U.S. concedes ground to Islamists on Iraqi law

[NoCalMike 0]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050820/ts_nm/...HNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

 

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - U.S. diplomats have conceded ground to Islamists on the role of religion in Iraq, negotiators said on Saturday as they raced to meet a 48-hour deadline to draft a constitution under intense U.S. pressure.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

 

U.S. diplomats, who have insisted the constitution must enshrine ideals of equal rights and democracy, declined comment.

 

Shi'ite, Sunni and Kurdish negotiators all said there was accord on a bigger role for Islamic law than Iraq had before.

 

But a secular Kurdish politician said Kurds opposed making Islam "the," not "a," main source of law -- changing current wording -- and subjecting all legislation to a religious test.

 

"We understand the Americans have sided with the Shi'ites," he said. "It's shocking. It doesn't fit American values. They have spent so much blood and money here, only to back the creation of an Islamist state ... I can't believe that's what the Americans really want or what the American people want."

 

Washington, with 140,000 troops still in Iraq, has insisted Iraqis are free to govern themselves but made clear it will not approve the kind of clerical rule seen in Shi'ite Iran, a state President Bush describes as "evil."

 

U.S. ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad has been guiding intensive meetings since parliament averted its own dissolution on Monday by giving constitution drafters another week to resolve crucial differences over regional autonomy and division of oil revenues.

 

Failing to finish by midnight on August 22 could provoke new elections and, effectively, a return to the drawing board for the entire constitutional process.

 

But a further extension may be more likely, as Washington insists the charter is key to its strategy to undermine the Sunni revolt and leave a new Iraqi government largely to fend for itself after U.S. troops go home.

 

Facing public discontent with his handling of Iraq, President Bush raised the specter of more September 11- style attacks if U.S. troops do not fight in places like Iraq.

 

"They (U.S. troops) know that if we do not confront these evil men abroad, we will have to face them one day in our own cities and streets," he said in his weekly radio address.

 

An official of one of the main Shi'ite Islamist parties in the interim government confirmed the deal on law and Islam.

 

It was unclear what concessions the Shi'ites may have made, but it seemed possible their demands for Shi'ite autonomy in the oil-rich south, pressed this month by Islamist leader Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, may be watered down in the face of Sunni opposition.

 

"UNITY OF IRAQ"

 

Sunni Arab negotiator Saleh al-Mutlak also said a deal was struck which would mean parliament could pass no legislation that "contradicted Islamic principles." A constitutional court would rule on any dispute on that, the Shi'ite official said.

 

"The Americans agreed, but on one condition -- that the principles of democracy should be respected," Mutlak said.

 

"We reject federalism," he repeated, underlining continued Sunni opposition to Hakim's demands. Hundreds demonstrated in the Sunni city of Ramadi on Saturday, echoing Mutlak's views.

 

He urged Sunnis, dominant under Saddam Hussein but who have largely shunned politics and, in some cases, taken up arms in revolt, to vote in an October referendum to back a constitution.

 

Other Sunni leaders are also encouraging their followers to register for the referendum, in part to ensure they can block the constitution if they chose to oppose it down the road. If two thirds of voters in at least three of Iraq's 18 provinces vote no in October's referendum, the constitution is rejected.

 

The Kurdish negotiator rushed to make clear his outrage at a deal on Islam: "We don't want dictatorship of any kind, including any religious dictatorship.

 

"Perhaps the Americans are negotiating to get a deal at any cost, but we will not accept a constitution at any cost," he said, adding that he believed Shi'ite leaders had used the precedent of Afghanistan to win the ambassador's support.

 

Khalilzad, who has said there will be "no compromise" on equal rights for women and minorities, helped draft a constitution in his native Afghanistan that declared it an "Islamic Republic" in which no law could contradict Islam.

 

It also, however, contained language establishing equal rights for women and protecting religious minorities.

 

LOCKED IN TALKS

 

About a dozen senior leaders, representing the Shi'ite Islamist-led government, secular Shi'ite former prime minister Iyad Allawi, Kurds and Sunnis, were in talks on Saturday.

 

Sunni leaders say they are resigned to the Kurds maintaining their current autonomy in the north -- though not to the Kurds extending their territory into the northern oilfields -- but said they would not tolerate an autonomous Shi'ite region.

 

Ethnic tensions in the northern oil city of Kirkuk spilled on to the streets on Saturday as hundreds of Arabs demonstrated against federalism -- code for Kurdish ambitions to annex Kirkuk -- and gunmen shot up the office of a Kurdish political party for the second time in a month, wounding three guards.

 

In Baghdad, a U.S. soldier was killed when his vehicle hit a roadside bomb. South of the capital, a tribal sheikh was kidnapped in the latest sign of tribal tensions. Many tribes cut across sectarian lines, with Sunni and Shi'ites members.

[SuperJerk 0]

I've been saying all along that we probably wouldn't like the outcome of Iraqi democratic rule. Not that they shouldn't be allowed to have it, but the chances of Iraq evolving into a peaceful US ally are slight at best.

[CanadianGuitarist 0]

I've been saying all along that we probably wouldn't like the outcome of Iraqi democratic rule.  Not that they shouldn't be allowed to have it, but the chances of Iraq evolving into a peaceful US ally are slight at best.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Not that you weren't right Y2Jerk, but do you really need to reference yourself in your signature?

[NoCalMike 0]

I've been saying all along that we probably wouldn't like the outcome of Iraqi democratic rule.  Not that they shouldn't be allowed to have it, but the chances of Iraq evolving into a peaceful US ally are slight at best.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

You mean Iraqi Democratic rule via Iran Infiltration.

[Danville_Wrestling 0]

It's just the risk you take when you install democracy in a country. We can't rig the outcome (and we shouldn't try either) so it's just like rolling the dice and see what happens. Most pundits knew, though, that an Iraq run by the Shites was going to be a friend of Iran so I'm not surprised.

 

I think a problem with this constitution as opposed to our own is that it's a constitution that address what Iraq will look like "someday" (i.e. tolerance, ethnic equality, etc.) whereas our constitution focused on present normalcies and left it at that. Granted, we had to fight a civil war to get the Reconstruction amendments into the constitution to make those of black heritage citizens instead of property and give them the right ot vote and we had many political upheavals to warrant other amendments as well. However, we allowed history to play it's course and opened the constitution up for change to correct instances that may come up in the future (which we did with slavery, prohibition, two-term presidencies, presidential succession, senators elected directly by voters not indirectly by state legislatures, etc.)

 

Therefore, a problem I have with this constitution is that your telling the people "hey let's become a democratic paradise overnight" which doesn't sit well for stability and it's totally not realistic. This is why I think when you change governments and are pushing for a more equal sharing of power it has to happen WITHIN countries rather than by outside influence (Bismarck's building of the modern German state can be used as an example there). Simply put, NGOs and the U.S. State Department aren't the kind of people I'd like telling me how to write a constitution and make things work.

 

Finally, I'm getting a little tired of the Sunnis griping. I understand that if they aren't included it's going to spark a lot of unrest and possibly a civil war, BUT they had their chance to participate in elections for the constitutional assembly. As such, they rejected their chance to participate which causes them to now see a constitution they don't like. It's also very hard for them to come to terms with losing all their privileges they had when the Baathists ran the country, so I imagine they aren't going to be happy however things happen to go for them. However, this is like a catch-22 whichever way you want to look at it for an exclusive or inclusive standpoint, so who knows what's going to happen. I say a civil war is going to be the only option for national unity, but that's just me being pessimistic.

[SuperJerk 0]

I've been saying all along that we probably wouldn't like the outcome of Iraqi democratic rule.  Not that they shouldn't be allowed to have it, but the chances of Iraq evolving into a peaceful US ally are slight at best.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Not that you weren't right Y2Jerk, but do you really need to reference yourself in your signature?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'd have put that line in my sig no matter who'd said it.

[Vampiro69 0]

There was really a snowballs chance in hell that Iraq was going to be a full fledge democracy. I think even the most optimistic people believed that there was going to be an Islamist influence in their government.

 

Can anyone explain to me this simple question? In our alphabet we always follow the letter Q with a "u". Why don't we do that with Iraq?

 

Y2Jerk that is a great quote in your sig.

[CanadianGuitarist 0]

Y2Jerk that is a great quote in your sig.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Indeed.

 

Can anyone explain to me this simple question?  In our alphabet we always follow the letter Q with a "u".  Why don't we do that with Iraq?

 

I always wondered the same thing about Qatar.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

We can't rig the outcome (and we shouldn't try either)

 

http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/050725fa_fact

[NoCalMike 0]

I also get a kick out of the fact that our mission to "bring democracy" to Iraq has swiftly been changed to "train the Iraqis, so they can bring democracy to Iraq" The expectations just keep getting lower and lower.

[BruiserKC 0]

I agree with training them to bring democracy to themselves. Ultimately they have to make the decision on what they want. Although I didn't sign up for this Islamist state thing. If that comes about I will support getting the troops out of there so fast it would make Bill Maher's head spin.

[The Czech Republic 0]

Can anyone explain to me this simple question?  In our alphabet we always follow the letter Q with a "u".  Why don't we do that with Iraq?

 

I always wondered the same thing about Qatar.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Because it's a transliteration from Arabic. duh