I thought democracy was the be-all and end-all as far as the US was concerned, I don’t think this move would do their credibility much good. So far it seems that they are happy to conduct wars abroad so long as it’s soldiers of other countries dying, happy to re-build Iraq as long as they get all the re-building contracts and now they want democracy for the people in Iraq…as long as it’s only pro-US Iraqis voting :hehe:
**One man, one vote, may go by the board in rush to Iraq ballot**
Judge_Mentull… can you paste the article or excerpts from it as it requires readers’ registration? Thanks :k:
Ok, here's the full article:
November 14, 2003
One man, one vote, may go by the board in rush to Iraq ballot
From Roland Watson in Washington and James Hider in Baghdad
PROMPT elections to broaden the legitimacy of an interim authority in Baghdad are central to President Bush’s revamped Iraq policy.
*But the initial ballot is not likely to meet the oneman-one-vote criterion in order to ensure that Iraq’s Shia majority cannot dictate the new constitution. *
The guidelines are among the few concrete principles with which Paul Bremer, the US civil administrator in Iraq, returned to Baghdad from two days of crisis talks in the White House.
It will be for Mr Bremer to decide with the current 24-member, US-appointed Iraqi Governing Council (IGC) who should take part in the elections, what form they take and what they produce.
For instance, Mr Bush has left open whether Iraqis would be appointing a larger interim authority, with wider responsibilities, or a separate constitutional convention to map the country’s future.
One possible outcome, according to Hoshyar Zebari, the IGC Foreign Minister, would be for a constitution to follow initial elections.
“They could say: ‘We’ll give sovereignty to a provisional government that will prepare for elections and write the constitution after the elections’,” he told The Times.
Washington is anxious that the solution is sealed in Baghdad, so that it can be stamped “made in Iraq” rather than carrying US fingerprints. But the US is also anxious to avoid two outcomes being pressed in Baghdad. Many members of the IGC simply want to expand the body into a provisional government, taking more authority from the Coalition Provisional Authority.
However, US officials are disappointed with the slow progress of the IGC, and some doubt that it is up to the job.
Washington is also set against the demands of leading Shia clerics, such as Ayatollah Ali Hussein al-Sistani, who are demanding that the constitutional drafting body be selected by a national election.
Despite the absence of an electoral roll, an election could be held if voters had their finger marked with indelible ink after voting to prevent people casting more than one ballot.
*But the US, along with more liberal members of the IGC, fears that such an election so soon would produce a body dominated by the majority Shia, which would draw up a theocratic constitution. That would likely lead to a government similar to neighbouring Iran — an outcome Washington has been trying to avoid. *
There is an irony in that the most conservative power grouping is advocating the most democratic option, while more liberal voices are pushing a less open approach.
One middle way would be for members of a constitutional convention to be appointed by local meetings or by tribal elders. Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, who held talks at the White House with Mr Bush’s inner circle yesterday, referred to the possibility when he mentioned “arrangements that have greater legitimacy, but not full legitimacy”.
Until this week’s abruptly-convened White House talks, the US was prepared to hand over power only after the first elections based on a new constitution. But the pace has been forced by rising violence in Iraq, coupled with the demands of the presidential electoral cycle.
US officials are concerned that Washington is coming dangerously close to losing its grip in Iraq. But there are also worries for Mr Bush’s re-election hopes next year.
The President’s strategists regard it as critical that elections in Iraq have taken place before the Republican convention next September, which starts the countdown to election day, and that substantial numbers of US troops have been withdrawn by the time America goes to the polls.
What US does not understand is that it took them 2 or 3 hundred years to be at the level of democracy they are today and they expect or ENFORCE the same level on everyone else. Is US such a childish country? Its about time to grow up and let others grow up.
Aside from the fact that democracy doesn't sprout up overnight.. if America's democratic machine, the mightiest in the world (just play along), can't handle the situation there, how are a bunch of virgin bureaucrats going to do better?
But whats really messed up about all of this is the admin's willingness to abandon Iraq. If they are so able to step out of it, 1- that discredits all the conspiracy theories, they're afraid to stick around for the oil.. maybe they'll come back when its pumping freely? 2- it discredits their rhetoric about transformation of the MidEast into a democratic utopia or whatever the plan was, and 3- it discredits their humanitarian altruism.. Iraq is still quite violent and will get much worse if we let it.
So.. what the hell were these people thinking?!??
That's what I can't figure out. They have no consistent morals. If you're willing to back down when it matters most then what was the point?
*But the initial ballot is not likely to meet the oneman-one-vote criterion in order to ensure that Iraq’s Shia majority cannot dictate the new constitution. *
The American's are terrified of the political power of the Shia Muslim majority, and no wonder now that the deadliest attacks against the "coalition" e.g. Nasiriyah, are now in Shia Muslim area's.