Voice of Revolution

A Constitution of the Occupiers

The Right of the Iraqi People To Be and to Decide Their Future is Inalienable

The U.S. is proclaiming that a constitution written and imposed by foreign occupiers represents progress and democracy. It is, without doubt, a constitution representative of U.S.-style democracy and all the wrecking and chaos it is imposing worldwide. It is not a constitution of the Iraqi people. It was not written by the Iraqis. It is not a constitution that embodies the fundamental right of the Iraqi people to be. It is not a constitution that guarantees their right to decide their own future as a people. Because it does not recognize the Iraqis as a people, it also does not recognize their individual rights.

Constitutions worthy of the name are written by an insurgent people who then constitute a nation-state whose fundamental law codifies the arrangements for which they fought. In the case of Iraq, it is not the people who fought for regime change, but foreign invaders, primarily U.S. imperialism. It is the puppet state of these invaders that is being constituted.

No statements by the President George W. Bush or any of the imperialists proclaiming the so-called Iraqi Constitution a step forward will change this reality. No cheering of the referendum will rescue the situation for them. In Iraq the resistance to the occupation continues. Support for the demand to “Bring the Troops Home Now” is increasing across the country and throughout the imperialist heartlands. Everywhere, the people are demanding End the Occupation Now!

The U.S. continues to show by its deeds, its continual massacres of civilians and other war crimes, that it does not even abide by its own constitution. Still less can it bring democracy to anyone else! Haifa Zangana, an Iraqi novelist and columnist of The Guardian, addressed this reality and the chaos in Iraq resulting from the U.S. invasion and occupation. He wrote, “[P]erhaps we need to remember that this constitution is being written in a war zone, in a country on the verge of a civil war. This process is designed not to represent the Iraqi people’s need for a constitution but to comply with an imposed timetable aimed at legitimizing the occupation. The drafting process has increasingly proved a dividing, rather than a unifying, process.”

Salim Lone, who served as director of communications for the UN mission in Iraq directly after the 2003 invasion, wrote: “Since the collapse of the Soviet Union 15 years ago and Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait, partition had been seen by U.S. hardliners as the surest way of weakening the most powerful Arab state not in the American camp. The constitution cedes almost complete territorial control and authority to the regions of the three principal communities. This includes oil revenues, which would put Arab Sunnis at a big disadvantage since almost all the oil is produced in Shia and Kurdish regions. The constitution also prevents former members of the Ba’ath party, to which most Sunnis belonged, from holding public office. The document will alienate yet more Sunnis, and be another impediment to Iraqis working together again.” It is not collective and individual rights that are being enshrined, but a hierarchy of rights, decided by the imperialist and designed to crush the Iraqis as a people.

The right of the Iraqi people to be and to draft their own constitution free from foreign interference is inalienable. It is a right the Iraqi resistance itself is affirming.

End the Occupation!
All U.S. Troops Out Now!

[TOP]

Campaign to Block Use of State National Guard in Iraq

HomeFromIraqNow.org is a national campaign to block use of state National Guards in Iraq and demand that all troops be brought home now. It is part of growing efforts by the people to find ways and means to take matters into their own hands and counter the failure of government to end the war against Iraq. The campaign is organizing statewide ballot initiatives to express the will of the broad majority of people to end the war in Iraq.

Massachusetts is the first state where the campaigning is organizing to get a binding initiative on the ballot. This requires gathering 100,000 signatures by November 15, 2005, to get the initiative on the ballot for the November 2006 elections. Voters will then be able to decide if the Massachusetts National Guard should be in Iraq.

The initiative has two provisions:

1) The governor is required to prevent any further deployment of Massachusetts National Guard troops to Iraq, and to use all legal means available under state and federal law to fight for the recall of all Massachusetts National Guard troops currently in Iraq.

2) The governor may not deploy the National Guard to any foreign destination without approval of the state legislature.

The initiative was written by constitutional law experts who have litigated past National Guard cases on behalf of the state of Massachusetts and was certified as constitutional by the Attorney General of Massachusetts. It relies on a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that authorizes a governor to refuse a presidential request to deploy the Guard abroad if that deployment impairs the Guard’s ability to respond to domestic public safety or security emergencies. The binding initiative requires the governor to exercise that authority and refuse to send more National Guard troops to Iraq. It also provides the means for people to pursue further legal action if a state governor refuses to stop sending Guardsmen to Iraq.

Massachusetts and 23 other states have a voter-sponsored ballot initiative process. They are Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, Wyoming.

[TOP]

Military Recruiters Out of Our Schools!

Actions against military recruitment are increasing as youth, parents, teachers and schools stand firm against the war in Iraq. In Buffalo, recent actions have focused on blocking efforts to enroll students at Hutch-Tech into the military’s JROTC (Junior Reserve Officers’ Training Corps) program. Parents vigorously protested the enrollment of freshmen (14 year-olds) in the program, particularly since it was done without parental consent.

Activists also organized to distribute 1000 pamphlets to students, providing information on their rights. A group of ten people recently went to McKinley High School and distributed 700 leaflets. Plans are being made to go to every high school to oppose military recruitment, inform youth about their rights, provide alternatives to the military and make clear that the youth are not alone in -resisting recruitment.

Activists report that -students and teachers were very supportive and appreciative of the efforts, with many expressing their opposition to the war.

Buffalo organizers say they will also go to the upcoming School Board meeting, Wednesday, October 26, with signs and speakers, to oppose any compulsory JROTC in the public schools. Activists emphasize that compulsory JROTC is illegal. They are also calling on the Board to defend the rights of the students and refuse to turn over student information to the military. All concerned are urged to attend the School Board meeting, as well as the next planning meeting of anti-recruitment activists on Tuesday, October 25, 5:30pm, at the NYCLU office, 712 Main Street.

Nationwide, school districts and college students are also taking their stand. In Tucson, Arizona, the Sunnyside Unified School District followed Tucson Unified as the city’s second district to impose a policy limiting military recruiters to one visit per month to high schools. The Sunnyside policy also informs parents or guardians of their right to prohibit recruiters from receiving any information about their children. Many other districts around the country have taken similar actions, including banning the ASVAB, a military test often administered without parental permission to students.

Harvard students held an anti-war and counter-recruitment rally to protest the return of military recruiters to Harvard for the first time in more than 30 years. As well, high school youth and students in Boston demonstrated as part of their “constant campaign of counter -recruitment.”

Youth opposing recruitment at City College of New York and San Francisco State have persisted in their efforts. They have successfully organized defense campaigns against attacks from campus administrators and campus and state police.

At George Mason University in Virginia students and professors rallied in defense of a student targeted by campus police for his stand against military recruitment. Tariq Khan, a junior at George Mason University in Virginia and an Air Force veteran, opposed military recruiters on campus by taping a piece of paper to his chest that said, “Recruiters Lie. Don’t Be Deceived.” He also handed out material he had written explaining why youth should not join the military, including the fact that soldiers are forced to commit human rights violations. Khan was viciously attacked by police and then arrested and charged with trespassing (on his own campus) and disorderly -conduct

A protest was organized to denounce this brutality and demand that all charges be dropped. Actions continued with a teach-in. A petition signed by 443 students, faculty, staff, alumni, and members of the community also urged the university to “drop all charges” against Khan and called on “campus police to account for and destroy the videotaped surveillance” of the protests.

At Holyoke Community College (HCC) in Massachusetts, youth and professors persist in their counter-recruiting actions despite police abuse and intimidation. At a recent rally against recruitment students were maced and assaulted by 20 local and state police in riot gear and gas masks. State police told one leading student, Charles Peterson, that he was banned from campus for the anti-war actions.

The HCC Anti-War Coalition responded with stepped up resistance and demanded that recruiters be banned from campus and that the administration publicly apologize for its brutality. They are continuing with their efforts.

[TOP]

Anti-War and Impeachment Actions Mount

Across the country, the people are strengthening their organized resistance to end the Iraq war and hold Bush accountable for his crimes. Cities and towns in all regions, south, west, north and east are planning actions to oppose the fraud of the U.S.-imposed Constitution in Iraq, the continuing crimes and killings against the Iraqis, and the death of Americans. Actions are being timed to mark the death of 2,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. United for Peace and Justice, Code Pink, Militaries Families Speak Out and Gold Star Families for Peace are among those organizing actions.

The “World Can’t Wait! Drive Out the Bush Regime” campaign is also organizing resistance in cities and towns across the country. Many different events will take place November 2, marking the second anniversary of Bush’s illegitimate election. School walkouts, “sick-ins” by workers, demonstrations and more are planned. Hawaii, Montana, Nevada, Colorado, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, North Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Texas, and Virginia are among the many states involved. Many organizations are joining in common to make the events a success. School walkouts, “sick-ins” by workers, demonstrations and more are planned under the demands: The Bush Regime Does Not Represent Us! We Will Drive It Out! Stop the International Crimes Against Humanity!

Encampments also continue outside the White House and more direct actions and civil disobedience are also in the works.

In addition, the “Millions More Phone March” to impeach Bush has been launched, organizing people to demand that Congress exercise its authority and act to impeach Bush. As the call states, those in Congress “must be made to understand they can no longer defend the crimes of this administration against the people.” All concerned are urged to call members of Congress and demand that they begin impeachment proceedings (888-818-6641).

[TOP]

Americans Favor Bush’s Impeachment

By a margin of 50 percent to 44 percent, Americans want Congress to consider impeaching President Bush if he lied about the war in Iraq, according to a new poll commissioned by AfterDowningStreet.org, a coalition that supports a Congressional investigation of President Bush’s decision to invade Iraq in 2003.

The poll was conducted by Ipsos Public Affairs and interviewed 1,001 U.S. adults on October 6-9.

The poll found that 50 percent agreed with the statement:

“If President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him accountable by impeaching him.” Forty-four percent disagreed, and 6 percent said they did not know or declined to answer. (The poll has a +/- 3.1 percent margin of error.)

Among those who felt strongly either way, 39 percent strongly agreed, while 30 percent strongly disagreed.

“The results of this poll are truly astonishing,” said AfterDowningStreet.org co-founder Bob Fertik. “Bush’s record-low approval ratings tell just half of the story, which is how much Americans oppose Bush’s policies on Iraq and other issues. But this poll tells the other half of the story - that a solid plurality of Americans want Congress to consider removing Bush from the White House.”

Impeachment was supported by majorities in a number of categories:

Solid majorities of those under age 55 (54 percent), as well as those with household incomes below $50,000 (57 percent), support impeachment.

Majorities favored impeachment in the Northeast (53 percent), West (51 percent), and the South (50 percent).

In addition, 72 percent of Democrats favored impeachment, 56 percent of Independents and 20 percent of Republicans.

[TOP]

The Iraqi Constitution

A Referendum for Disaster

- Phyllis Bennis, Institute for Policy Studies, October 13, 2005 -

The constitutional process culminating in Saturday’s referendum is not a sign of Iraqi sovereignty and democracy taking hold, but rather a consolidation of U.S. influence and control. Whether Iraq’s draft constitution is approved or rejected, the decision is likely to make the current situation worse.

The ratification process reflects U.S., not Iraqi urgency, and is resulting in a vote in which most Iraqis have not even seen the draft, and amendments are being reopened and negotiated by political parties and elites in Baghdad as late as four days before the planned referendum.

The proposed constitution would strip Iraqis of future control over their nation’s oil wealth by opening all new oil exploration and production to foreign oil companies.

The imposition of federalism as defined in the draft constitution undermines Iraqi national consciousness and sets the stage for a potential division of Iraq largely along ethnic and religious lines, with financial, military, and political power devolving from the central government to the regional authorities. All groups risk sectoral as well as national interests.

Human rights, including women’s rights, individual political and civil rights, economic and social rights, religious rights, minority rights, all remain at risk.

Instead of balancing the interests of Iraq’s diverse population by referencing its long-dominant secular approaches, the draft constitution reflects privileges and makes permanent the current occupation-fueled turn towards Islamic identity.

Constitutions can play a crucial role in founding and unifying new or renewing states; Iraq is no exception, and in the future drafting a constitution could play a key part in reunifying and strengthening national consciousness of the country. But this process has been imposed from -outside, it is not an indigenous Iraqi process, and the draft constitution being debated is not a legitimate Iraqi product. Iraqis are still suffering under conditions of severe deprivation, violence, lack of basic necessities including clean water, electricity, jobs — crafting a new constitution does not appear high on their agenda.

The existing process of ratifying the new constitution is far more important to the Bush administration than it is to the majority of people of Iraq. Whether the proposed constitution is approved or rejected on Saturday, it is a process and a text largely crafted and imposed by U.S. occupation authorities and their Iraqi dependents, and thus lacking in legal or political legitimacy. The most important reality is that the draft does not even mention the U.S. occupation, and neither ratification nor rejection of it will result in moving towards an end to occupation. None of the broad human rights asserted in the draft include any call to abrogate the existing laws first imposed by Paul Bremer, the U.S. pro-consul, and still in effect.

Whether it is accepted or rejected, it is likely to worsen the insecurity and violence facing Iraqis living under the U.S. occupation, and to increase the likelihood of a serious division of the country. If it passes, over significant Sunni (and other) opposition, the constitution will be viewed as an attack on Sunni and secular interests and will institutionalize powerful regional economic and military control at the expense of a weakened central government. Its extreme federalism could transform the current violent political conflict into full-blown civil war between ethnic and religious communities. If it fails, because Sunnis backed by significant secular forces, are able to mobilize enough “no” votes, the result could be a collapse of the current assembly’s already weak legitimacy and capacity, and cancellation of the planned December elections. In either event, it is likely that resistance attacks will increase, not decrease. And certainly the greater violence of the U.S. military occupation will continue.

From the vantage point of the Bush administration, a “yes” vote, however slim the margin and however dubious the legitimacy, validates the claim that the occupation is setting the stage for “democratization” in Iraq; this explains the huge investment of money, political clout, and the personal involvement/interference of Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad in the drafting process. If the White House was looking for a fig leaf to cover troop withdrawals, this would be it. But there is no indication there is any such interest in beginning to bring the troops home, particularly since the referendum is unlikely to lead to any diminution of violence.

From the vantage point of the peace movement, the key issue, like that during the elections, remains that of Iraq’s sovereignty and self-determination. Whatever we may think of this draft constitution, it has been essentially imposed on the Iraqi people by U.S. occupation authorities, and as such it is not legitimate. We may like parts of this draft, we may disagree with some future Iraqi-led constitutional process, but our obligation must be to call for Iraqis to control their own country and their own destiny. Once the U.S. occupation is over, and Iraqis reclaim their own nation, we will continue to build the kind of internationalist ties with women’s, labor and other civil society organizations fighting for human rights in Iraq, as we have with partners in so many other countries. But while the U.S. occupation is in control, our first obligation is to work to end it.

Referendum on the Draft Constitution

Saturday’s referendum marks a key stage in the process of implementing the U.S.-designed, U.S.-imposed political process designed to give a “sovereign” gloss to the continuing U.S. occupation. The process was set in place and pushed to completion by each successive U.S.-backed occupation authority in Iraq. Initial U.S. reluctance to hold early elections was overcome by pressure from Shia leader Ayatollah al-Sistani; while his support insured widespread Shia backing for the political process, it also guaranteed even greater opposition from Sunni and some secular forces.

The Bush administration has invested a huge amount of political capital in insuring the “success” of the constitution process, sacrificing for the actual content of the draft document to insure that something, almost anything, that could be called a constitution will be endorsed by a majority of Iraqis. The U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Zalmay Khalilzad, has played an active and coercive role in pushing Iraqi political forces to participate and make concessions, and in the actual drafting of the document.

The U.S. goal is to justify the claim that Iraq is “moving towards democracy” and that the post-invasion, occupied reality of Iraq in 2005 is somehow equivalent to the experience of the United States at the time of the drafting of the U.S. constitution. While numerous politicians, pundits and mainstream journalists routinely refer to the constitution’s approval as the “necessary step towards ending the U.S. occupation once and for all,” it actually does nothing of the sort.

Despite asserting the rhetorical claim of “sovereignty” and “independence” for Iraq, the constitution as drafted makes no mention of the U.S. occupation. Even the “transition” section, while insuring the continuation of the “de-Baathification” process, support for former political prisoners and victims of terrorist attacks, and other contemporary concerns, there is no mention of the presence of the 150,000 or so U.S. and coalition troops occupying the country, and certainly no call for them to go home. The U.S.-controlled political process violates the Geneva Convention’s prohibitions on an occupying power imposing political or economic changes on the occupied country. At the end of the day, the constitution leaves the U.S. occupation intact and unchallenged.

There has been large-scale opposition to the draft constitution, particular from key elements of the Sunni population. In a U.S.-prodded effort to “get the Sunnis on board,” changes were negotiated between one Sunni party and the constitutional committee. Just three days before the vote, on October 12, they agreed to two changes — allowing the constitution to be amended by the new parliament scheduled to be elected in December, and limiting the “deBaathification” process to those former members of the Baath party accused of committing crimes.

The announcement may persuade some additional Sunnis to vote, rather than boycott, or even to support rather than reject the constitution. But the Iraq Islamic Party is only one, and by far not the most influential, of the many Sunni-dominated political forces in Iraq, and it is unclear how influential they are or how significant the changes will be. If the voting resembles something close to an accurate referendum (“free” and “fair” are not even possibilities, given the dominance of U.S. control of the drafting and conducting a vote under military occupation) the current draft constitution is likely, though not certain, to be approved by a small majority of Iraqi voters. It remains unclear, even with the new changes, whether the majority of the Sunni population will participate and likely vote “no” on the draft, or will boycott the referendum altogether. It also is uncertain how many secular Iraqis of all religions and ethnicities may reject the constitution.

There are clear indications that most Iraqis believe the constitution has been drafted in a process from which they are largely excluded; international news outlets report that most had still not seen the text only days before the referendum.

The major debates between Iraq’s ethnic and religious communities, as well as between secular and Islamic approaches, sidelined any debate over crucial economic, especially oil, policy decisions in the constitution. The draft asserts that “Oil and gas is the property of all the Iraqi people in all the regions and provinces,” and that the federal government will administer the oil and gas from “current fields” with the revenues to be “distributed fairly in a matter compatible with the demographic distribution all over the country.” But that guarantee refers only to oil fields already in use, leaving future exploitation of almost 2/3 of Iraq’s known reserves (17 of 80 known fields, 40 billion of its 115 billion barrels of known reserves), for foreign companies. The next section of the constitution demands “the most modern techniques of market principles and encouraging investment.”

Further, Article 11 states explicitly that “All that is not written in the exclusive powers of the federal authorities is in the authority of the regions.” That means that future exploration and exploitation of Iraq’s oil wealth will remain under the control of the regional authorities where the oil lies — the Kurdish-controlled North and the Shia-dominated South, insuring a future of impoverishment for the Sunni, secular and inter-mixed populations of Baghdad and Iraq’s center, and sets the stage for a future of ethnic and religious strife.

While the specifics of oil privatization are not written into the text of the draft constitution, they are consistent with the proposed Iraqi laws announced in August 2004 by the U.S.-appointed interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi. He called for private companies, including foreign oil corporations, to have exclusive rights to develop new oil fields, rather than the Iraqi National Oil Company (INOC), as well as at least partial privatization of the INOC itself, thus essentially selling off Iraq’s national treasure to the highest foreign corporate bidder.

The division of Iraq into three major ethnically, or religiously, defined regions or cantons remains a long-standing fear of many Iraqis and many people and governments across the region and around the world, and the most important basis for opposition to the draft constitution. In historically secular Iraq, the shift in primary identity from “Iraqi” to “Sunni” or “Shia” (although Iraqi Kurdish identity was always stronger) happened largely in response to the U.S. invasion and occupation; it does not reflect historical cultural realities.

The draft constitution promotes not just federalism as a national governing structure, but an extreme version of federalism in which all power not specifically assigned to the central government devolves automatically to the regional authorities — setting the stage for a potential division of Iraq largely along ethnic and religious lines.

The draft anticipates a weak national government, with financial, military, and political power all concentrated within regional authorities. The proposed constitution states directly that all powers — military, economic, political or anything else — “except in what is listed as exclusive powers of the federal authorities” are automatically reserved for the regional or provincial governments. In all those areas of regional power, the provincial governments are authorized to “amend the implementation of the federal law in the region” meaning they can ignore or override any constitutional guarantee other than foreign affairs or defense of the borders.

Besides the economic/oil conflict, this means that regional (read: religious and/or ethnic) militias accountable to political parties and/or religious leaders will be given the imprimatur of national forces. The process has already undermined Iraqi national consciousness, and sets in place risks for both national and, ironically, sectoral interests affecting each of the groups — even the most powerful.

Shia — Iraq's Shia majority (about 60%) are the dominant force in the existing government and security agencies, and in alliance with the Kurds, dominate the constitutional drafting process. The constitution is widely understood to favor their interests, and by instituting a semblance of majority rule and according to some sources by privileging religious power within the government and court systems, it does so. But despite recent turns towards religion, many Shia remain very secular, and not all Shia want to institutionalize religious control in either regional or national governments.

The federalism provisions, including the potential to establish a Shia-dominated "super-region" in the nine oil-rich provinces of the south, is also a favorite among many Shia. However, the extreme federalism has the parallel effect of largely constraining Shia control to the southern areas (however oil-rich) where they form the largest majority population, thus limiting Shia influence in the country overall. Many Shia live in Baghdad (actually the largest Shia city in Iraq) and other mixed areas outside the southern Shia-majority region. The revered Shia leader, Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, has spoken strongly against dividing Iraq, but the constitution sets the groundwork for exactly that.

Sunni — Iraq's Sunni population is dominant in small areas in central Iraq including Baghdad and its environs. With the constitution's strong focus on building regional economic, political and military power, the Sunnis as a community stand to lose the most. With major economic power — read: control of oil income — resting with the regional governments, the Sunnis will suffer because the area they dominate in central Iraq is devoid of oil resources. (See "Control of Iraqi Oil" above.)

Following the large-scale Sunni boycott of the June 2005 election, they are underrepresented in the national assembly, and have faced the largest proportion of exclusion from jobs, the military, and the government under the "deBaathification" process. Last-minute changes to the draft constitution, including limits on deBaathification may pacify some Sunni anger, but is unlikely to result in full-scale proportional involvement and empowerment in the post-referendum political processes.

Kurds — Iraq's Kurdish population, about 20%, is largely (though not entirely) concentrated in the northern provinces. They have the longest history of a separate ethnic/religious identity of any of Iraq's major groups, and their search for independence or autonomy has long roots, strengthened by years of oppression by various central governments in Baghdad. Iraq's Kurdish leaders are the closest allies of the U.S. in Iraq, having provided support to the invasion and occupation even before the U.S. military attacks began.

Because of U.S. protection during the 12 post-Desert Storm sanctions years, the Kurdish region also had access to more money (through an intentional distortion of the oil-for-food distribution of Iraq's oil funds), international ties through open borders to Turkey and beyond, and the development of U.S. and other western-backed civil society institutions than any other sector of Iraq. They are by far the best prepared and the most eager for control of regional oil income (their zone includes rich northern oil fields, especially if they end up incorporating the once-Kurdish but now overwhelmingly mixed area around Kirkuk) and a weakened central government.

Their regional militia, the pesh merga, are also by far the most powerful of any Iraqi military force. Some Kurdish forces, however, are already critical of the draft constitution because their oil-rich three-province region would be dwarfed by the even more oil-rich Shia-dominated nine-province region in the south.

Secular forces — Along with Palestine, Iraq was historically the most secular of all Arab countries. The draft constitution, while vague in many details, certainly lays the groundwork for a far greater role for religious authorities in governmental and judicial institutions. Many secular Iraqis, as well as Christians, are dismayed by the privileging of Muslim clerics within the constitutional court, for example, as well as the regional empowerment that allows local/regional governments to choose sharia, or Islamic law, as the basis for some or all of its court jurisdiction rather than secular laws.

Religion and Human Rights

Officially the draft constitution includes far-reaching protections of human rights, including a wide range of political and civil rights, and explicitly women's rights, saying that Iraq will "respect the rule of law, reject the policy of aggression, pay attention to women and their rights, the elderly and their cares, the children and their affairs, spread the culture of diversity and defuse terrorism."

Economic, social and cultural rights are explicitly protected in language far stronger than that of the U.S. constitution and Bill of Rights, or that of most other countries. But there is contradictory language as well. The draft states that "(a) No law can be passed that contradicts the undisputed rules of Islam. (b) No law can be passed that contradicts the principles of democracy. (c) No law can be passed that contradicts the rights and basic freedoms outlined in this constitution."

Whether basic freedoms will trump Islam or vice versa, and crucially, who will decide, seems a dangerous risk. Ultimately, instead of balancing the interests of Iraq's diverse Muslim majority with its once-dominant secular ones, the draft constitution reflects privileges and makes permanent Iraq's current occupation-fueled turn towards Islamic identity.

[TOP]

The “Iraq” Business

- Abu Khaleel, September 20, 2005 -

Is Iraq an Artificial Construction?

Time and again I come across statements that Iraq was a state “artificially” constructed at the end of World War I by the occupying French and British out of the three separate Ottoman regions of Mosul, Baghdad and Basra. These statements are frequently made by “experts” on Iraq! I have come across such assertions only too often... I would like to elaborate on this, at least to have something to refer people to in the future!

In a Nutshell

Iraq’s habitation goes back at least to the end of the last ice age. As a single country, it has been in existence for about 4,400 years. In addition to the long history, the country has been defined by geography: The two rivers of Mesopotamia clearly define a geographically unified region surrounded by mountains on the east and desert on the west in which people have been freely mixing for several thousand years!

The Two Rivers in Ancient Iraqi Mythology

To the ancient Iraqis... it started, not with Creation, but with putting order into Creation. The following passages are from Enuma Elish, the Babylonian Myth of Creation:

Long before the time of the new gods, and long before our human world... there was nothing in existence but chaos. This chaos was ruled by the old gods Apsu (fresh water) and Tiamat (the sea). So a new or younger generation of gods were created for the purpose of bringing order to chaos.

One of the young gods, Ea, the god of wisdom, slayed the old god Apsu. This made the goddess Tiamat angry at Ea and all of the other youthful gods. Tiamat, who was a dragon like goddess, successfully waged war against all of the younger generation Babylonian gods until finally, in the nick of time, Marduk was born. Marduk, son of Ea, was to be the strongest and wisest of all the gods. As such, he was chosen to deal with Tiamat once and for all.

Summoning all of the other young gods, Marduk went to war against Tiamat. Finally, in a one on one battle, Tiamat was no match for the great Marduk, Lord of the Four Quarters. Cornering Tiamat with the four winds at his command, Marduk caught Tiamat up in his net. When Tiamat opened her mouth to breath fire at him, Marduk let loose the Imhulla, “evil wind” or hurricane. The many winds of Marduk filled her up. The winds churning her up from within, rendered her defenseless. Then Marduk speared her with a lightning bolt.

Splitting Tiamat (the sea) in two, Marduk then raised half of her body to create the sky and with the other half created the earth. In the process of this splitting apart, Tiamat’s eyes then became the sources of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers.

In the realm above (heaven) Marduk set Anu, the sky god, and in the realm below (earth) Marduk set Ea, the earth god. Between the two, Marduk set the air god, Enlil. Other gods were then given their places in the heavens and then the stars were formed in their likeness.

The Sun, the Moon, and stars were at that time given special courses to run, and the constellations were to mark the passage of time. Through the measuring of time by the revolutions of the planets, order was established for ancient humanity.

It is perhaps comforting to know that the present-day god Murdock is attempting a similarly mammoth task of putting order in this world through Fox News and other “winds” at his command!

The Tigris and the Euphrates, it was those twin rivers that gave us Mesopotamia. Geography defined Iraq, even before history, and created that region... not the French and the British.

The Earliest Days — Dawn of Civilization

It started with city-states, more than 7000 years ago. For a few thousand years Iraq was the birthplace of quite a number of them. They reached a level of sophistication by the standards of the time, unequalled except by Egypt.

Those city-states were then a new experiment in mankind’s history that produced sophisticated government, writing and record-keeping, the first written laws and work management that allowed people be freed from food gathering and production for personal consumption and allowed many to specialize in crafts. This was the spark that ignited technological and other developments. The very concept of organized society (the first step towards civilization) was started in Iraq through the creation of those early city-states. It seems that these were triggered by two major factors: abundance of produce in the fertile plains of southern Iraq (which allowed farmers to produce food more than their families needed) and the collective effort needed by the nature of irrigation in that region.

Those city-states came and went, flourished and dwindled, expanded and decayed for a few thousand years in different parts of Iraq. Most of the time they were in competition and combat with neighboring cities. One of them was called “Uruk” — a splendid civilization that flourished around 3000 BC — which I believe gave its name to the country.

Unification into One Country

Then Sargon came along... Sargon, king of one of those city-states called Akkad, was the man who unified Iraq for the first time around 2400 BC and then went on to create the first known empire in the history of mankind.

Incidentally, the story of Sargon’s early childhood bears a disturbing resemblance to that of Moses.

1. Sargon, the mighty king, king of Akkadê am I,
2. My mother was lowly; my father I did not know;
3. The brother of my father dwelt in the mountain.
4. My city is Azupiranu, which is situated on the bank of the Purattu [Euphrates],
5. My lowly mother conceived me, in secret she brought me forth.
6. She placed me in a basket of reeds, she closed my entrance with bitumen,
7. She cast me upon the rivers which did not overflow me.
8. The river carried me, it brought me to Akki, the irrigator.
9. Akki, the irrigator, in the goodness of his heart lifted me out,
10. Akki, the irrigator, as his own son brought me up;
11. Akki, the irrigator, as his gardener appointed me.
12. When I was a gardener the goddess Ishtar loved me,
13. And for four years I ruled the kingdom.
14. The black-headed peoples I ruled, I governed;
15. Mighty mountains with axes of bronze I destroyed (?).
16. I ascended the upper mountains;
17. I burst through the lower mountains.
18. The country of the sea I besieged three times;
19. Dilmun I captured. [Dilmun is believed to be present-day Bahrain]
20. Unto the great Dur-ilu I went up, I .........
21. ........

The Last 4000 Years

Iraq then went on from unification to disintegration so many times! Civilization after civilization rose, produced magnificent achievements and then crumbled and succumbed to local or foreign invasions and then rose again.

Anybody who mattered in the old, and the not-so-old, world came here. They were all either repelled or ultimately dissolved in this 7000 year old melting pot.

The Greeks were also here, represented by the outstanding Alexander the Great, who died in Iraq. They certainly viewed it as a single country: Mesopotamia — the land between the two rivers. People in the west still use their corruption of the names of those two rivers: the Tigris and the Euphrates, Dijla and Furat [Furattu].

Before, during and after the Islamic conquest in the 7th century, the word “Iraq” was used to refer to this country. It was known as a single country throughout. It was certainly referred to as such in numerous official documents and much poetry. The Arabic alternative description of Iraq: Bilad al Rafidain (country of the two rivers) is still in common use to this day in Iraq and throughout the Arab world.

Later, Baghdad became the capital of an enormous and a glamorous empire under the Abbasids. Iraq was still a single region throughout their reign. When Baghdad crumbled to the attack of the Mongols in 1258, it did not rise again. Invader after invader came from the east and north.

For several centuries, Iraq was the favorite battleground between the Ottoman Turks and the Persian Iranians. The Turks prevailed.

The Turks divided Iraq into three regions for purely administrative purposes. They were the zones around the three major cities of Iraq: Mosul, Baghdad and Basra. There was nothing ethnic and sectarian about that division. All three were mixed Arab/Kurd and Sunni/Shiite. Yes, the southern region was also mixed. It was only during the 19th century that the southern basin of Tigris converted en masse to Shiism.

Then, the “Experts” Came...

That was the state of Iraq when adventurers, company and empire representatives and tools and probes of the European conflicting interests “discovered” it to the West. This is why they were not lying when they wrote that Iraq was three-state contraption. They did not lie, but they did not even know part of the whole story either. They were ignorant of all that long history. Thus was the myth of an “artificial” country created.

Look at the map of Iraq: Only the borders on the west and south-west are straight lines; lines drawn in the sand.

The rest were lines defined by a very long history of long bloody conflicts. The northern and eastern borders were dictated by a history that was too long to ignore. But the French and British were at liberty to draw the western and the southern lines of the map of Iraq in the vast areas of sand. Little did they know that those areas of empty desert were riddled with a history of their own. Except for the early Sumerians, most of the other people who produced all those wonderful civilizations came across those deserts. There were no borders there until the end of WWI. But that is a different story.

This is how the map of modern Iraq was drawn. And this is why many “experts” honestly believe that modern Iraq was so constructed... “artificially” from the three Ottoman provinces at the end of World War I.

They were only in error of ignoring about 7000 years of history.

Posted on the blog site: “A Glimpse of Iraq” (glimpseofiraq.blogspot.com).

[TOP]

Operation Iron Fist in Iraq

The Dark Cloud of Democracy

- Andrew Stromotich, October 8, 2005 -

On Saturday morning, October 2nd, hours after the Pentagon officially launched ‘Operation Iron Fist’, the Associated Press (AP) reported, “About 1,000 U.S. troops, backed by attack helicopters, swarmed into a tiny Iraqi village near the Syrian border Saturday in an offensive aimed at rooting out fighters from al-Qaida in Iraq, the country’s most feared militant group, the military said.”

Being a Syrian border town, Sadah has been a target of U.S. assaults before. This weekend however, was major —1,000 troops moved on this little village of 2,000 men, women and children.

The most sophisticated (which simply means most deadly) military in the world has sent 1,000 troops, backed warplanes and helicopters, to enter and occupy the hamlet of Sadah, and is going door to door, raiding what homes were left standing after the air assault, apparently hunting for “insurgents.” Although it is uncertain what they will find in Sadah, what they have brought is clear. Death and destruction on a massive scale have come to yet another town in the so-called “Sunni Triangle.”

Troops involved in the siege on this rural enclave, were backed by warplanes, such as the C-130 Specter, which hovers over its target, circling and hammering those on the ground with 105 mm rapid-fire cannons directed by it’s sophisticated computer tracking systems, and helicopters such as the Apache, which has turned humans into mincemeat with its 90 mm cannons and assortment of rockets.

“Sadah is a village of about 2,000 people on the banks of the Euphrates River about eight miles from the Syrian border in Iraq’s western province of Anbar. The isolated community has one main road and about 200 houses scattered over a rural area,” the AP reports.

However, AP does not report why the U.S. was unable to take advantage of Sadah’s isolation to quarantine and search this village without razing it (A much more humane approach to this ‘humanitarian’ mission to bring democracy to Iraq and its people).

Other important facts about the siege also remain unreported. How long did this air assault last before U.S. troops entered the village? How many homes were destroyed? How many people were killed? How many arms and militants were found in this rural hamlet?

The AP further reports, “U.S. forces closed off Sadah. Ammar Al-Marsoomi, a doctor at a hospital in Al-Qa’im, 13 miles from the village, said initial reports indicated that two Iraqis were wounded in Saturday’s assault.”

Choosing a doctor in a different town (Al-Qa’im) to comment on casualties in what AP reports as the closed town of Sadah, is odd.

Cities under US siege, such as Falluja last year, were closed to all traffic while under U.S. attack. Journalist, aid workers, civilians, and casualties inclusive, were barred from entrance or exit, making it near impossible to report accurately on casualties.

The doctor AP relies on to register comment with respect to civilian casualties is said to rely on ‘initial reports’, which indicates only two civilians were injured during this massive assault. These figures are left unquestioned or explained by AP, with no mention of source of the report, leaving the reader with more questions than answers. Was this a U.S. military initial report of civilian casualties, or perhaps this figure relates to hospital casualty reports in Al-Qa’im, 13 kilometers down the only road out of the closed city? In any case, without further explanation by AP, it becomes impossible for the reader to gauge the legitimacy of this claim, therefore making it unreliable at best, and possibly misleading.

So another village in Anbar province is occupied by American troops and their Iraqi counterparts, only weeks before a referendum on a constitution the U.S. is desperate to see succeed. It is a referendum that could fail in Anbar province and other Sunni dominated areas, as well as in the volatile South, which last week saw citizens attack British Troops who had stormed the Basra city jail freeing two British soldiers being held.

The soldiers, dressed in civilian Iraqi clothes, were arrested after a firefight erupted, as a group of Iraqi policemen approached their car. Two policemen were killed, and the two disguised soldiers were arrested and sent to the Basra prison for investigation and charge. British troops lay siege upon the Iraqi police, disrupting any further investigation into the actions of these two. A civilian riot broke out in Basra, in which British tanks were stacked with tires and set alight. With the British now accusing the police of corruption and calling for a complete overhaul of the forces, and populist Shia leader Muqtada Al Sadr stating his belief that British troops are involved in terrorist activity, the south too is destabilizing rapidly, leaving in question the legitimacy of any vote held under these conditions.

In western Iraq, it would take only three of the four Sunni dominated provinces returning with a no vote to defeat this master document of the new Iraq. On October 4th, while attacks by U.S. troops were underway in these very provinces, a bold move to ensure passage of the proposed constitution by making a no return a near mathematical impossibility, was imposed by the National Assembly. The Assembly decided to redefine internationally accepted electoral standards, by making counts of votes dependent upon voter registration, rather than voter turnout, which simply means 100% voter turnout would be needed for a legitimate result (a fantasy in even the most peaceful of democracies).

The assembly, under extreme criticism from a U.N. unable to legitimize such an obviously flawed vote, and under threat of boycott from a frustrated Sunni leadership, reversed the measure, and the conventional interpretation of voter was restored.

Although this leaves the impression of a restored integrity, the referendum was already tipped heavily in favor of the draft becoming resolution. The government of Iraq, elected in the most undemocratic of fashions (candidates and party platforms were announced after the vote), had decided that a mere majority vote against this draft would not be enough for its defeat in any province. In fact, under the rules of this referendum, more than two of every three participating voters would have to vote against this draft to see a veto registered.

This system makes a veto in most provinces highly unlikely. Only those able to muster significant political solidarity have the ability to defeat this draft under this interpretive system of vote counting. What these voting rules have done is allow U.S. forces to direct the brunt of their actions against those provinces that could actually register a veto, which are those dominated by a Sunni majority, such as Anbar.

In Anbar province, currently under siege from the largest U.S. offensive of the year, where all indications have been predicting a negative vote, the probability that even 67% of voters will be able to make it to the poles is unlikely. In Sadah and other civilian centers under siege in Anbar, occupation will remain in the ruins of these campaigns, with heavily armed soldiers and National Guardsmen left to control security for a referendum they want to see passed.

The constitution, if implemented, paves the way for succession of territories, leading the way to an oil rich Kurdistan in the North, a southern Shia state also controlling great oil wealth, and a western area, war torn and without resources, left for Sunnis to rebuild after a brutal and heavily damaging occupation.

As the U.S. continues its campaign in western Iraq, and as questions about British involvement in terrorism in the South continue to grow, the impossibilities of democracy under occupation are highlighted. [...]

From Dahr Jamail’s Iraq Dispatches. Andrew Stromotich is a journalist, filmmaker, and founding member of dropframe communications.

[TOP]