No Democracy in Iraq

I had posted this before, but the link didn't work, and it was removed. I will try to post it again. Mods sorry for the confusion I should have checked it. I will leave the address this time just in case, thanks for understanding us newbies.(sorry for the repeat )

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My Opinion on the article:

This is the "DEMOCRACY that Bush talks about?"
I must therefore conclude that he doesn't know the meaning of the word...
This is what OUR BRAVE MILITARY is fighting for ?
I therefore must conclude that they have been brain washed...
By what right does Paul Bremer have to do this?
By what right does any country have to do this to another country?

Barely a sign left that Bush really ever wanted to bring democracy to Iraq.
When are the war supporters going to realize it and wake up to see the truth? Hopefully after reading this article!


NY Times Online Article:August 12, 2005

"My sadness at the privatisation of Iraq"; by Michael Meacher

The US transnational companies are taking over — and they'll benefit for years to come

IF DEMOCRACY is the goal of American policy in Iraq, as President Bush repeatedly says it is — not eliminating WMD, not controlling Middle East oil, not removing a dictator guilty of genocide — then with the Sunni walkout from government and Kurdish intransigence over federalism and Kirkuk, that policy is nearing breakdown. But democracy was always only an after-thought, and anyway never really on offer in the first place.
Before the US proconsul Paul Bremer left Baghdad, he enacted 100 orders as chief of the occupation authority in Iraq. Perhaps the most infamous was Order 39 which decreed that 200 Iraqi state companies would be privatised, that foreign companies could have complete control of Iraqi banks, factories and mines, and that these companies could transfer all of their profits out of Iraq. The “reconstruction” of the country amounts in effect to wholesale privatisation of the economy and is little short of economic colonisation.

These laws will not be reversed while 140,000 US troops remain in the country, or a network of US military bases planned to be retained in Iraq for a much longer period. Aid for rebuilding the electricity and water services, the oil industry, and the legal and security systems will reside with the US Embassy for many years to come.

If all 100 orders are taken together, they set the overall legal framework for overriding foreign exploitation of Iraq’s domestic market. They cover almost all facets of the economy, including Iraq’s trading regime, the mandate of the Central Bank, and regulations governing trade union activities. Collectively, they lay down the foundations for the real US objective in Iraq, apart from keeping control of the oil supply, namely the imposition of a neoliberal capitalist economy controlled and run by US transnational corporations.

But what is remarkable about these laws is not only their overall degree of control, but their far-reaching application. Order 81, for example, has the status of binding law over “patent industrial design, undisclosed information, integrated circuits and plant variety” — a degree of detailed supervision normally associated with a Soviet command-and-control economy. While historically the Iraqi Constitution prohibited private ownership of biological resources, the new US-imposed patent law introduces a system of monopoly rights over seeds. This is virtually a takeover of Iraqi agriculture.

The rights granted to US plant breeding companies under this order include the exclusive right to produce, reproduce, sell, export, import and store the plant varieties covered by intellectual property right for the next 20-25 years. During this extended period nobody can plant or otherwise use plants, trees or vines without compensating the breeder.

In the name of agricultural reconstruction this new law deprives Iraqi farmers of their inherent right, exercised for the past 10,000 years in the fertile Mesopotamian arc, to save and replant seeds. It enables the penetration of Iraqi agriculture by Monsanto, Syngenta, Bayer, Dow Chemical and other corporate giants that control the global seed trade. Food sovereignty for the Iraqi people has therefore already been made near-impossible by these new regulations.

..CON'T...

(hopefully this will work this time..)

www.timesonline.co.uk...

Privitization is necessary. Saddam and his terrorist thugs had
control of everything. Now that they are gone, the vacuum must
be filled, and filled in a manner that is GOOD for the country.
This is good for Iraq.

BTW - establishing a democracy takes time. Patience. It took
Americans 14 years to go from declaring independence until we
got the paperwork figured out and fairly well finalized -
1776 to 1790 ....

Quote from Federalist Patriot and Rich Galen -

"The Sunday talk shows featured the U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, demanding to know whether the Iraqis will meet today's deadline for finishing a new constitution for the nation. ... [I]t is useful to remember our own history when it comes to constitution writing. It didn't go all that smoothly. 1776 was, as we learned in third grade, the year of the Declaration of Independence. However, the war was going so badly, that 1776 was also the year that the Continental Congress, having written, signed, and published the Declaration, skedaddled out of Philadelphia and hid out in Baltimore on the theory that, as they used to say, the British were coming. But do you remember the date that the Revolutionary War ended? ... October 17, 1781 when General Cornwallis surrendered to General Washington at Yorktown, after more than five additional years of war. ... And the 'Preliminary Articles of Peace,' officially ending the fighting, was not signed until over a year later, on November 30, 1782. This was followed, on September 3, 1783 -- yet ANOTHER year later -- by the Treaty of Paris which recognized the United States of America as a sovereign nation. But that wasn't the end of the problems associated with nation building. The Continental Congress (having returned to Philadelphia) had adopted, in July, 1777, what came to be known as the 'Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union' which went into effect on March 1, 1781 -- four years later. The Articles were so flawed that, according to MSN's Encarta Encyclopedia 'On February 21, 1787, Congress called for a Constitutional Convention to be held in May to revise the articles.' If you haven't been keeping track, this would now be 10 years, 7 months, and 17 days after the Declaration of Independence. The Constitutional Convention began on May 25, 1787 and ended on September 17, 1787 when the text was sent to the states for ratification. Nine states out of the 13 were necessary to adopt the Constitution. Delaware...ratified first on December 7, 1787. Again, from Encarta: 'On June 21, 1788, New Hampshire became the ninth state to ratify, thus making the Constitution legally effective. But without ratification by New York and Virginia, it was doubtful the Constitution could succeed. Virginia ratified four days later, but by the narrow margin of 10 votes out of 168 cast. New York finally ratified on July 26, by a vote of 30 to 27. North Carolina eventually ratified in 1789, and Rhode Island in 1790.' So, it took from 1776 until 1790 for the United States to go from declaring its independence from England to final adoption of the document under which it would operate for the next 215 years. Based upon that, the Iraqis could take until 2016 to get this all done and still beat the U.S. timetable by a full year." --Rich Galen

This is good for Iraq.

You say that, and I think "These are not the droids you are looking for."

There is no evidence to support your claim that Iraqi resources in the hands of foreign-owned private businesses do GOOD for the people of Iraq, or the state they created to protect them.

Fact of the matter is, Hussein didn't want to do business with the energy cartel in the West, and the US got a gang of friends together to punish him for it. Like the kid with the fancy shoes who doesn't know how to fight, Hussein lost to the bullies, who are now enjoying his fancy shoes.

The majority of Iraqi people got cheap oil and reliable necessities, such as food, water, electricity, and fuel, while under Hussein's rule. That's not the case now, is it?

There is also another angle to this. Some idealists' vision of democracy is participation of all the people, and in Iraq, not all the people are participating.
Sunni Boycott makes vote illegitimate

The Sunnis have no representation on the Iraqi security council, if I'm not mistaken. They boycotted the election in large numbers, and have only just recently stopped boycotting the constitution debates. (I think)

Shiite enforcers terrorize Sunni populaces, and the discontent grows. There is an ongoing purge of Sunni officials, which makes the situation even more bleak.

The word Democracy is often tossed about like the words values, freedom, and such, these terms are designed to trigger emotional responses, and can remain unqualified and unsupported, and still elicit support. These words are hollow unless fleshed out with specific statutes and such.

Back to Iraq. The situation with Sunni discontentment and Shiite extremism is right on the brink of civil war. Of course, at its heart, Democracy is nothing more than legitimized mob rule, and the mob has always been fickle.

In addition, where is the money for the rebuilding going to come from? 130 Million isn't going to cut it to rebuild Iraq in '06. Not even close. They need BILLIONS, and they also need a good amount of work done gratis.

How would you feel if a country controlled by international corporations came to your neighborhood and dropped a #load of bombs everywhere, and shot up the place, roads, bridges, hospitals, factories? Then, the international corporations who backed the beating in the first place, come in and charge you a premium to rebuild everything they had wrecked!

On top of that, they charge you money to protect your oil, that now effetively belongs to THEM, and only give you a little bit to buy, at several times the cost you were used to paying. Then, as if all that weren't enough cause for people to be upset, the crooks lose/steal/spend the Iraqis money in a slipshod manner, while allowing torture and inhumane treatment to go on under their noses.

They train a bunch of natives and give them guns to keep everyone cool for a while, while they syphon the resources. The same techniques have been used for centuries, to great and terrible effect, in North America, South America, Africa, etc..

There is no Democracy in Iraq right now, I agree.

There probably will never be a true Democracy anywhere, if human nature remains unchanged. I postulate that man is behaviorally, in the way he relates to his ecosystem, more similar to a locust than an ape.

What the news is not telling and neither the government is . . . that as we are speaking now the struggle to oppose privatization of Iraqi resources has been on going, right now is been various complain from the Iraqi people about the business dealings of Haliburton.

Also the Iraqis are protesting any type of privatization of the oil industry.

So the privatization may be good for Mr. Bush and his friends from the oil business and private companies like Haliburton but the truth is that Iraqis are not happy about it.

On May 25th-26th the General Union of Oil Employees in Basra held ahistorical conference on the privatisation of Iraq’s public sector. Ewa Jasiewicz was there.The conference attracted 150 trade union activists, mostly GUOE members and union council leaders from Nassiriyah, Amara and Basra, plus Iraqi Federation of Trade Unions reps and local party activists. International delegates, organised by Iraq Occupation Focus.

The focus of the conference was to bring the light that while is private American companies ready to take over the entire country of Iraq is also private "Iraqi Companies" that had gone bankrupt since the war and they deserve "priority"

Amjad Sabbah al Assadi, a researcher at the Centre for Arab Gulf Studies spoke of the need for social welfare as a priority before any privatisation could even be considered. Unemployment stood at 70%, and 80% of Iraq's private companies had gone bankrupt since the war, as they could not compete with cheap imports. Privatisation would create foreign monopolies as the Iraqi private sector was too weak to compete. The failure of privatisation systems in Lebanon, Algeria and Egypt wasalso discussed, as was the corruption it engenders in state and private sector.

This people are not uneducated and they are very well aware of what privatization means to the people and business in Iraq.

I think US is going to find pleanty of opposition.

www.basraoilunion.org...

[edit on 21-8-2005 by marg6043]

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
There is also another angle to this. Some idealists' vision of democracy is participation of all the people, and in Iraq, not all the people are participating.
Sunni Boycott makes vote illegitimate

So since only 10% of the Blacks int the US voted last time that makes our vote "illegitimate". Hey, that ties into the "Bush sucks" rant, so why not?

So you dont like the fact that Americans such as Hallibuton and Michael Moore have made money off the rebuilding of Iraq. How does that discount the fact that they elect their own officials?

It wouldn't matter to me who was the President, Clinton,Reagan, Bush or Robin Williams(my favorite actor). What I see as happening over in Iraq is just plain ethically wrong. Stealing is stealing no matter how you label it.It was one thing to capture Saddam, initially that was the reason we went there. Ok, so now it's been a yr & 1/2 and we're still there blowing up buildings, spreading uranium radiation with our bombs and creating more hatred for it. The privitization efforts of American corporations is just a form of taking what the CEO's & corp's want and leaving little for the Iraqis. How can this be an act of liberation? It's not and anyone who thinks it is has the same kind of bullying mindset that the military leaders do these days. No where is it close to forming a democracy for all the corporations should be in the hands of the Iraqis, not foreign interests. Sad but the corporations are doing to the Iraqis exactly what they are doing to Amercians and other countries...the New World Order is just a form of people in power taking advantage of the people who are not. Civilized people do not act with intimidation or power to get what they want. The age of Barbarians is over. America is loosing respect around the world and all the military powers that be can not stop the hatred which is building unless they do what most of Iraq wants of us, and that is to get out of there. I can not understand those here who support this war and the efforts of large conglomerates to take over all the Iraq industries unless you are one of them. To me there is no justification for such behavior, not now, not ever. One day this will come back at us, mark my words and we will suffer greatly for our arrogance.

[edit on 21-8-2005 by ABC_123]

This is what OUR BRAVE MILITARY is fighting for ?
I therefore must conclude that they have been brain washed...

We are just doing the job we were ordered to do. Brain washing has nothing to do with it.

Originally posted by jacquio999

So since only 10% of the Blacks int the US voted last time that makes our vote "illegitimate". Hey, that ties into the "Bush sucks" rant, so why not?

Our vote, in my opinion, was illegitimate for other reasons. Where did you get your figures by the way? Or were they pulled from an orifice by magic?

Oh, and..WHO SAID ANYTHING ABOUT BUSH? I certainly didn't. Check my post again, no mention of the man.

So you dont like the fact that Americans such as Hallibuton and Michael Moore have made money off the rebuilding of Iraq. How does that discount the fact that they elect their own officials?

Halliburton isn't the real problem, and that owned fat man Moore doesn't enter into it. Read my post again re: "elect their own officials." Do they really? What about the security council being devoid of Sunni input? Do you realize that the security council is in charge of the police and the army, as well as the intelligence services?

This is secret, ethnic police play time here folks, not Democracy Hour in the desert.

No Democracy in Iraq

Really?
I'd wager that against all those who contest and postulate that Iraq has no democracy, that indeed it has far more democracy than under the Saddam regime.

Democracy in the US took how many years?
The Constitution took how many years?
The Bill of Rights took how many years?
But oh my, some of you want democracy in Iraq overnight or next week, or within the next year, correct?

Give me, the US, the Coalition, and Iraq a break and be a bit more realistic here, k?





seekerof

[edit on 21-8-2005 by Seekerof]

Originally posted by Seekerof
Democracy in the US took how many years?
The Constitution took how many years?
The Bill of Rights took how many years?
But oh my, some of you want democracy in Iraq overnight or next week, or within the next year, correct?

Give me, the US, the Coalition, and Iraq a break and be a bit more realistic here, k?

With all due respect, being realistic is not comparing 21st century Iraq with 18th century America.

Originally posted by cargo

Originally posted by Seekerof
Democracy in the US took how many years?
The Constitution took how many years?
The Bill of Rights took how many years?
But oh my, some of you want democracy in Iraq overnight or next week, or within the next year, correct?

Give me, the US, the Coalition, and Iraq a break and be a bit more realistic here, k?

With all due respect, being realistic is not comparing 21st century Iraq with 18th century America.

Then what do we compare it to? Germany? Japan? Korea?

I think the best we can hope for in Iraq is a psuedodemocracy. Tribal societies really don't lend themselves to democracies. Also Islam dosen't seem inherently democratic with women being viewed as inferior to men.
Societies that have never experienced democracy, faulter with their new found freedoms as evidenced by current day Russia.

What seems so obvious in western culture can't even be conceptualized by the man in the street in the mid-east. Even the intelligencia in Iraq can't seem to be able to get it together enough to write a constitution. I'm sure the US constitution was given as an example; but such a majistic document could never work in Iraq; to many ethnic factions. The Arab/Islamic culture is much more complex than the war planners thought apparently.

I hope the future in Iraq will be peaceful but I'm afraid the ethnic differences will lead to a bloody civil war. Nothing would make me happier than for someone in the future to pull my predictions up and throw them right back in my face.

[edit on 21-8-2005 by whaaa]

whaa

I think the best we can hope for in Iraq is a psuedodemocracy. Tribal societies really don't lend themselves to democracies.

I vehemently disagree. The Native Americans had a finely tuned Democratic government, and they were most definitely a tribal culture. The founding fathers greatly admired this, and the original intent of great men on both sides was to form a combined participatory Democracy, with both Native American and English American citizens. A common dream that we abruptly woke up from.

That dream has fallen by the wayside in such drastic fashion, one can hardly imagine it ever existed.

This concept your touting, it reeks of American Exceptionalism, which is baseless.

Also Islam dosen't seem inherently democratic with women being viewed as inferior to men.

Maybe not islam, but every INDIVIDUAL can choose to respect his fellow women, along with his fellow men. Saying that the best we can hope for is pseudo democracy is too pessimistic, I think.

The best we can hope for is better than that. It will all depend on the decisions of individuals though.

We should hope for the best, and prepare for the worst.

What seems so obvious in western culture can't even be conceptualized by the man in the street in the mid-east.

What's that exactly? Respect women? I see news items about wife beaters in the states every day. Religious fanaticism? Nope, we got that covered too in the USA.

What exactly is it that you don't think arabs can understand?

What can western culture, paragon of virtue that it is, conceptualize that Middle Eastern nations can't grasp? I'm really curious what you're talking about, because I've noticed no such universal defects in people from that area.

Even the intelligencia in Iraq can't seem to be able to get it together enough to write a constitution.

There's the issue of non-participation by some Sunnis as well, though I believe that's squared away now. It's a complicated thing to figure out, really. The American constitution wasn't formed overnight, and it wasn't being drafted in the midst of massive violence in the streets. Big differences that I think deserve mention.

I'm sure the US constitution was given as an example; but such a majistic document could never work in Iraq; to many ethnic factions. The Arab/Islamic culture is much more complex than the war planners thought apparently.

I don't think it was too complex to figure out, the dynamic has been laid bare for centuries, open to study. I think it's more likely that the planners knew exactly what would happen, and were willing to bet on it too. Well, some of the planners were anyhow. The rest got fired or quit.

If they didn't know, then they were collecting a paycheck to thumb-sit, and should be canned immediately. More likely is that they knew, and calculated their strategy appropriately.

Iraqis dying in droves on BOTH sides of this war, and just like Vietnam. America and some foreign nations are butchering each other's proxy troops while trying to profit from arms sales in the background.

I hope the future in Iraq will be peaceful but I'm afraid the ethnic differences will lead to a bloody civil war.

I agree with you here, on both counts. I do hope for peace, but I think civil war is more likely. It's essentially what's happening now. Like I said, Iraqis on both sides of the conflict, killing each other. That's civil war, at least in some measure.

I vehemently disagree. The Native Americans had a finely tuned Democratic government, and they were most definitely a tribal culture. The founding fathers greatly admired this, and the original intent of great men on both sides was to form a combined participatory Democracy, with both Native American and English American citizens. A common dream that we abruptly woke up from. quote by WyrdeOne


You sure painted Native Americans with a broad brush. Some tribes had what might be termed a benevolant monarchy. Some tribes were communists. Granted some tribes were democratic. Some tribes were even matriarchial. The Pueblo people that I'm familliar with here in NM are as varied politically as there are Pueblos. Most systems revolve around a Chief/Govenor/Elder configuration. If you think this is democratic you are exhibiting your own brand of American Exceptionalism or ethnocentrism.


As for the other stuff; I didnt mean to demean Islam/Arabs; just point out some cultural differences and how that MAY translate politically. I appreceiate your opinions, but you know what they say about opinions......

Peace!

[edit on 22-8-2005 by whaaa]

[edit on 22-8-2005 by whaaa]

The Muscogees lived in towns and had sets of laws comparable to ours. They were in no way savage.
Just figured I'd throw that in there.

ABC123, if the corporations are stealing from the Iraqis, that is, indeed, a bad thing. Furthermore, I do not put it past them as they certainly won't see the Iraqis in a different light that they see us. However, this has been a constant mantra from many from the left side of the political spectrum, but I haven't seen any good evidence of this, just the Mike Moore regurgitated slogans and the like.
Could you point me in the right direction fro good info and not politically driven opinions and assumptions? AS I said, I'm inclined to agree, but I'd really like some evicence.
Thanks in advance,

TC

whaaa
I was actually thinking of the Iriquois in particular, but you're absolutely right, my comment didn't reflect that. We're clear now though, right? Tribal cultures gave birth to Democracy, and actually refined it past the point we're stumbling through today in the West.

Saying that tribal cultures can't be democratic, or grasp the underlying principles of the ethos, is just plain wrong.

ThomasCrowne
I just did a brief search, and came up with literally thousands of articles. I can't really take the time to sift through them all, but from what I've seen there's a great deal of accusation, not sure on the proof you require.

Here's a good article.
www.realcities.com...

Here's another, and it touches on a very interesting element of this chaos, insurance premiums (apparently they approach 30% of income for Iraqis now)
www.thenation.com...=20040712&s=klein

Here's my favorite
"So, Mr. Bremer, where did all the money go?"
www.guardian.co.uk...

I'm sorry I can't provide more, but the whole "uncovering dirt on the war" thing really isn't my bag, I'm just moonlighting.

Originally posted by Seekerof
Democracy in the US took how many years?
The Constitution took how many years?
The Bill of Rights took how many years?

14 years to get it fairly solid ... that's why I posted what I
did. I suggest everyone go back and re-read my previous
posting. It's #2 on this thread. Look at how long it took
to get paperwork right. Look at all the different documents
and how long it took.

Iraq won't become a democracy overnight. It will take years.
To demand a timetable and to claim failure after just a year
or two doesn't make sense.


Quote from Cargo

With all due respect, being realistic is not comparing
21st century Iraq with 18th century America.

Why? What America was going through 200 years ago is
similar to what Iraq is going through now. The process isn't
going to change just because the world is 200 years older.
People still have to discuss things, still have to talk out problems,
still have to 'be heard', still have to make compromises and deals,
still have to learn for themselves what can and can't be done.

Our experiences in building America can be helpful to the Iraqis
but they have to grow on their own. You can teach a toddler
how to walk and run but in the end THEY are the ones that have
to get themselves off the floor and THEY are the ones that have
to learn to put one foot in front of the other and THEY are the
ones that have to learn how to balance as to not fall over.
An adult can tell them how to do it and hold their hand, but we
can't do it all for them. Toddlers have to learn from their own
bodies. This is the same with the Iraqis. We Americans can tell
them and teach them just so much. They have to grow and learn
on their own how to get along and how to talk things out and
make deals and they have to learn to listen to all Iraqis, etc. etc.





[edit on 8/22/2005 by FlyersFan]

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
There is no evidence to support your claim that Iraqi resources in the hands of foreign-owned private businesses do GOOD for the people of Iraq, or the state they created to protect them.

Free enterprise financially helps the country. When the host
country can't afford to properly manage or market it's own
resources or goods, then other countries who are better off
financially step in and do the marketing. Both countries benefit.
The host country benefits from created jobs and from the fallout
of such (more income for the country, better jobs, better education,
better housing, better medical care, etc. etc. etc.)

This is economics 101. This is done in America and it's good for
America economics. I don't like the fact that Japanese companies
own the national parks here in America (El Capitan'). It's a black
eye in my national pride. BUT ... they have the $$$ to run the parks
properly and it makes business sense for them to purchase. At
some point an American firm could have the $$$ and the know-how
to purchase and run them ... but for now, we don't so someone
else does. And while they own them, they are taking proper care
of them and creating jobs for Americans.

Excellent info, WyrdeOne.

They really profit from chaos, don't they?

The fun thing would be to track the money and the hands it goes through. What do you want to bet that the hands would be related to those through our country's history?

First of all democracy in Iraq is far from reality, even as we talk in this thread the Kurds and Shiites are having differences between them.

The tribal structure of the Iraqi people is nothing compare to the our tribes in the US prior to colonization.

The manner in which American became a nation is nothing compare to the struggles of the middle east to maintain their identity and religious views, with so many invasions that they had endure during their history not body has been able to chance them.

In order to understand these people you have to step in their history and the social structure that dominates their race.

If you do you will know that before any democracy be put in place by their own accord it will be many internal conflicts between themselves.

Do not underestimate the Sunnis.

And for privatization. . .so far the Iraqi people are against it and they will fight it, their own private sector will be given priority before any foreigners so that is another struggle that just is starting.

Iraq is not like US and will never be, so comparing them to our humble beginnings as a nation is just wishful thinking.


[edit on 22-8-2005 by marg6043]