Iraq moves towards self-rule.

Oerdin · July 14, 2003, 00:08

The BBC is reporting the new Iraqi national governing council is now in session. The council will have the resposibility for setting up a provisional government until a counstitution can be created and elections held. Do you folks think this council will help at all? Is it a step in the right direction or is it a false alley?

Kidicious · July 14, 2003, 00:16

It's over half Shia. That doesn't seem right.

Oerdin · July 14, 2003, 00:19

Shia are the majority in Iraq.

In a related report Iraq is getting a new Dinar without Saddam's face on it. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3052642.stm

chequita guevara · July 14, 2003, 00:23

It's definately a step in the right direction. Maybe they can get Iraq going again. God knows we don't seem to be able to.

GePap · July 14, 2003, 00:26

Good step, but when do they gain control of security in most areas? Does what little Iraqi police that exists answer to them, or the US command?

finbar · July 14, 2003, 00:31

What does it mean when the Council is effectively appointed by the Americans and the American-in-charge can overrule the Council? I notice also that the Council's first decision was to create a public holiday to mark the day the country was liberated. Talk about priorities.

chequita guevara · July 14, 2003, 00:32

Actually, their first decision was to end all holidays celebrating Hussein.

Kidicious · July 14, 2003, 00:37

Quote:

Originally posted by Oerdin
Shia are the majority in Iraq.

I didn't know they were over 50% majority. Still I think it's a bad idea to give one group more power.

Nubclear · July 14, 2003, 01:46

Quote:

Originally posted by finbar
What does it mean when the Council is effectively appointed by the Americans and the American-in-charge can overrule the Council? I notice also that the Council's first decision was to create a public holiday to mark the day the country was liberated. Talk about priorities.

Giancarlo · July 14, 2003, 01:58

Quote:

Originally posted by finbar
What does it mean when the Council is effectively appointed by the Americans and the American-in-charge can overrule the Council? I notice also that the Council's first decision was to create a public holiday to mark the day the country was liberated. Talk about priorities.

Prove it.

To me this is the same old rhetoric I keep hearing from the same old commentators, just regurgitated.

Kiddo: They make 60% of the population. So it seems rather representative.

Clear Skies · July 14, 2003, 07:27

Fez, read the article for once...

Quote:

The new body, whose 25 members were chosen by the US-led coalition occupying Iraq

Quote:

The US-led coalition will still have the final word - but officials say the council's proposals will be rejected only in exceptional circumstances.

DinoDoc · July 14, 2003, 08:06

Quote:

Originally posted by Kidicious
I didn't know they were over 50% majority. Still I think it's a bad idea to give one group more power.

Are we against democracy now?

Clear Skies · July 14, 2003, 08:29

Depends on your definition...it's a bad idea to give them too much power if they're going to use it to oppress minority groups, because protection of minority interests is one of the cornerstones of liberal democracy.

Az · July 14, 2003, 08:30

So I guess you won't have a problem when the majority will decide to confiscate all of the wealth of rich in the US.

CerberusIV · July 14, 2003, 08:43

Too early to tell. Give it three months.

What will really decide is whether all the factions in Iraq accept this or whether any of them, particularly the religious hardliners, think they can do better by boycotting it and trying to make the country too difficult for the US/UK to stay.

problem_child · July 14, 2003, 09:00

This is a new puppet being set up by the Americans. The US has never been pro-democracy. If you seriously expect them to want the people of an oil-rich middle Eastern county to genuinly choose their own leadership, then you are naive, and know nothing about history.

Velociryx · July 14, 2003, 09:09

It's a good beginning, IMO. Yes, as has already been pointed out, the Americans can overrule the council's decision (precisely to prevent oppression of minority groups by the majority), but in time, this body will lead to free elections, I feel sure.

Won't happen overnight, but it's starting, and that's a good sign. Now, if it comes with a rebuilt native police body, answering to the Council, that's even better!

-=Vel=-

Kidicious · July 14, 2003, 09:17

I see a problem when, and if the US removes it's veto power and tell the shi'ites that they won't have as much power as they thought they would have.

Velociryx · July 14, 2003, 09:23

A risk? Sure. One of many, I would say. But, if whatever government is to eventually grow out of this council is to be democratic-minded, then the Shi'ites will only be as effective as their ability to win the hearts and minds of the voters. They have the here and now to get ready and practice for that day. If they don't, or choose not to....their loss.

-=Vel=-

problem_child · July 14, 2003, 09:28

I'm really puzzled that you guys are talking as if someone wants a true democracy in Iraq. Either you've got me on your ignore list, or you really think the Republican administration seeks an Iraq whose government puts the interests of Iraqis before the interests of the oil-corporations and US will.

CerberusIV · July 14, 2003, 09:54

Given that we don't have "true" democracy in the US or UK what makes you think Iraq should have it.

More to the point the US economic interest is served by a low oil price, regardless of who sells or who buys. As long as a new government in Iraq doesn't offer a base to terrorism and keeps producing enough oil to hold the world price down then it is mission accomplished for the US.

Of the oil sold from Iraq since the invasion most has gone to US companies with some to BP and Shell and one cargo to a Swiss trading company.

Velociryx · July 14, 2003, 09:55

Not ignoring you, problem_child, and while I agree with you that the Shrub's intentions are....questionable (to say the least), I think it's too early to call. Let's see what comes out of the council, before we start drawing too many conclusions.

-=Vel=-

problem_child · July 14, 2003, 10:00

Okay, okay, I'll back off..... for now

Kidicious · July 14, 2003, 10:02

Quote:

Originally posted by problem_child
I'm really puzzled that you guys are talking as if someone wants a true democracy in Iraq. Either you've got me on your ignore list, or you really think the Republican administration seeks an Iraq whose government puts the interests of Iraqis before the interests of the oil-corporations and US will.

I have to disagree. The US will have economic power and political influence but the Iraqis will have the significant power there, and it matters how the government in structured.

Oerdin · July 14, 2003, 10:03

Quote:

Originally posted by problem_child
This is a new puppet being set up by the Americans. The US has never been pro-democracy.

Quote:

If you seriously expect them to want the people of an oil-rich middle Eastern county to genuinly choose their own leadership, then you are naive, and know nothing about history.

Read your two quotes again and then tell me who is naive and knows nothing about history.

problem_child · July 14, 2003, 10:10

I could have been more tactful I suppose, but I stand by my point, The US is not pro-democracy, not within itself, and not outside itself.

(By the US I mean those that call the shots, not the average Jo Citizen, the rich and the powerful don't get that way by being democraticly minded.)

HershOstropoler · July 14, 2003, 10:13

1. Interesting it finally came about. The question remains how representative it is, and how much legitimacy it will have in the eyes of Iraqis. US appointed, hand-picked... at least it has some critics of the US presence.

2. Even more interesting is that it seems it has some powers. The first crucial test is: Can they agree on solutions, and will a down-voted minority accept the majority will?

3. The real crucial test is, what happens when the council does something that collides with Bushist interests? When it opts against giving the US bases, or against privatizing the oil industry etc etc.... then we will see what all this talk about Iraq for the Iraqis is worth.

4. Yes, I have no idea why the Bushists would want democracy in Iraq. Maybe they just confuse "democracy" with something else...

DanS · July 14, 2003, 10:40

Re #1, while it is U.S. appointed, the US just appointed what was already there and organized. It looks like they have all of the headline political figures from the opposition, except SCIRI, for which they have the number 2. I also note the two slots that were given to Daawa, the only party with two representatives. This makes a lot of sense, since it has been the strongest and longest-lived party in the south.

Indeed, it looks like Bremer negotiated with the groups back to Jay Garner's original position, begging the question of why Bremer changed the plans and wasted some time.

More to the point the US economic interest is served by a low oil price, regardless of who sells or who buys. As long as a new government in Iraq doesn't offer a base to terrorism and keeps producing enough oil to hold the world price down then it is mission accomplished for the US.

This isn't precisely our interest. Our primary interest is to have a diversified global supply bought and sold at a market price.

lord of the mark · July 14, 2003, 11:04

Quote:

Originally posted by GePap
Good step, but when do they gain control of security in most areas? Does what little Iraqi police that exists answer to them, or the US command?

they will have authority to appoint and dismiss cabinet ministers, subject to Bremers veto (which everyone expects will not be exercised, but all will be settled in negotiations - of course we expected the same thing with the French) Presumably there will be a minister of security or of the interior in charge of police - presuambly at some point police will report to such a ministry following the European model - or will they report to local mayors, following the US model? and will the mayors (currently coalition appointed) report to a central ministry (like French departmental prefects?) if the goal is locally elected mayors, presumably they report to the local (coalition appointed) councils. In either case the police will remain heavily dependent on US forces, who authorize them to carry weapons, etc.

I expect a gradual transfer of effective control over Iraqi police. Probably faster in the South and the Kurdish zones, which are quiet, and much later in Baghdad and the Sunni Arab Triangle

lord of the mark · July 14, 2003, 11:10

Quote:

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
1. 4. Yes, I have no idea why the Bushists would want democracy in Iraq. Maybe they just confuse "democracy" with something else...

At least one faction in the admin wants democracy out of US self interest - the argument goes that the only alternative, "friendly authoritarian" states like Egypt and Saudi, tends to generate terrorists who blow up large building the US. Democracy in the region is therefore in the US national interest, regradless of whether the democrat regime supports us on bases and oil, etc. In any case, what incentive would a democratic regime have to keep Iraqi oil off the market??? They will continue to have large development needs, best served by pumping as much oil as they can. Main reason to restrain oil production would be pressure from neighbors like Saudi, but a democracy may be in better position to resist such pressures that an authoritarian state.

The question of bases is a more likely area of friction. Of course given the presence within the Iraqi polity of strongly pro-US elements like the Kurds, and Iraqs own security needs (assuming Iran and Syria have not gone away or turned pacifist) theres a reasonable chance a genuinely demo Iraq will want US bases. They may not, but thats a risk worth taking.