'Just World News' with Helena Cobban

I don't think the UIA has good options. There seem to be two major sticking points: the disposition of Kirkuk and how much the government will be Islamized. Can the UIA prevail on both issues? Probably not; where will they compromise? Right now it sounds like they are insisting on incorporating Islam into the government which suggests to me they will yield on Kirkuk.

I don't think the Kurds are interested in being part of Iraq. Otherwise why would they insist on claiming Kirkuk? How much is at stake for the Kurds if the government does not form?

It seems that under the TAL the forming of the Transitional Government is equal to write the Permanent Constitution.

Bremers revenge on Sistani: force him to solve problems in 50 days (in backroom deals, without the necessary broad participation of all part of iraqs society to frame a durable consent) which could not be solved in 50 years. Looks like a bright future.

Sorry no one gets much credit for any point that deals with complex subtle things like the forming of governments. On the right this problem doesn't exist. The only article they've noticed in the last 10 days is one from the NYT (now a respected authority) quoting hopeful data on the state of the insurgency. They missed the report on corruption and since we've had elections it's already a working democracy. The whole point is to prove the left is wrong. If one were to quote Rumsfeld (wihout naming source) on underestimating difficulties one would be mocked. For most of the left this is all too complicated. They might note the problem to further express disgust, but they are dedicated to the 5 or 6 coments they know so sorry you're stuck in the land of the wonks.

My own contribution to the unimportant (don't make talk radio) element of debate is that Kurds really don't have any great interest (or at least the cynical ones might think they don't) in a functioning united Iraq. If the rest of the place is falling apart they can do as they please and they're in a position to cut deals in their favor. I suspect they also have a sense that if things fall apart they would be our favorites.

The fact that Negroponte jumped ship, Sharon had a BBQ in Crawford before Bush jetted on AF1 back re Schiavo means that some serious turd balls are in the pipeline.

I have a WIP blog for such eventualities.

Question: What happens if they fail to reach an agreement on the permanent constitution by August 31?

If it helps ease the rant any, I've linked and quoted your WP findings on a number of blogs, including dKos. Also noted there your "Democracy denied" counter, pushed the idea of a campaign around the failure of the election to get the Iraqis their government to United for Peace and Justice, and copied your "Democracy denied" idea on my own blog (not that anyone looks at that.)

Your blog is invaluable to those of us seeking to imagine more just and peaceful solutions.

Helena,

We just need to redouble our efforts on two fronts: education and advocating for a more responsible media. The non-violent Palm Sunday march attempted from Bethlehem to Jerusalem received minimal coverage in the MSM. I am a teacher and was so impressed with Sis Levin's comments on the peace education she has undertaken in Bethlehem. But the problem is, she says it can't be piecemeal. Like you, I feel like a voice in the wilderness. Saw Million Dollar Baby last night. Lots of U.S. teachers who attended were profoundly moved by the film, couldn't even speak afterwards; what does this say about us? Most probably aren't even aware of The Wall, Fallujah . . . .

Helena, as janinsanfran says, your blog is invaluable, and unique.
If I can make some gentle (I hope) criticism, when you mix analysis of Sistani's impatience with Democracy Denied and 'Women getting WaPo-ed', your authorial rant doesn’t have much impact. Put your rant in a separate post, give it an aggressive title that can be linked to, and await the glory you deserve.
Cheers!

Real prophets don't get honoured.

Op-eds are for stooges.

But the 'Democracy denied in Iraq' watch is a solid contribution which is making ripples all the way to Baghdad.

Never mind if the prophet gets honoured or not, this was a really good piece of work.

Hi all. It's really good to read all yr comments. DD is actually quite right that I shd make the rant a separate post, so I'll do that forthwith.

I really appreciate all your actions, too, JaninSF. Excellent! Thanks! (Put the URL for your blog in another comment so we can all visit it.)

Meanwhile, the "DDII" counter has gone up by one more day since yesterday...

What happens if they fail to craft a Constitution by August 31-- much more delay, more disillusionment, frustration, and quite likely violence. My experience from watching the Israelis and Pals miss numerous deadlines on implementing the designated phases of Oslo in the 1990s-- generally, due to Israeli footfdragging or under Netanyahu outright obstructionism-- was that when people's political aspirations can't be met thru promised progress in negotiations they often turn to using violence...

Seems like I shd write another post on that topic, right?

Why can't the new Iraq government throw out the imposed TAL?

(I 'get' that there would be unspecified terrible ramifications if they did so.)

But, as a matter of international law, the TAL isn't really enforceable, is it?

I've always found that the foreseen timetable was too short. One can't draft a whole new constitution is just a few months. A good democratic process for the preparation of the constitution could well take two years.
Especially if like in Iraq, the compromise is difficult to find out. Those who set such a timetable were probably betting that the TAL would be adopted with only a few minor changes with respect to the version which was forced upon them by the Americans.
IMO, the new assembly should throw out the gridlocking TAL (it has absolutely no legal basis : it was imposed by the occupiers and wasn't endossed by the last UN resolution, at the special request of Sistani).
Then, the new assembly should negotiate with the Sunnis some new elections rules based on the actual provincial districts and proceed to the formation of a real democratic government, one in which the Sunnis would be represented as well and one which doesnt' rest on sectarian basis.

Why can't the assembly meet, vote to change the law so as to permit a government to be formed with a majority rather than a supermajority. Why should a "law" written by the American occupier have any legal standing? The Iraqis should vote to change Bremer's rules.

Scott Ritter has a new article on Alternet.org concerning US manipulation of the outcome of the Jan. 30 election in Iraq. He maintains that in the US reduced the proportion of the vote accorded to the Shia from 56% to 48% during the secret vote count. According to Ritter, this information comes from "well placed sources in Iraq who were in a position to know."

Ritter states that the US is trying to get the interim Iraqi constitution adopted by the new "elected" government.

The full article is available here:
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/21566/

Helena - Note that I just came to your blog via Juan Cole's. He's certainly giving you credit. Re your concern about Bremmer's time line for formation of government, I'm more worried about the hidden strictures of his "100 Orders". Can we assume that they'll be thrown out once a government is formed? I doubt it. Thanks for running this blog. I've been reading your stories datelined somewhere in the ME for years and referring students to them. I'm glad you're using your considerable experience and knowledge to keep us well informed.

Note to the reader - running statistic - in my 11 posts here, twice my IP address has been blacklisted without due explanation, 7 posts have been censored because Helena disagreed with the contents, and 4 posts have been allowed. This post is a repeat of deleted material.

Tony - This has got to be the funniest, most eager nonsense I've read since Juan Cole's famous "transcendent nationalism" in reference to Muqtada's ill-fated and ill-conceived campaign back in 2003 (see his remarkably silly Le Monde Diplomatique piece at the time). You've just repeated that laughable line. Please get over yourself and your ideological premises (and all the [arab] nationalist mixed with Third Worldist undertones). It's quite the silly spectacle.

Beautifully said Tony.

The problem that the nihilists and leftist-fascists have in their analysis of Iraq is that they deny that Iraqis (and by extension human beings) have aspirations besides power grabbing, ideological and opportunistic ruling on others, and cheap false nationalism (nationalism is better described as social egotism).

For Helena, Iraqis or the socially conscious layers of their society have no desire to bring about civil society and inter-sectarian justice. History is simplisticially reduced down to grab for oil, cheap nationalism, anti-Americanism, and 3rd worldism.

The progress the Iraqis are making in bringing about civil society must be condemened by the Cole-Cobban axis, as it eats away right at their ideological upbringing and biases, and also livelihoods and Entitle VIs. If there are no blood conflicts in Iraq, then who needs these "scholars"?

For them, a thug carrying an AK-47 is a far more romantic and vivid expression of social justice, than all the liberties, elections, parliaments, constitutions, laws and institutions that an Iraqi civil society may ever achieve or require.

Unlike what the piece implies, inter-sectarian political rivalries, in a civil setting, is the only way for Iraqis to reckon with their identity. This sad piece reflects - as us middle easterners like to say - "the camel who dreams of cotton seeds". A lot of wishful thinking about religious, fascist, and opportunistic thugs to come together and rule over the civil and conscious segments of Iraqi society.

Iraqis have made a conscious choice through their participation in the election that they prefer construction of a civil society over cheap cries of "gut independence".

Posted by Razavipour3 at 10. apríl 2005 0:03

Helena: Tony, could you please keep your frat-boy sexual references off my site. We may disagree but please express your thoughts in a courteous fashion. The best way people learn is through the friendly exchange of views and ideas, you know... Please check the commenters' guidelines before you post here again.

Helena, I challange you to specify what was "discourteous" about Tony's post. Your guidelines has no such definition either. What is this rule of "courtesy" that you wield like a blunt instrument in such eliminative and intolerant manner, and seemingly only at those who challenge your views?

Show me where in civil discourse there has been a rule of dogmatic and politically correct "courtesy" of this sort that you push.

I think it would be best for your readers for you to relax a bit and allow people to post their comments without being bullied every time they have something interesting to say. Saddam and Xomeini were the masters of bullying in the same part of the world that you cover.

So what was censorable in Tony's post, dear Helena?

Posted by Razavipour3 at 10. apríl 2005 0:20

Helena: "... the beating up on the picnic in Basra apparently was the Sadrists. It was a vile thing to do and let's hope it's not repeated.

How disingenious. The Sadrist lumpen have steadfastedly said they want religious government a la Iran. This has been widely reported by NYT and others.

And you still think this is an isolated incidence that will not be repeated? That religious self-righteous believers and opportunists will now turn tolerant and enlightened human beings, respecting freedom of thought and assembly? Well in Iran, such brutality has been going on for 27 years and counting.

How about the murder, kidnapping, and torture of dozens of professors and students at the University of Baghdad and Mosul, and other universities? This is a copy of what happened in Iran 1980-1981 before they shut down society for the benefit of the Islamists.

Islamophobia - you bet. I have lived it. Helena - you have no idea how communal Islam and Islamism destroys lives like I have seen. Only a fascist will deny atrocities committed in the name of Islam.

Posted by Razavipour3 at 10. apríl 2005 2:57

I have been blacklisted and silenced by Helena as well. My posting did not insult my interlocutors, it was censorship based on my views, plain and simple. The excuse that Helena can censor because she pays for bandwidth is analogous to the private media bias that she and her minions on his list constantly denounce.

Ebilpe2

Posted by Ebilpe2 at 10. apríl 2005 3:07

Ebilpe2 - I sympathize with you. I never voiced any opinion of women, even though I am a champion of absolute women's rights and equality in Islam, and Helena accuses me of ad feminam, without saying how and why.

The bandwidth excuse is the most ridiculous. 1 GB of storage costs $ 0.30. 1 GB of bandwidth costs $1.00, which is what I am paying. A 300 word post viewed 100 times, costs exactly $ 0.000212. All the comments posted by ALL readers in one year on Helena's list (10 a day) costs exactly 77 cents. Either she needs to find a proper job, or she can put up a "PayPal Donate" button and I will contribute my one dollar for all readers to post for 1 year, as I have a real and productive job.

If she would only answer to the criticism of her heavy handed actions. But no, its not necessary. The "silence" command is only one keystroke away. I guess for somebody who empathizes with the gun toting thugs of the Wahhabis, Sadrists and Islamists, they would naturally take their cues from Saddam and Xomeini, who never had to answer anything to anybody. Eliminative politics is the simplest - and you can see it in action on Helena's "Just World" blog. (I would really like to know Helena's theory of Justice.)

BTW - Helena has limited the comment page display on her 'haloscan' blog commentary, presumably to make it more difficult to post comments. (I expect any day now she will go the route of Juan Cole, and completely disable all commentary by readers). If the display bothers you, hit F11, and then hit the "resize" button on top right, and then you will get a normal haloscan display.

BTW, the only reason she cannot ban me completelty, and has to sometimes tolerate me, is because through geurilla peer-to-peer technology, I can post without telling her what my IP address is. If anybody wants to find out how this is done, let me know. Power to the people and down with the tyrants. LOL

Warren - these self-labelled bleeding-heart "pacifists" who prefer to see a Saddam or Xomeini like bloody regime instead of a constitutional democracy in Iraq, have a couple of problems. They are anti-enlightenment and anti-positivism in identity - meaning that they do not subscribe to the historic progress of civilization and do not agree that human beings can consciously improve their own lot. They never have solutions because their intellect doesn't extend that far into the future - only cheap dime a dozen destructive criticisms loaded with "memory".

In politics they are fascistic and romanticize a bygone era replete with authority, misogyny, and communalism, which has been idealized and sanitized through the decrepit post-modern lens. These people are the inheritors of Mussolini and Stalin. In economics they are generally pro capitalism, especially state-capitalism, anti-market, and detest scientific socialism.

Finally, their livelihood depends on such "scholarship". They have never had a job in the private sector and since unable to hold a real and productive job, they depend on entitlements.

====
A fellow by the handle tom.t posted some hate speech two days ago on the Syria kiss and make up thread. I complained yesterday and Helena deleted my complaint. Shame. Lady censor displaying her scissors and her bias.

Other

Posted by Other at 10. apríl 2005 15:32

Other - I sympathize with you.

Lady censor just deleted my "repeat" post.

What a sorry individual who cannot stand a shred of criticism. Thank you for fighting back "Other" and Ebilpe2.