Proposed Iraqi constitution(s) asking for trouble

Here’s some­thing you won’t find any­where else. (I googled.) These are the scanned copies of the pro­posed con­sti­tu­tions for Iraq, post-Saddam. Sami Abdul Rah­man, the deputy prime min­is­ter (KDP) of the Kur­dis­tan Regional Gov­ern­ment, gave them to me after I inter­viewed him in his offices in the Par­lia­ment build­ing in Arbil. He wrote them, and the KDP and PUK, in a rare show of pub­lic unity, have signed on. Even State, back in July, said the ideas were “inter­est­ing.“
There are two files, the pro­posed con­sti­tu­tion for a Fed­eral Repub­lic of Iraq (3.0MB), heav­ily mod­eled on the United States Con­sti­tu­tion, and the con­sti­tu­tion for the Kur­dish region (5.6MB). Sorry for the size of the files. I tried to make them as small as I could.
The first one maps out a plan that would divide the coun­try into two regions: The Arabs would get the mid­dle and south­ern regions along with the province of Nin­eveh (except­ing regions that have Kur­dish majori­ties) and the Kurds would get the provinces of Kirkuk, Suleimaniya, Arbil and Duhok, the dis­tricts of Aqra, Sheihkan and Sin­jar and the sub-districts of Zimar (in Nin­eveh), Khaniqin and Man­dali (Diyala) and Badra (in the province of Al-Wasit.) Unlike the U.S. Con­sti­tu­tion, how­ever, there is a state reli­gion — Islam — and offi­cial lan­guages (Kur­dish in the Kur­dish regions and Ara­bic in the other.)
There is a lib­eral col­lec­tion of rights granted, but a wor­ri­some depen­dence on “the law,” as in, “No one can be cap­tured, detained, jailed, or searched except in cir­cum­stances defined in law.” This loop­hole is scat­tered through­out the doc­u­ment, sub­or­di­nat­ing the con­sti­tu­tions to what­ever the regional or national leg­is­la­tures want to write into the law­books. Instead of being the supreme law of the land, as in the United States, the con­sti­tu­tions instead pro­vide jus­ti­fi­ca­tion for, say, the harsh rule of shar’ia, should Islamists gain con­trol over the National Assem­bly.
And while “power is inher­ent in the peo­ple as they are the source of its legit­macy,” I worry that this draft is too weak to pro­tect the peo­ple of Iraq (and par­tic­u­larly the Kurds) from democ­racy gone bad. Jef­fer­son­ian these doc­u­ments ain’t.
There’s also a lot that will piss off the Turks, mak­ing the adop­tion of this char­ter less than likely. The Kurds blame much of Iraq’s (and by exten­sion their own) mis­for­tunes on the cen­tral­iza­tion of power in Iraq. This is exactly the prob­lem in Turkey and while a few Turk­ish intel­lec­tu­als have floated the idea of a fed­eral struc­ture in Turkey, that idea has about as much of a chance as Sad­dam does of win­ning another war and occu­py­ing Wash­ing­ton.
As the pre­am­ble says:

Cen­tral­iza­tion in gov­ern­ment has lost its appeal even within sim­ple and homoge­nous com­mu­ni­ties. It has espe­cially lost its ratio­nale for being resorted to in com­mu­ni­ties that are of a plu­ral­ist nature made up of var­i­ous nation­al­i­ties, reli­gious groups and lan­guages, such as the Iraqi [Ed: And Turk­ish] com­mu­nity. The high degree of cen­tral­iza­tion and the indif­fer­ence of deci­sion mak­ers to the pres­ence of the spe­cial char­ac­ter­is­tics of the Kur­dish peo­ple are among the basic rea­sons for the Kurds being deprived of their legit­i­mate rights under suc­ces­sive Iraqi gov­ern­ments, which came to power under both the monar­chy and the repub­lic. This style of restrict­ing author­ity in t he cen­tre and the unwill­ing­ness to share it with the Kurds on a prac­ti­cal basis, even after the March 11, 1970 auton­omy agree­ment has been the hall­mark of the role of the Iraqi state.

Well, yeah, and Sad­dam mur­der­ing inno­cent women and chil­dren with chem­i­cal weapons has also been a “hall­mark of the role of the Iraqi state.” Harp­ing on the evils cen­tral­iza­tion and the fail­ure to rec­og­nize the spe­cial nature of Kurds — which is exactly what has been hap­pen­ing in Turkey since 1921 — is ask­ing for trou­ble, if you ask me. Every crit­i­cism men­tioned in the pre­am­ble against Iraq could equally be lev­eled at Turkey. (Except the Turks haven’t bombed vil­lages with afla­toxin or other weapons of mass destruc­tion.) And Turkey has been growl­ing that any deal that leaves the Kurds with inde­pen­dence, either de facto or de jure, will be met with guns and tanks. And I have no idea what the United States, as the new regional power­bro­ker, would do if a NATO ally began oper­a­tions in the area Amer­ica claims as con­quered territory.

Calif. congressman: “I don’t trust this president”

Woah. This firery deunciation of Bush comes from Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif. (He represents Fremont, home of the largest population of Afghanis in the United States, interestingly enough.) His statement is full of red meat for leftists, calling Bush a lightweight National Guardsman in the 1960s, and questioning his tough-guy cred by quoting columnist Molly Ivins: "For an upper-class white boy, Bush comes on way too hard. At a guess, to make up for being an upper-class white boy."
I'm not one to take away from Mssr. Stark's statement. I agree with most of it, in that the people who will pick up the $200 billion (estimated) tab for Gulf War II: The Sequel will likely be people like my grandmother who depends on Medicare, but will see it cut to make way for Bush's tax cut and war costs. Others likely to pay include those who need unemployment insurance, students who don't get federal money to go to college and any number of natural Democratic constituencies.
And now that the House and Seanate have passed their respective war resolutions, we have politicians like Sen. Tom Daschle, D-S.D., who say things like, "The bottom line is . . . we want to move on." The impression one gets is that Democrats want to move on to economic issues that play well a month from now, that might give them back the House and cement their hold on the Senate. Understandible, true, but at what cost?
It seems the Democrats were outmaneuvered by Bush & Co. yet again, just as Republicans were constantly outmaneuvered by President Clinton through most of the 1990s. Bush cranked up the war rhetoric from September on, to force an early vote, knowing the Democrats would be forced to either delay the vote, and open themselves up to charges of treason and/or wimpism (the Bush family's least favorite slur!) or rush the vote and give the president what he wanted in the first place. Of course, this week's quickie vote on war will come back to haunt the Democrats, when their liberal, anti-war supporters get wooed by the Green Party charging that Democrats and Republicans are but two sides of the same coin. (Nader's party is active in many close races, potentially threatening Democrats from the left.)
So Mssr. Stark can afford to vote no and denounce Bush on the House floor. He’s in a safe dis­trict. The ques­tion is, now that he’s got his war on, will Bush’s action leave any­where safe?

Update on House Vote

The Hastert-Gephardt pro­posal (H.J.R 114) passed the House today on a 296 – 113 vote. The Sen­ate also voted 75 – 25 to limit debate, mean­ing its vote on the war res­o­lu­tion could come as early as tomor­row. This is dis­ap­point­ing as the Spratt amend­ment was a common-sense approach to this whole killin’ Iraqis busi­ness. (For a glimpse of alter­na­tives, Here’s a PDF that com­pares the var­i­ous House and Sen­ate pro­pos­als.)
All of this may be moot, how­ever because sources on Cap­i­tal Hill are say­ing that Bush doesn’t want war at all! That come Nov. 5, Bush will sud­dently start talk­ing about how the United Nations is a use­ful body after all, and that inspec­tors will be allowed to do their job. I’m told Bush doesn’t want to be look­ing at an occu­pied Iraq two years from now when we have guerilla fight­ing in Bagh­dad sub­urbs, a mas­sive drain on the national econ­omy and a sta­ble oil sup­ply only because United States occu­pa­tion forces keep Kurds, Shi’ites and Sunni Arabs (not to men­tion Turkomen and Ira­ni­ans) from each oth­ers’ throats. Add to that a daily trickle of body bags as one or two GIs die every cou­ple of days. That wouldn’t be very fun to run on, would it? Espe­cially since Bush avoided the hor­rors of a long, drawn out guerilla war once before!
This would be a fas­ci­nat­ing exam­ple of dog-wagging. At least Pres­i­dent Clin­ton actu­ally tossed some cruise missles around when he was accused of doing it to dis­tract the nation from him “doing it.” In Bush’s case, how­ever war with Iraq will have been talked up, the Mid­dle East desta­bi­lized, the UN insulted and our rep­u­ta­tion trashed with allies — all for short-term elec­tion gains. (Well, not all for short-term gains. No doubt there are plenty of true believ­ers who think that Sad­dam should be blowed up real good, but try­ing to divine the influ­ence of peo­ple like Karl Rove, Dick Cheney et al., is akin to Krem­li­nol­ogy.) A post-election change in rhetoric would prove the influ­ence of “Gen­eral Rove.”

Not so fast, Mr. President

There is a time when politi­cians should be applauded. This is one of those times. Reps. Spratt of North Car­olina and Rep. Vic Sny­der, D-Ark., will intro­duce into the House debate on war with Iraq this alter­nate res­o­lu­tion. (It’s a PDF to be down­loaded.)
In essence it allows mil­i­tary action but only after the UNSC has been allowed to do every­thing it can, includ­ing mus­cu­lar and intru­sive inspec­tions. If the UNSC fails in its duties, the Pres­i­dent must come back to Con­gress and ask for autho­riza­tion for war against Iraq. (It actu­ally says “mil­i­tary force” instead of war, but still.)
In the case of shoot­ing, “the Pres­i­dent should endeavor to form a coali­tion of allies as broadly based as prac­ti­ca­ble to sup­port and par­tic­i­pate with United States Armed Forces, and should also seek mul­ti­lat­eral coop­er­a­tion and assis­tance, specif­i­cally includ­ing Arab and Islamic coun­tries, in the post-conflict recon­struc­tion of Iraq.“
And this:

In the event that the United Nations Secu­rity Coun­cil does not adopt a res­o­lu­tion as described in sec­tion 3, or in the event that such a res­o­lu­tion is adopted but does not sanc­tion the use of force suf­fi­cient to com­pel Iraq’s com­pli­ance, and if the Pres­i­dent deter­mines that use of the United States Armed Forces is nec­es­sary for such com­pli­ance, the Pres­i­dent should seek autho­riza­tion from Con­gress to use mil­i­tary force to com­pel such compliance.

Clear enough? In essence, come back to us, Mr. Pres­i­dent, when you’ve got some proof. Proof that Iraq is the clear and present dan­ger you say it is, and proof that the UNSC is an impo­tent orga­ni­za­tion that can’t do its job. Only then do you get the guns.
The House rules com­mit­tee has allowed this res­o­lu­tion in, so the whole House may vote on it. It likely won’t pass, but it’s a saner voice than what we’re hear­ing from the White House.
I don’t know Spratt or Sny­der or other other spon­sors of this res­o­lu­tion, but I sus­pect that I should. Thank you, gentlemen.