'Just World News' with Helena Cobban

RE: the constitution. Did Iraq not have a constitution before the invasion? If so, why the start from scratch as opposed to modifying the existing constitution? Does occupation require "out with the old and in with the new?" Just wondering about the many transitions required of Iraq, how many are really necessary and how many are merely the whims of the occupiers?

Judy,

Yes, Iraq had a constitution, and a very good one at that. The most serious problem with Iraq's constitution was that the government did not always abide by it.

Why the need to start from scratch - not just with the constitution, but with everything? Judy, right from the beginning my good friend Rania Masri (who took a strong leadership position in the campaign to end to the sanctions, and worked tirelessly on that project for years while completing a PhD at the same time) said it in the best and most succinct way I have heard so far. She insisted right from the beginning that the word "reconstruction" as applied to Iraq should be translated as "deconstruction and transformation", and indeed that WAS the plan.

When people say that the Bush administration went into Iraq without an plan for the post-conquest period they are dead wrong. They had an elaborate and very detailed plan for transforming nearly every aspect of Iraq's political, economic, civil, social, and even cultural structure. What they did failed to plan for was the one 100% predictable reality - that their plan would meet absulutely justified opposition of varying kinds for all different kinds of reasons, from many different segments of society.

As my friend Rania understood completely from the beginning, if you are going to transform a country and its society, you must first deconstruct it, and that is why it was necessary very early on to completely trash Iraq's existing constitution.

Judy, you asked an excellent question and Shirin, you gave an excellent answer. I should have couched my argument in those terms, instead of talking about the need for yet another, time-wasting "interim" document. We all know where getting endlessly tied up in "interim" documents has gotten the Palestinians since 1993...

Helena,

"if the government that was confirmed by Iraq's elected National Assembly back in April took seriously the idea that it drew its main operating mandate from that act of (nearly) democratic political legitimization, rather than from the heavy breath of the occupying power down its neck, then it might rapidly come to the conclusion that it has no need to remain bound to Bremer's clunky* directive regarding how Iraq's transition to national independence should be effected."

It was clear even before the "elections" that the individuals and parties that comprise this "National Assembly" did not take seriously that they drew their mandate from the voters rather than from the "heavy breath of the occupying power down their necks". All doubt disappeared completely when, in the week or so BEFORE the "election", after "meetings" with American officials, the UIA suddenly started backing away from "planks" in their "platform" known to be contrary to the U.S. agenda. It was when they announced that they would not demand U.S. withdrawal that any slight hope I might have held regarding the "elections" evaporated completely. Clearly the U.S. has succeeded in turning the "election" that they were dragged into kicking and screaming into yet another sham.

* The TAL was designed to protect the interests of the occupying/colonizing power and its allies against potential political opposition by Iraqs. Its clunkiness is, in my view, merely a byproduct of that.

"If you are going to transform a country and its society, you must first deconstruct it, and that is why it was necessary very early on to completely trash Iraq's existing constitution"

This not the war all about, what the worlds told is regime change not as you said.
I think no one business to change the texture of the society and the country other than the native people (not the US Puppets) or Iranian background or Al sistani, he should better of go to Iran or Lead from Iraq to change inside Iran....

So if there is a plan as you stated with your friend Rana I things it’s all about occupying Iraq and then the Big ME...

Since it's come up for discussion, here's an archived copy of the 1990 constitution that theoretically governed Iraq prior to the war. From my standpoint, it's pretty good with respect to human rights and decentralization, not so with respect to political institutions - I'm skeptical of any constitution that places a "Revolutionary Command Council" at the head of the state and gives it the power to issue laws by decree. If the Iraqis want to use a prior constitution as a baseline (and AFAIK there's nothing stopping them from doing that), they'd probably be better off looking to the 1958 or 1925 documents rather than the most recent one.

Hi Shirin,

Up front: no disagreements with your analysis, just more sadness.

Second: You say that "When people say that the Bush administration went into Iraq without an plan for the post-conquest period they are dead wrong. They had an elaborate and very detailed plan for transforming nearly every aspect of Iraq's political, economic, civil, social, and even cultural structure."

That is very interesting, because it goes against the grain of what has been reported about the post-war plan. Could you say more?

I forwarded your email to some people I know who would have, on the basis of their previous experience, certainly been included in such post-war planning but (no surprise to anyone who has been following this) were shut out of such planning. It should be said that these people would have been reluctant, on the one hand, but also had insisted they be involved in order to ensure provision of basic services which, as we know, still have not been provided. They were politely told to shut up and sit on their hands.

Who made the detailed plan, in that case? Bush, Feith and co. don't appear to me as if they would know a 'detailed plan' if it came up and bit them you-know-where.

Also: your friend Rania sounds very interesting. Don't suppose you could talk her into posting a line or two for our further illumination .... ?

witw

Salah,

The long term goal for the occupation of Iraq was to transform Iraq economically, politically, civically, socially, and culturally. The idea was to make Iraq into the U.S. base for political, economic, and military operations in the Middle East. In order to accomplish that they needed to make Iraq economically and militarily dependent on the U.S. so that its government would have to comply with U.S. wishes.

The Bush administration has finally actually admitted that it is building permanent military bases there. And what about this mega-embassy they are planning to establish there? It is more accurate, I think, to consider that a command and control center for U.S. operations in the region.

I probably was somewhat inaccurate when I described the Bush administration's transformation plans as "elaborate and detailed". However, it is a fact that months before the invasion, while they were still insisting they had made no decision about Iraq, they were busy awarding ato U.S. corporations all kinds of "deconstruction and transformation" contracts involving different aspects of Iraqi life and society.

Of particular concern to me was the awarding of a contract to effect an American-dictated from-the-ground-up reformation of Iraq's education system, including everything from reforming the curriculum and teaching methods to writing all new textbooks - all under the close supervision of American "advisors", of course. The first and most obvious question for me was why not allow UNICEF to continue the work they have been doing for decades with Iraqi educators instead of bringing in Americans with no experience or knowledge of the region, and who as far as I could learn do not even know Arabic? UNICEF is politically neutral, knows Iraq and its society and culture very well, has the trust of Iraqi educators, and would work with them to make Iraq's education system serve Iraqi needs and interests. I am acquainted with some of the details of the process of rewriting the textbooks, which involved, among other things, American "advisors" with little if any Middle East knowledge or experience dictating to Iraqi educators what they were and were not allowed to teach and include in the new textbooks, and imposing an American vision of what Iraq education should be. In some cases the result was, of course, the replacement of Saddam's self-aggrandizing propaganda with U.S. propaganda. And that, of course, is the reason an American corporation with no real knowledge, understanding, or concern for Iraq and its society had to do the job instead of the experienced and knowledgeable people from UNICEF.

Another example is the plan for the from-the-ground-up transformation of Iraq's once state of the art medical system. One of the reasons medical services have continued to deteriorate is that there was no real plan to provide for Iraqis' immediate medical needs. The plan was instead to build from scratch a new privatized medical system that was completely dependent on U.S. technology and know-how, and that clearly takes years. The economic and political reasons for this should be obvious, I think.

The same principle can be applied to the rest of the infrastructure - electrical, water, sanitation, and communication. It is clear to just about every Iraqi who worked in those sectors that repairing the existing infrastructure in order to bring services rapidly back to acceptable levels was not a priority. The priority was building new infrastructure using U.S. technology and know-how, which in addition to providing big short-term profits for U.S. corporations would have the long-term benefit of making Iraq dependent on U.S. good will for replacement equipment and expertise for some time to come.

I would love it if Rania would post some comments here, but knowing her she is devoting full time-plus to her current projects and has little or no time for anything else. She is fortunate, in my opinion, to have arranged her life so she can devote full time to "activism". I understand she discusses some of the issues I have addressed here in a series of documentaries titled Shocking and Awful, of which I have seen only a few small snippets so far. I believe they may be available for purchase online, but I do not know that for sure. I do know they have been shown on the Link satellite channel, which is available in the U.S. via Dis Network.

Rania is a remarkable young woman - physically very beautiful, highly intelligent, well-informed and articulate, quietly charming in her manner toward all, unfailingly affectionate with friends and colleagues, and passionately devoted to making a positive difference in the world. When I say she is tireless I think about the period when she was travelling all over the U.S. helping to set up groups to fight against the sanctions on Iraq. In every location she was on the move constantly from media interviews to planning meetings to organizing sessions to speaking engagements starting from early in the morning until sometimes well after midnight, putting her head on someone's shoulder to sleep in the car or van while travelling from one to the other.

I think if you do a google search on Rania Masri you will get quite a few hits.

Concerning plans for the post invasion and deconstruction of Iraq. One has to take in account the fact that the US administration wasn't united behind a big general plan. There was a fight between the State Department and the Pentagon. In the end, the Pentagon and Wolfowitz won and the State Department was kept out of it despite its insistence.
I remember reading some reports concerning the way the writing of a constitutional project was given to a contractor. I think that there was one Iraqi imigrated professor who participated to the writing, but for the rest it was mainly a group of inexperimented young jurists who where hired by the contractor. Some ME and constitutional experts later protested against that way of doing things (I think I read about that in Juan Cole's blog). It's due to Sistani's insitence that this text is now only transitional. It was first supposed to be a definitive constitution.
BTW, speaking of constitution, the article concerning the prohibition of slavery always struck me as being a survival of US history : is there any actual slavery in Iraq justifying the need of such an article ? I don't think so, am I wrong ? Some forms of prostitution and the exploitation of domestic or illegal immigrant workers are sometimes named slavery, but this is more to denounce the exploitation of these workers than because they are real slaves. Legally, these situations can be fought using the fundamental human rights articles.
Also, concerning water and energy infrastructures : the US plans of total reconstruction were at the same time increasing Iraq dependance toward the US and punishing the countries who opposed the war by bannishing them from all reconstruction contracts (the Iraqi infrastructures were mainly from Germany and Russia).

The previous Constitution clearly did not work. And now has a bad reputation. Who would trust a government under it?

Meanwhile, the Iraqis blame the insurgency for 12,000 deaths. For no effect, and for no benefit to the Iraqis. Those who fail to deplore the insurgency are anti-Iraqi.

Warren W.,

To the extent that the previous constitution did not work it was because the regime ignored it when it wanted to. That is not the fault of the constitution, but of the regime. By the same principle, the Bush administration's flagrant attempts to bypass the U.S. Constitution do not reflect badly on the U.S. Constitution but on the Bush administration. One could also point out that the Bush administration's refusal to uphold its country's solemn obligations under the Fourth Geneva Convention, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and the Convention against Torture - oh yes, and the United Nations Charter - does not negate those instruments. Instead it makes the Bush administration a scofflaw - one might even say rogue - government.

No, "the Iraqis" do not blame the "insurgency" (sic) for 12,000 deaths. The so-called "Interior Minister" was allowed by his American handlers to make the announcement that the "insurgency" has caused 12,000 deaths. It is useful to know that, just as before the "elections" Iraqi ministries are still being run by herds of American "advisors" who are on the Bush administration payroll, and by an uber "advisor" who directs all Ministy functions and tells the "Minister" what to say and definitely tells him what not to say. Note that the "Interior Minister" has said nothing about now many deaths have been caused by the American invasion and occupation forces, or by their proxy Iraqi forces, and the various militias, commando units, and death squads that are funded by and operating under American command. The American "advisors" put a very quick stop to an earlier attempt by the "Interior Minister" to provide those kinds of statistics.

Christiane,

Good point about the lack of Bush administration unity on the post-conquest deconstruction/transformation plan. Unlike the State Department, the Pentagon systematically excluded anyone, Iraqi or American, with any level of expertise on Iraq or the Middle East, and only included "Iraqis" like Chalabi, who had been absent from Iraq since he left in 1958 as a pre-teen, and who in any case would provide them only with the "information" they needed to justify doing what they already planned to do.

The person appointed as the "advisor" to oversee the writing of the Constitution for The New Iraq™ was Noah Feldman, a Jewish-American scholar on Constitutional Law, and Islamic Studies, who has family ties to Israel. Though Feldman appears to have been technically well qualified for the job, and may even have had his heart in the right place, it never seemed to occur to the Bushies that appointing an American non-Muslim to such a sensitive post might be insulting to the people of a majority Arab Muslim country. Did the Bushies at least not stop to think that choosing a person who could realistically be suspected of having a connection to Israel might not encourage trust in the U.S.'s intentions, and that it might serve to confirm rumours connecting the attack on Iraq to Israeli interests? Can it be possible that in all the world they could not find an Iraqi, or at least an Arab Muslim, or any kind of Muslim, or even an Arab Christian with the expertise to take this role?

My memory is not clear on this right now, but I seem to recall that Professor Kan'an Makiya was involved in the constitution-writing, though he is not a legal or Islamic expert, but an architect. To know to what ilk he belongs one only has to know that he is one of the speakers promoted by Benador Associates, along with the likes of Richard Perle et al. Makiya is an opportunist who has made numerous trips to Israel where he has received honorary degrees and other awards.

According to my information, the TAL was actually written by "Sam" Chalabi, nephew of Ahmad, from notes dictated by Bremer. It was then if memory serves, signed by Ahmad Chalabi.

The article prohibiting slavery is just weird in terms of Iraq. I have never heard of slavery or anything remotely resembling it being practiced in Iraq as long as it has been an independent state, and Iraq really does not have a history of importing domestic or other workers who might need protection (though prohibition against slavery would not really protect them). In fact, there have not ever been so many foreign workers in Iraq as there have been since the American "liberators" started bringing them in in droves.

Household servants work either independently, or are hired via agencies who negotiate the terms of employment, and take a fee for the placement. Once the placement is made, the agency is out of the loop and the servant is paid directly by the household, and any changes in terms of employment are negotiated directly between the worker and the employer. At least that is how we always hired maids, cooks, drivers, etc. Our gardener was an independent operator and worked for several households in the family.

"Though Feldman appears to have been technically well qualified for the job"

Why? And your prove for this?

Salah,

Thanks for asking.

Noah Feldman was certainly technically qualified to advise in the writing of a constitution because he is a specialist in constitutional law, has a PhD in Islamic Studies, and reads and writes Arabic well.

This information is easily available on the internet.

From the WaPo article:

"Zebari asked the administration to use its leverage with major Sunni leaders, such as Egypt's President Hosni Mubarak and Jordan's King Abdullah, to weigh in with Iraq's Sunni leaders to get them to end a virtual boycott of the political process."

I doubt that Hosni Mubarak and King Abdulla will be seen by Sunni leaders in Iraq "as major Sunni leaders". It's more likely that they will be seen as "major American clients", and with reason, I would say.

"Noah Feldman was certainly technically qualified to advice in the writing of a constitution because he is a specialist in constitutional law, has a PhD in Islamic Studies, and reads and writes Arabic well."

I am not agreeing of selecting him, to me and others I think it is insulating Muslims countries by choosing Zionist to write of their constitution....

Salah,

I hope it is clear to you that I did not agree with the selection of Noah Feldman. I found it insulting also, not because he is a Zionist. I do not know whether he is a Zionist or not. Many Jews are not Zionists, including many Jewish intellectuals, and many are strongly anti-Zionist.

I object to the selection of Noah Feldman, because it is an insult to all Arabs and Muslims and Iraqis to say that they need an American to tell them how to write a constitution for themselves. It is a way of saying that Iraqis cannot do anything for themselves without an American telling them how to do it. It is a way of saying there are no Muslims, Arabs or Iraqis who are qualified.

I also objected to the selection of Feldman because choosing a Jewish person whose family has ties to Israel for this critical post shows a complete lack of diplomatic sensitivity to the deep concerns Iraqis have over the involvement of Israeli interests in the invasion and takeover of the country.

Of course, the reason for appointing an American to oversee the writing of the constitution was exactly so that the U.S. would be able to control the process and determine the final product. There is some evidence that Feldman did not stay in the post because he disagreed with some of the Bush administration's dictates, and if so that is to his credit.

“Many Jews are not Zionists, including many Jewish intellectuals, and many are strongly anti-Zionist.”
I knew that Shirin, I agree, I don’t have any problem with Jews whatsoever, I tell you my father (he died at 1987) most of his friends were Iraqi Jews this in Babylon before 1948 then they forced to leave Iraq I heard from very nice story mixed with pleasure and sadness of lost them, Also I worked with university of technology for many years and we had wonderful Jews student, As Iraqi and all Iraqi we do not have problems with Jews and they still some families their.

Shirin
Why you think The Muslim or Arabs having a problem with Jews?
The Jews had humiliated and killed and suffered mostly by the west the Christians.

The problem it’s from sick people the Zionist which they used the Promised Land for there political gain,
Till now in the Knesset there is map showing the Big State Zionist State from Alfruties River in Iraq to Niel in Egypt

But let think in the principles do we had any state or country in the world built on religion beliefs? And what the Khana groups did prior to 1948 of massager of the Arabs in Palestine accepted by the Zionist?
Sorry for this talk which took us out of the mainlines of the object I don’t like to talk more in this subject because it is so complicated and there is no common ground either of us may agrees we had enough talk which go no where in this along our life for generation now.

Salah `Azizi,

We do not need to talk about this. Everything you said about the Jews and especially the Iraqi Jews I know very well, and I agree with you completely. I knew a lot of Jews in Iraq too. With some I did business, with others I shared recreational interests and we had many pleasant times together. Like your father I think Iraq lost a lot when the Jews left after 1948. They were there for thousands of years, and they were part of the land of Iraq, so Iraq has lost a big piece of itself with them gone.

Shirin
The I can not understand why this rush for the writing of a constitution.
when US invaded Iraq first singe of acceptance was the military troops not fights the US (excluded the republican Guards and all the intelligences and very closed circle of grads and official to the regime) then the Iraq were in big Shook & owe State which left them unguided what I think the most important thinks that Us as occupied force at that time is start very soon to restore all the public services and facilities for the Iraqi, I like to tell you that most of Iraqi specially the groups live outside Iraq we all thought Iraq will be better country in ME and we put as staring example Abu Dhabi City - Capital of the United Arab Emirates but Iraq have the potent ional in pupils and resources much more that UAE.

But all these dreams went out as the looting started and Ramsfield came publicly say see the freedom! Which freedom he taking about these are criminals we knew that will happened Iraq had same experience this in 1991, they loot the hospitals schools, and government offices and put on fire most of the birth certificate and land registering offices and building, which in the west use it as Shia’a uprising….

The killing point of our dream was when Bremer dismissed the Iraqi army and start privatisation of Iraqi assets now most of Iraqi wreaked with some thing now not right here. And so one …

So if you look for democracy, and US care about the Muslims and Arabs and what the freedom mean to them I like to asked did the people in Saudi Arabia asked if they accepted the US Troops on their Land? Did the Qatari’s citizen ask if they accepting the US troops and military bases on their land? (in Qatar Arab 40%, Pakistani 18%, Indian 18%, Iranian 10%, other 14%, http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/qa.html#Geo)

So where is the democracy then we talking about in Iraq which is as UK foreign mistier side it a broken state….

Most of you not accepting thief to represent you in the house and parliament whey US did in Iraq? What there is no one can do the job or what?
Why you listen to Alsistani /Iraninai for the constitution, this some of the singes make the Iraqis angry and revoked this occupation and make them feel they loosing their country and land for forgeries…..

The conversation between Shirin and Salah about whether an otherwise qualified person is a good choice based on ethnicity and family ties is a gem. It interleaves the "some of my best friends are Jews" commonplace, mixes the father, the old country, and the emotional longings for the Jews that somehow all of a sudden left. Just like Abraham, they heard a voice and left.

I wonder if we should turn the tables and call the placement of Mohammed El Baradei lacking diplomatic sensitivity.

Salah, calling Zionist people sick is bad form, it is not conducive to an informed exchange, and is probably against the stated spirit of this blog.

Oh, and when you get a chance Salah, could you share with us a copy of the Knesset map that you mentioned shows Israel extending to the Nile river? If you cannot maybe that is an example of the flawed Iraqi education the Americans are trying to fix.

David

Well, David, predictably you have gotten your tender Jewish sensibilities all in a bunch over our discussion about the appropriateness of the Bush administration appointing a Jewish American to oversee the writing of the constitution of a Muslim Arab state.

And of course, if the world community should one day decide it was time Israel had a constitution, and appointed a Muslim Arab to oversee the process, you would find that quite appropriate and accept it without a peep of protest, wouldn't you, David?

"Iraqi Campaign for a Democratic Constitution Launched in London"

Go to: http://www.iraqcp.org/members3/0050606wicp.htm

“Our most fatal mistake was in the failure to understand that liberation means liberation. Iraqis were thrilled to be rid of Saddam Hussein, and rightly so.”

Reconstructing Iraq
Identifying Core Mistakes
By Danielle Pletka
Tuesday, June 15, 2004

http://www.aei.org/publications/filter.all,pubID.20736/pub_detail.asp

David's point about El-Baradei is particularly hilarious since Israel is one of the few states in the world that hasn't signed the NPT and therefore doesn't come under the insepctions regime of the IAEA. So what is your beef exactly, David?

And of course, if the world community should one day decide it was time Israel had a constitution, and appointed a Muslim Arab to oversee the process, you would find that quite appropriate and accept it without a peep of protest, wouldn't you, David?

I'm not David, but in my case, that would depend on the Arab Muslim in question. For instance, if the constitutional advisor were Cherif Bassiouni or some other respected law professor without notable anti-Israel bias, and if the Israeli legislature and/or electorate had the final say, I wouldn't object to him on ethnic or religious grounds. Certainly, in the unlikely event that Israel were to find itself in this situation, I wouldn't be making bigoted statements about someone like Bassiouni being disqualified for ethnic reasons - and from what I know of Feldman, he's an exact equivalent to what Bassiouni would be vis-a-vis Israel.

BTW, you may want to reconsider that "tender Jewish sensibilities" comment.

Before it gets too hot in here, I wanted to throw my $.02 in about the original complaint, which also touches on a pet peeve of mine (see, we've all got 'em).

Shirin's complaint, as I understood it, was about Feldman's role, not Feldman, and I think the same complaint would be made in Jonathan's hypothetical case with Bassiouni. It's not a bad thing to get the best technical advice available, from whoever, especially when you’re doing something as important as writing a constitution; but the authorship had better be home-grown. You're going to have a hard time selling the constitution to everyone as it is; why make it worse by lending co-authorship to someone who, rightly or not, is not going to be acceptable and who therefore constitutes a political liability? The fact that the putative authors were not credible didn’t help.

This perfectly-meritocratic description skirts another important issue, which is that this 'meritocratic' approach is not universally viewed as the best way to go about getting political work done; but I think that if you incorporated that issue, my case would just get stronger.

I have no doubt that technically speaking, Feldman was an advisor. But I also have no doubt that the reality followed the almost exceptionless model of development that I've seen time and time again. Someone gets an assignment as an 'advisor' but their marching orders are to produce the thing, not to help someone else produce it with the best available advice. There is a deadline, a deliverable, and the expectations are clear. The 'advisor' tag is a euphemism, because who really has the juice here?

Shirin,

If I had been in charge of the ‘advisory’ team on the Afghan constitution (instead of just a close observer with friends on the team) and you had been an Afghan complaining to me that it was an insult to have foreigners telling Afghans how to write a constitution as if there were no Afghans capable of doing it, I probably would have answered, “yeah, there are qualified Afghans; it’s just that none of them are doing this right now. They’re doing other things.” It would have been a defensive response, and it would have said nothing about your complaint vis a vis Iraq.

Of course, Iraq is not Afghanistan, and Afghanistan is not the Middle East. So I wonder, (rhetorically), why the result seems to have been so much better in that earlier case?

Afghanistan’s new constitution is based on the 1964 constitution, which became the interim document while the new one was being drafted. It also incorporates elements of the US constitution, not because American advisors pushed it but because a) Afghans liked those elements for technical reasons; b) the elements they chose represented their readings of current circumstances and the relative power of different factions; and c) they approved of the way it did and did not share power, in light of said circumstances. Americans still wrote large parts of it behind the scenes, but they didn’t do it with Washington looking over their shoulders, and so the authorship problem was not the same. Point being, it had foreign inputs but reflected local interests, and local authorship, to a much greater degree than it did American interests. Somehow, nobody got fired over it.

I am not saying it was perfect, and I’ve made my complaints about it at length. Also, as is the case with so many things Afghan, the process of adopting it looked like it was rapidly headed over a cliff, with no course deviations in sight, and then in the last possible moment it worked out okay. Brahimi was largely to credit for this, though the egomaniacal Zal K. deserves some props for having agreed to play backup when it was probably killing him to do so.

So why do ‘we’ see the mess we currently do with the process in Iraq?

“If the constitutional advisor were Cherif Bassiouni or some other respected law professor without notable anti-Israel bias, and if the Israeli legislature and/or electorate had the final say”

Yes, see we got sick of this conditions set by you and others to imposed some roles on us as a Muslims/ Arabs, you putting yourself as master to people you think they are not capable of doing the job perfectly and better than you.
The recent example US involvement in Iraq, they realised that they can not get on unless they uses the Iraqi to fix there problems they created in Iraq.

I like to make it clear ISLAM is not a religion belief only, its a system of live its constitution, its deal’s with each single matter of live of the Muslims from birth to death, and land, trade women man even to the relation between Man and his wife, the kids and what the responsiblities, I advices every one to read carefully the Qura'an and think deep what in between the lines in conjunction to Alsunah (Prophet Mohammad says and advices to Muslims to clears some orders and roles) before talking about Islam before come to us and tell us he is "a specialist in constitutional law, has a PhD in Islamic Studies, and reads and writes Arabic well." This gathered with good wall to and loving of human.

As the peoples in the west which much brain washed by very massive media propaganda make you just believe that the Arab and Muslims are only men with four wife’s under tenet in desert with RR cars or Mercedes cars with Oil well, this picture unfortunately plotted because the stupidity of some kings and princes they likes to enjoying the west environment far from Muslims and brother eyes.
After the invasion of Iraq still there are many peoples around the world think Iraq is a desert and sand just oil wells around…
I like to mention one US Military or journalist when he entered Iraq with the troops he impressed with the Highways (Motor ways) he said much better that California highways if I recall right.

When Iraq asking UN about the inspectors to spill out US inspectors from the UN team inspectors, you and many other like David make it a big objection and braking the UN roles and its UN business not Iraq to put conditions to inspected for Iraq,

I like to mentioned Divide Kay were the key one which Iraq was point out for his roll with CIA, after all the lies the world knew there are no WMD which this high qualified and respectable specialist working for 13 years to tell us the truth which they fell to tell, David Kay in one of his interviews he admitted that he were with inspection team and his job to recruited some close circle personal of commanders to the dictator and use them as breaking line to the regime. So it’s obvious that the objection Iraq made at the time was right. I dont like to say one of the inspection team sent to Iraq he is well none a gayship promoter nothing he had to do with WMD!!

Just last think we got sick of double slandered when it’s coming to Arabs and Muslims

Salah,
Where is the map? Were you lying? Or your mentors lied to you when they tought you in your great Iraqi educational system that Israel claims the lands between the Nile and Euphrates?

You keep asking for proof and evidence for every statement. Now it is your turn to put up or shut up.

David

Helena,
There is no beef. The exchange between Salah and Shirin was so enlightening that I am printing and framing it, so I can show around what their educated moderates think.

Great blog!

David

Shirin,
I thought Israel already had multiple Muslim and Christian Arabs involved in the process of law making. Indeed, they are members of the so called Knesset. Yep, the place Salah owes us the incriminating map with Israel spanning the seven seas.

Did they also hide this in your Iraqi school system? Don't they study the geopilitics of the region they live in?

David

"There is no beef. The exchange between Salah and Shirin was so enlightening that I am printing and framing it, so I can show around what their educated moderates think."

Hmm..I wonder what the conversation might be like between two Jewish Israelis discussing the fact that a Muslim Arab American with family ties to Syria had been chosen by America to "oversee" the writing of their constitution?

I wonder if it would be as moderate (or not as you see it) as Shirin and Salah's conversation? Perhaps, perhaps not.

And David, there is a big difference between being a member of the Knesset and overseeing the writing of this hypothetical Israeli constitution.

"Israeli Parliament there is a statue of Theodor Herzl. This Zionist who lived 100 years ago in Vienna and started founding the Israel project has drawn the map of the territories that Israel has to conquer and in this map a great part of Turkey's territories have been shown as part of Israel. The Israel project is in this fact. In the Old Testament it is said that the land of the Assyrians which goes until Kayseri belongs to Israel. The West if necessary can close its eyes to this project of Israel."

http://cemoti.revues.org/document590.html#tocto3

Jonathan,

Perhaps you WOULD be just fine having an Arab Muslim put in charge of writing Israel's constitution, but I hope you will forgive me if I wonder whether you would be quite so comfortable with the reality as you are with using it as an argument to dismiss Iraqi and Arab concerns. If so, I do not doubt that you would be a member of a very, very tiny minority.

And no, with all respect to you, I will not reconsider my Jewish sensibilities remark. I especially will not reconsider it as long as those who regularly wave their Jewish sensibilities in our faces continue to dismiss Arab sensibilities as invalid and utterly unworthy of consideration. I am afraid, Jonathan, that in light of your comments on this page that group includes you at least in this particular case.

For the record (or, "back when I said 'I have no doubt', well, um, I started to have doubts");

It looks like on the basis of Feldman's interviews (Frontline, Oct '03 & Mother Jones, Jan '05) that he was not appointed to oversee the writing of the constitution. He was in Iraq from late April '03 to July '03 under contract to the US under Garner, then Bremer, to help set up the committee and the process. After the constitutional committe was formed in July his contract was up and he stayed on to work with the committee pro-bono.

An interesting excerpt from the MJ interview:

MJ.com: Now tell me about drafting a constitution—since you were involved in guiding the write-up of the Transitional Administrative Law. How do you find the balance between guiding an occupied country towards democracy without getting too heavy-handed?
NF: I should say, my role during the drafting of the TAL was not an oversight role, it was a purely consultative role. I was no longer working with the US government, I was working directly with the Iraqis on a pro bono basis. But the U.S. was involved in this process, and here the U.S. did try to effect substantive outcomes in this document, by exercising its own influence. I think that on some points we probably went further than we should have done, in terms of particularized political solutions.
My basic view on how this should be done is this: It's fine to put on the table ideas like: "Hey, the formulation of religious liberty in international declaration of human rights is a pretty attractive one, maybe you'd like to use this." But I don't think it's a good idea to say, "You must adopt this formulation or else." Because if you do, sure, the Iraqis will adopt it, but they won't adopt it on the basis of acceptance, they'll adopt it in order to satisfy an outsider. Then when the time comes for that provision to be implemented, they won't see it as something in their interest, and they won't follow it. That's how you generate a paper constitution that no one will ever follow.
MJ.com: Can you give an example of a time when the US did go too far in demanding or suggesting a certain outcome?
NF: Sure, at one point, when negotiations were ongoing, ambassador Paul Bremer made a public statement in Hilla, where he said publicly, "Don't worry this won't be an Islamic constitution." This was an enormous mistake. First of all, it achieved the exact opposite of what he presumably wanted it to achieve—it strengthened the hand of the Islamists, by making it look like the US was trying to hold them out, and therefore required the US to make many more concessions than they would have otherwise done.
The question of whether Iraq is going to have a state religion and what the role of that religion is going to be, that's just none of our business—that's a question for Iraqis. We might have a view on it, we might tell them, "We have a pluralism, look how well we've done with separation of church and state." But when Iraqis answer by saying, "Thank you very much, but we have no interest in that," then the appropriate response is, "Okay, it's your constitution." Not: "You may not have this!" That's absurd. And it was shown to be absurd relatively quickly, because the constitution (TAL) is more Islamic as a result of Bremer's announcement.

Sorry, I meant to include the links to those bookend interviews;

Frontline: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/truth/stake/feldman.html

Mother Jones:
http://www.motherjones.com/news/qa/2005/01/feldman.html

Wind-- thanks for digging up those great contributions to the field of "Feldmanology", and the links.

It's interesting how he characterizes (according to your rendering of this) his transition from working as a contractor for the State Department setting up the process and the TAL's "drafting committee" to working "pro bono" as a consultant directly to the committee itself.

It would be interesting to know whether his shift from one role to the other was quite clear to the Iraqis involved?

It seems to me that while many of his political instinct, as revealed in the MoJo interview as elsewhere, were probably quite laudable, at a bigger level his understanding of the contradictions and hypocrisies inevitably involved in any practice of "liberal imperialism" seems extremely limited.

Of course, he probably didn't see himself as involved in the practice of "liberal imperialism". He probably saw his role in fairly heroic terms as analogous to that played by the people who ran the post-WW2 occupations in Germany or Japan.

Many, many Americans made that fundamental mistake in their understanding of the role of the US venture in Iraq, which they saw (WW-2-like) as being the result of good-faith participation in a project of "just war". It never was. The project was one of naked colonial aggression from the get-go, and that has affected everything to do with the venture ever since.

Salah,
Show us the map.
So far your attempt to salvage your claim is sad, a reference to a statue somehow connected to the Old Testament and now claiming Turkey as well.

Wake up Salah, Israel is the second smallest country in the entire Middle East. Is that an expanding empire?

Retracting a mistake or apologizing for the insults that Shirin and you have written are generally useful for a dialogue. Assuming you are interested in dialogue with anybody that doesn't share your conspiratorial views.

David

We all have learned very clearly what the word "advisor" means in the context of the American program in Iraq. In short, the American "advisors" are the ones making the decisions, and the Iraqis are ordered to carry them out.

As for Feldman, his original role was most certainly NOT limited to merely "setting up the committee and the process", and I submit that someone with his technical qualifications was not needed if that was the sum total of the role.

I don't have time to write more about this now, but I hope to later.

"Israel is the second smallest country in the entire Middle East."

Oddly enough, that does not seem to stop it from being the most predatory country in the entire Middle East. It does not stop it from continuing to demolish more and more and more Palestinian homes and businesses, uproot more and more and more and more Palestinian trees, plough up more and more and more Palestinian agricultural fields, do more and more and more to destroy Palestinian livelihood and life, and, of course, confiscate more and more and more Palestinian land.

Perhaps you WOULD be just fine having an Arab Muslim put in charge of writing Israel's constitution, but I hope you will forgive me if I wonder whether you would be quite so comfortable with the reality as you are with using it as an argument to dismiss Iraqi and Arab concerns.

Personally, I would count Israel very lucky if someone like Bassiouni were available to cut through all the bickering. If you want a less hypothetical example, though, there are those in Israel who argue that Arab citizens shouldn't have a deciding voice in policy matters and that government decisions aren't "legitimate" if Arab votes provide the margin. This argument was made by some people on the far right earlier this year after the government survived a vote of confidence thanks to Ra'am (the United Arab List). In the past I have not hesitated to condemn such views as racist and I do so now.

I especially will not reconsider it as long as those who regularly wave their Jewish sensibilities in our faces continue to dismiss Arab sensibilities as . I am afraid, Jonathan, that in light of your comments on this page that group includes you at least in this particular case.

Again with all respect, I'm not sure where I'm doing that. I do, indeed, think that any sensibility that disqualifies a person from a political role on grounds of religious, ethnic or national origin is "invalid and utterly unworthy of consideration." However, I don't only think so if it's an Arab sensibility. I reject the same sensibility in anyone else including Israelis and Jews, and I've said so to Israelis and Jews.

If you had objected to Feldman solely on the ground that he was a foreigner imposed by an occupying power and that a non-Iraqi has no business writing a constitution for Iraq, I would have agreed with you. Once you brought his religion and ethnic origin into it, though, that was a different story. His appointment may have been politically unwise, but it was no more morally objectionable than that of any other non-Iraqi.

Jonathan,

1. I would not say that you are one of those who constantly wave your delicate Jewish sensibilities in our faces, demanding at all times utmost respect and consideration for them, and thank you for that. You most certainly HAVE, however, summarily dismissed our Arab/Iraqi sensibilities in the matter of the Bush administration's choice of a Jewish American with family ties to Israel to direct/oversee/supervise/"advise" (choose your verb) the writing of the Iraqi constitution in the wake of an invasion and occupation that is rightfully perceived as having been driven at least partially by Israeli interests.

2. You are, in the tiresome, typical American manner attempting to impose on Iraqis an American sensibility that simply does not apply there, particularly under the current set of circumstances.

Like it or not, Zionism and Israel, and the U.S.'s persistent one-sided involvement have had an impact that you ignore at your peril. Like it or not, the significant involvement of Israeli interests in the Bush administration's Iraq adventure has created both realistic and unrealistic concerns about Israel's true role that are so pervasive as to be virtually universal.

You can label this as racism, anti-semitism or any other ism you like. In reality it is a perfectly rational reaction to the fact that 1. Israel is and always has been an enemy state, 2. By its own self-definition, Israel is "The Jewish State" for all the Jews of the world, 3. By the perception of most of the people of the world, and certainly most of the Arab people of the world, most if not all Jews in the world are loyal to and support The Jewish State of Israel.

3. "it was no more morally objectionable"

Where and when, please, did I ever, EVER state, or imply or even hint anything about the choice of a Jew being morally objectionable?

"Israel is the second smallest country in the entire Middle East. Is that an expanding empire?"

Can you give us the borders for Israel in 1948 accordiny to UN order at that time?
Give us the borders of Israel on 1967?
Give us borders of Israel on 2005?

Give us the borders of Israel on 2055?!!!!

Helena,

I do wonder whether the transition was clear to the Iraqis working on the constitution. The 2005 interview indicates Feldman felt some friction (if I read between the line properly, personal/organization friction and not just conflicting objectives) between US efforts and what he was doing. If that was the case, I imagine the US side would have made Feldman's status known to them.

And agreed about the chasm between conceptualization of personal role v. the whole enterprise. Actually, I met alot of Americans enroute to Iraq about the same time Feldman would have ended his contract, rolling in with the Bremer regime. Some were the same kind we saw in Afghanistan; young, inexperienced, out on an adventure, certainly overpaid, and maybe even angling for future political position back home. Others really thought they had been picked to go help Iraqis rebuild their country (their words, not mine). Their inability to apprehend the whole picture and see what might be coming was not uncommon.

It's difficult to know how precisely to feel about such people.

Shirin,

Yeah, I hear you about the 'advisor' title, that is the way I see it and what motivated my original response to you. The thing that raises doubts with Feldman in particular is timing: he was part of a lame-duck machine under Garner, which was not so hell-bent on crafting the machinery (something we all came to fault them for later) even before Bremer was announced; Feldman was only there under a 3-month contract (an assistant prof at nyu has somewhat less flexibility on such things), and people in the advisor-cum-commandante slots don't generally serve in unpaid status. His post-hoc comments on the matter aren't in keeping with what people say about what goes on behind closed doors, either. None of that is vindication, but it is is enough to give one pause about his role, specifically.

And as for your original point (or maybe it was my point and I am projecting it onto you unfairly), it still stands. This approach is a problem that is bigger than Feldman in Iraq, and from my perspective bigger than Iraq, too.

I'd be interested in anything you could post/point to that mentions Feldman's larger role as you describe it; I couldn't find anything but obviously my search wasn't comprehensive.

Just to add thing here, one of the members chose to write the Iraqi constitution (which I find odd to do it now while the country in a big miss) this before Hoshair Zibarry asking for US assistance in writing the Iraqi constitution this member said to the Arabic newspaper they will write the Iraqi constitution according to the draft copy of the TAL, this means to me as Noah put it, In fact this means to me they will copy Noah constitution.

By the way in the interview Noah he try distances himself of writing Iraqi constitution, he went to described another details which is not more important that what his mission exactly there in Iraq.
If you recall Noah return back to US after his trip in Iraq and blamed Bremer and the TAL for not let him doing his job, I think this some sort of cover what he done nothing ales.

Shirin,
Israel has been an enemy state by choice of the Iraqis. Israel never had anything against Iraq, no territorial claims in spite of Salah's ridiculous ramblings, and does not even share a border with Iraq.

Iraq has sent forces to fight against Israel in every war. Why? I guess ethnic or religious affinity. The same one that prompts you to disqualify Feldman.

I agree with you that we should not impose American sensitivities to Iraqis, therefore I feel relieved to be able to tell you, Shirin, you are full of shit.

David

And David, that is a completely un-courteous thing to say. Take this as a warning, and if you want to continue as a participant here please clean up your act.

'Shirin, you are full of shit'
Actually, it was quite amusing to me to watch someone loosing his temper when getting short of arguments in discussion. Shirin - you won (the argument).

"Retracting a mistake or apologizing for the insults that Shirin and you have written are generally useful for a dialogue. Assuming you are interested in dialogue with anybody that doesn't share your conspiratorial views."

No comment.....

Helena,
"Full of shit" is the American vernacular for "your arguments are generally devoid of value or veracity".

I did not mean to hurt her sensitivity.

David

Andrew,
Your observation is generally devoid of value or veracity :).

David

You are, in the tiresome, typical American manner attempting to impose on Iraqis an American sensibility that simply does not apply there

As you quite rightly pointed out, Shirin, not all sensibilities deserve to be catered to. I'd include among that number any sensibilities that are based on erroneous facts and/or a priori assumptions about the interests and motivations of ethnic groups.

If that makes me a tiresome American, so be it. You have a right to argue that Arabs, or anyone else, are entitled to their sensibilities based on their interaction with others. Keep in mind, though, that when you do so, you're also validating the stereotypes that other people have developed based on their interactions.

Like Israeli stereotypes about Arabs. Think about it.

Jonathan,

Nice argument, except that by making it a moral issue concerning ethnic stereotypes, you managed to deftly and completely sidestep my point. As a purely practical matter an American Jew with demonstratble ties to Israel was fairly close to the worst possible choice for any sensitive position - unless, of course, you have no problem confirming the very common and not completely unjustified feeling that serving Israeli interests was a strong driving force, and perhaps even THE driving force behind the invasion and takeover of Iraq.

I would also submit that given that the overwhelming majority of American Jews are moderately strong to fanatical supporters of Israel, it is hardly stereotyping to expect any given American Jew to be an Israel supporter.

One further point, Jonathan:

As we know a group of Europeans decided to create a state in a multiethnic,predominantly Arab area with but a miniscule Jewish population. They clearly and inequivocally defined this state as The Jewish State, and made it demographically so by means of massive immigration of Jews from all over the world. The symbols of this state are also Jewish. One of the overriding concerns for this state is the preservation of its "Jewish character".

By creating The Jewish State, populating it by means of massive immigration, and by emphasizing in various ways its "Jewish character", Zionists have irrevocably politicized Jewishness. It is simply not possible to separate Jews and Jewishness from Zionism and Israel in any political context. It is simply not legitimate to reflexively cry "ethnic stereotyping", or "racism" or "anti-Semitism" every time someone finds suspect the appointment of Jews to sensitive posts concerning the Middle East.

You got your Jewish State. The politicization of Jewishness is one of the consequences you will just have to learn to live with, I am afraid.

Shirin, I agree that Friedman's appointment was politically unwise, because of the sentiments you mention. If I were in charge of this whole sorry mess, I wouldn't have appointed him. Where I disagree with you is your implication that the sentiments in question are valid and worthy of respect (as opposed to appeasement in the interests of political calm), and that it is illegitimate to question the basis of such sentiments. That is a moral issue.

I also agree with you - to a point - with respect to the politicization of Judaism. Yes, we're a nation now (or, more accurately, we've legalized our nationhood), and as such, we have to get down in the dirt and take our lumps with other nations. That includes being criticized for our behavior. On the other hand, I could say the same about Arabs and, to an extent, Muslims.

The last century and a half has seen the emergence of Arab nationalism and the last half-century has seen the emergence of political Islam. Both are, according to some of their exponents (albeit not to others), expansionist ideologies, and both regard preservation of national character is important. The concept of an "Arab state" or "Islamic state" is enshrined in quite a few constitutions in the region, as well as domestic citizenship laws etc.

Thus, I could argue as you do that Arab and Islamic identity have been irrevocably politicized. But if someone were to, in your words, "find suspect the appointment of [Arab Muslims] to sensitive posts concerning the Middle East," I doubt you would accept that as a natural consequence of Arab nationalism or political Islam. In fact, I seem to remember you describing such sentiments as "Islamophobic" when held by other people.

The bottom line is that I don't accept your argument that the consequences of nationhood include forfeiture of judgment as an individual. If a Jew were appointed to a sensitive Middle East position, I'd say that his political views and associations are fair game, and that it's legitimate to object to him because of his policy positions vis-a-vis Israel or connections to right-wing Israeli elements. Objecting to him on the ground that Jews are inherently compromised, however, isn't legitimate unless you're prepared to apply the same standard to all other ethnic or national groups with political interests. That's racism however you dress it up, and although it may be politically expedient to accommodate such sentiments on some occasions, it's absolutely legitimate to describe them as what they are.

For the record, BTW, I don't consider you a racist or an anti-Semite. In fact, I'm certain that you aren't one. But I think that you're letting your political views on the merits of Zionism take you some dangerous places.

Jonathan,

1. For accuracy's sake, my position is that Zionism (and whatever purists want to call post-Israeli-statehood support of Israel as The Jewish State) irrevocably turned Jewishness, the ethnicity/culture(s)/whatever, not Judaism, the religion, into a political designation.

2. Your attempt to equate political Islam/Arab nationalism with Zionism is an apples and oranges argument.

3. If a power with well demonstrated anti-Zionist sympathies occupied Israel and appointed a Muslim Palestinian with connections to the Haq Al `Awda organization to "advise" Israel on construction of its constitution, I would find the appointment deeply suspect. While I might internally cheer such an appointment based on my convictions regarding Palestinian rights, I would object to it on several levels.

"I don't accept your argument that the consequences of nationhood include forfeiture of judgment as an individual.

I have not argued that they do. What I have argued is that it is reasonable and not at all a matter of stereotyping to assume that any given American Jew will have The Jewish State's interests as a higher priority than the interests of any given Arab state. I also would argue that it is reasonable and not at all a matter of stereotyping to assume that any given Arab would have Palestinian rights as a higher priority than the interests of The State of Israel.

Having said that, I must point out a few things about Iraq:

1. Iraq has accepted several Jewish diplomats from the U.S. and other countries without any questions or problems at all.

2. Jews have historically freely visited Iraq for business and all other imaginable purposes, and traveled throughout the country without any problems.

3. Those of us who remember the days when there was a significant Jewish community in Iraq regret deeply and with huge sadness the loss of that community, and remember in a positive way our relationships with Iraqi Jews who were our neighbors, schoolmates, colleagues, and in some cases friends.