Rummy tells what is ‘expected’ form of govenment and what is not appreciated. Would the “democracy” where Shiite control the government be acceptable? What kind of “laws” will be allowed to Iraq?
**Rumsfeld: Iraq Should Not Be Theocracy **
WASHINGTON - The United States expects an eventual government of Iraq (news - web sites) to be a democracy where the rights of minorities are guaranteed, not a theocracy run by clerics such as in neighboring Iran, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld says.
“There should be a country that is organized and arranged in a way that the various ethnic groups and religious groups are able to have a voice in their government in some form,” Rumsfeld said Monday at a Pentagon (news - web sites) news conference. “And we hope (for) a system that will be democratic and have free speech and free press and freedom of religion.”
Some demonstrators in Iraq, particularly from the Shiite Muslim majority, have called recently for an Islamic republic similar to Iran, where top Shiite clerics known as ayatollahs have the final say. Rumsfeld said such a government would not be truly democratic.
You've got to admit that Rumsfeld is right that a theocracy run along the model of Iran would not be truly democratic. You can argue about whether the US should dictate whether a democracy or a theocracy is appropriate, but not the underlying fact he states.
The underlying question that I think is appropriate is whether the Iraqi people ought to have the right to have a referendum to decide what form of government to pursue. IMO, they ought to. I would hope and expect that the majority of people would NOT opt for a theocracy. There are certainly a number of religious people who would prefer a theocracy but I am not convinced that such is the sentiment of the majority of all Shiites. Frankly, I think if the US said you can't have a theocracy or we won't leave, that would only increase the likelihood that a theocracy would emerge at some point in the future and that such a theocracy would be distinctly anti-American. If, in fact, it is a minority of Shiites who want a theocracy, it would probably still be a fairly large minority and it is important that they participate in and recognize the validity of a non-theocratic government. Then, they can work from the inside of a new government to change it to one they prefer. If the US dictates the form of government, they will not participate in the government that emerges and they will try to change it from the outside which in my mind means violence and sectarian battles.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Changez_like: *
What happens if "majority" of Iraqis want "theocracy"? would they be allowed that?
[/QUOTE]
As I stated above, it is my opinion that they should be allowed to have a referendum. Implicit in that opinion is that if the majority want a theocracy, they should get it. If the majority want it, it will eventually happen anyway and if we spend decades trying to repress the will of the majority, the eventual theocracy will be distinctly anti-American. If the majority want it and we say "fine, go for it," there is at least a chance such a theocracy will NOT be anti-American. They may still look at us kindly and as liberators.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Changez_like: *
mv: it looks like your personal opinion, but do you think US administration will accept theocracy humbly?
[/QUOTE]
I don't know. My guess is that the US will expend considerable resources and make considerable efforts to try to assist emerging democratic leaning leaders. I think the US administration is smart enough to know that those efforts should be subtle and stay below the radar screen or there would be a backlash against the US supported emerging leaders.
When all is said and done and if it is clear that the majority of Iraqis want a theocracy despite these efforts, I think the Bush administration would reluctantly capitulate to the desire of the Iraqi people. I think this capitulation would be driven more by political considerations at home than anything else. Even those of us who strongly supported the war are not prepared to support what would look like an extended and costly occupation. We are prepared to support an expensive and costly reconstruction of Iraq provided that the Iraqi people support our efforts.
That’s an interesting question. Sorry, don’t have time to read all the replies in this thread yet, but just wanted to comment on this. In regards to your question, does any occupying power have the right to change a sovereign country’s existing state structures ? Not according to Amnesty. It does not matter how odious they may be.
. In regards to your question, does any occupying power have the right to change a sovereign country's existing state structures ? Not according to Amnesty. It does not matter how odious they may be.
[/QUOTE]
So U.S. should resume the role as Saddam? That hardly seems fair to Iraqis.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by underthedome: *
So U.S. should resume the role as Saddam? That hardly seems fair to Iraqis.
[/QUOTE]
I think Saddam was "president" and not king, may be something like Musharraf. The rule Nadia posted applies to "responsibilities", not "characteristics"... I am not quiet sure if he was "democratically" elected or by "referendum".
I think Saddam was "president" and not king, may be something like Musharraf. The rule Nadia posted applies to "responsibilities", not "characteristics"... I am not quiet sure if he was "democratically" elected or by "referendum".
[/QUOTE]
Since i posted the Amnesty link, i should say that the point being made is not about whether or not we should imitate Saddam Hussein's repressive regime. That's hardly a stance Amnesty - of all orgs. - would advocate. Their point is that you cannot arbitarily go around changing state structures (of sovereign nations). Note that they don't suggest just leaving the Iraqi people to suffer in their condition; they want a "a UN commission of experts" that would work in "close consultation" with Iraqi civil society. Why does the US not work through that avenue, rather than Rumsfeld dictating that Iraq's government should not be theocratic ? Who are they to determine this aspect.
So U.S. should resume the role as Saddam? That hardly seems fair to Iraqis.
[/QUOTE]
No they should turn over the control to Israel. Those brave israelis will show them how to create a true democratic state, and only thing they want in return is a peaceful neighbor who provides free oil of course.
No they should turn over the control to Israel. Those brave israelis will show them how to create a true democratic state, and only thing they want in return is a peaceful neighbor who provides free oil of course.
[/QUOTE]
Oh I disagree. That would just cause more problems.