who had restored relations with the Soviet Union and lifted the ban on Iraq's Communist Party

Twice

1963: U.S. supports a coup by the Ba'ath party to overthrow the Qassim regime, including by giving the Ba'ath names of communists to murder. Soon after the U.S.-backed coup, Saddam Hussein becomes the head of the Ba'ath party. According to one account, "Armed with the names and whereabouts of individual communists, the national guards carried out summary executions. Communists held in detention...were dragged out of prison and shot without a hearing... [B]y the end of the rule of the Ba'ath, its terror campaign had claimed the lives of an estimated 3,000 to 5,000 communists."

Three times

1973-1975: U.S. supports Kurdish rebels in Iraq in order to strengthen Iran and weaken the then pro-Soviet Iraqi regime. When Iran and Iraq cut a deal, the U.S. withdraws support from the Kurdish rebels, denies the Kurds refuge in Iran, and stands by while the Iraqi government kills many Kurdish people.

Four times

September 1980: Iraq invades Iran with tacit U.S. support, starting a bloody eight-year war. The U.S. supports both sides in the war--"tilting" to one side or another at various times-- in order to prolong the war and weaken both sides, while trying to draw both countries into the U.S. orbit. The U.S. opposes UN action against the invasion, removes Iraq from its list of "terrorist" nations, allows U.S. arms to be transferred to Iraq, provides Iraq with intelligence on Iran, economic aid, and political support, and encourages its Gulf allies to lend Iraq over $30 billion for its war effort. Meanwhile, the U.S. also provides Iran with arms.

Five times

And I guess the sixth one's the charm, eh? No matter how much neocons cheer on a 'Constitutional Republic' in Iraq, especially considering this nation doesn't even have one anymore (and hasn't for many years), it just won't work. No, it will amount to this government helping to establish some sort of democracy in Iraq, that will eventually be used to establish another dictatorship that, as history shows, this nation of states will have to 'fix' within a generation or two.

Sorry Congressman that I disagree with you. I truly wish the people of Iraq luck but it is no longer any of our business. We should wash our hands of it and come home. Especially considering we'll be back there in 30 years no matter how much work is done now. Cynical outlook maybe, but at least it's the truth. The theocracy that will come is going to be three times the nightmare to Israel that Hussein ever could have been. We may just be helping create Israel's worst enemy yet. And all the while, Saudi Arabia, who produced 15 of the 19 hijackers, is still called our ally

[Kadric]

It has been my thoughts and it appears that the author also realizes. That the job in Iraq is to first establish local governments based on the cities. Then basically states, building one level at a time. Then let those governments have a Constitution Convention with the results submitted to the people to be ratified.

[Congressman Billybob]

In answer to your question about "how will the new constitution be decided" --

One of the duties of the Iraqi Interim Government will be to write and propose the new Iraqi Constitution. The US will advise and consult very heavily in this process, because otherwise it is likely to be screwed up, especially on the theocracy point.

Ratification will be a more interesting propostion. By that time, there should be both city governments and regional ones in the three main parts of Iraq. A referendum to approve the Iraq Constitution is probably a bad idea, since the Shi'ites (who have a majority) might turn on the Constitution and defeat it, precisely because it is not a theocracy. The better route might be to ask the lower level governments in Iraq (like the states in the US) to ratify on behalf of their citizens.

History is going to be a great teacher for this Iraqi process -- not just the history of the American Constitution, but of many of the world's more successful contstitutions, and some of the failed ones as bad examples.

John / Billybob

[What Is Ain't]

Very nice article. I pray there are enough big-picture Iraqi's involved in the process to pull it off. Time will tell.

[JohnBovenmyer]

Excellent piece. However, don't the Japanese dispute ownership of some of their former northern islands with the Russians who now control such? Even they have some arbitrary borders.

[ex-Texan]

Excellent editorial comment. Cogent argument. Well reasoned. Very well written. Must say I am in agreement with most of your analysis. However, Iraq may soon stumble into internecine political warfare. Hard-core fundamentalist Muslims are not interested in "nation building" unless an Islamic state emerges. Iraq is surrounded by Islamic states licking their lips over potentials and possibilities. And Iraqi oil.

Winning the "hearts and minds" of Iraqis will prove to be a daunting, if not impossible, undertaking - - that Americans will grow weary of in a few months.

[jennyp]

Very interesting article, on a subject I had been wondering about. But one question remains: What's a "supramajority"? Is that bigger or smaller than a "supermajority"?

[BlackbirdSST]

Sorry Congressman that I disagree with you. I truly wish the people of Iraq luck but it is no longer any of our business. We should wash our hands of it and come home. Especially considering we'll be back there in 30 years no matter how much work is done now. Cynical outlook maybe, but at least it's the truth. The theocracy that will come is going to be three times the nightmare to Israel that Hussein ever could have been. We may just be helping create Israel's worst enemy yet. And all the while, Saudi Arabia, who produced 15 of the 19 hijackers, is still called our ally

The obvious "bears" repeating. Blackbird.

[Constitution Day]

BUMP

[PGalt]

Thanks for your article. Bump for later read...off to work.

[airborne]

Well done! What are the odds that one of the "provinces" that are established will eventually want to break away and form their own country? Do you think this possibility will be addressed in their Constitution?

[Constitution Day]

Congressman Billybob / NC ping!
Please FRmail me if you want to be added to or removed from this North Carolina ping list.

[Taxman]

This article is a must read for every single person involved in establishing a new government for Iraq, Congressman Billybob. Somehow, you have got to get this article in the hands of every "nation builder" or would-be "nation builder" in Iraq -- both US, our Allies and the Iraqis.

And you are historically and philosophically correct in suggesting that the UN not be a part of the process. If I were in charge, no UN rep would be allowed in Iraq, ever!

[And in keeping with that philosophy, let's banish the UN from the US, too!]

I particularly appreciate (being a History major, myself) your thesis that the many good and bad examples of man's previous attempts to establish governments should be heeded as the "new Iraq" is formalized.

If I may be so bold as to paraphrase (attribution, anyone?):

"Those who ignore past hisorical mistakes will repeat them."

And, "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing we have always done and expecting a different outcome."

Bravo Zulu, Congressman!