whottt
08-24-2005, 03:42 AM
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9055813/
Contrasting visions of post-charter Iraq emerge
Fear, hope in equal measure as draft constitution moves to become reality
Khalid Mohammed / AP
Updated: 8:22 p.m. ET Aug. 23, 2005
BAGHDAD, Iraq - If the draft constitution becomes reality, the new Iraq would be a vastly different place: a multicultural, democratic oasis where torture victims can sue their oppressors, free speech is protected and women gain a big role in government.
But Iraq also would become a decentralized, even fragmented, land in a volatile region, where neighbors such as Iran could easily exploit such weakness.
Key parts of the draft — on the role of private militias, the control of oil money and even Islam’s impact on women’s rights — could sow the seeds of conflict or, in the worst case, civil war.
Such fears lie at the heart of complaints by Sunni Arabs, who angrily rejected the draft Monday night, prompting parliament to suspend a vote to give time for passions to cool.
Much of the draft would win plaudits in the West. It declares that no law “may contradict democratic standards.” In a concession to secularists, Islam is declared “a major source” of the country’s national laws, rather than the only source, as religious Shiites and Sunnis wanted.
Freedom of expression is guaranteed. Torture “and inhumane treatment” are banned, and victims have the right to sue for compensation. One in four seats in the legislature is reserved for women, and minority groups like Turkmen and Assyrians are accorded legal recognition.
Constitutional ‘land mines’
But the document also contains provisions described by Sunni Arab negotiator Saleh al-Mutlaq as “land mines.” His concern springs from Sunnis’ status as a minority group facing the loss of centuries of privilege — and fearing retribution from other groups victimized under Saddam Hussein’s Sunni regime.
For Sunnis, the biggest risk is turning Iraq into a decentralized federal state. Supporters insist that is the best guarantee against a new dictator, the same argument used by the West Germans when they created a decentralized government after the collapse of Adolf Hitler’s regime in 1945.
Contrasting visions of post-charter Iraq emerge
Fear, hope in equal measure as draft constitution moves to become reality
Khalid Mohammed / AP
Updated: 8:22 p.m. ET Aug. 23, 2005
BAGHDAD, Iraq - If the draft constitution becomes reality, the new Iraq would be a vastly different place: a multicultural, democratic oasis where torture victims can sue their oppressors, free speech is protected and women gain a big role in government.
But Iraq also would become a decentralized, even fragmented, land in a volatile region, where neighbors such as Iran could easily exploit such weakness.
Key parts of the draft — on the role of private militias, the control of oil money and even Islam’s impact on women’s rights — could sow the seeds of conflict or, in the worst case, civil war.
Such fears lie at the heart of complaints by Sunni Arabs, who angrily rejected the draft Monday night, prompting parliament to suspend a vote to give time for passions to cool.
Much of the draft would win plaudits in the West. It declares that no law “may contradict democratic standards.” In a concession to secularists, Islam is declared “a major source” of the country’s national laws, rather than the only source, as religious Shiites and Sunnis wanted.
Freedom of expression is guaranteed. Torture “and inhumane treatment” are banned, and victims have the right to sue for compensation. One in four seats in the legislature is reserved for women, and minority groups like Turkmen and Assyrians are accorded legal recognition.
Constitutional ‘land mines’
But the document also contains provisions described by Sunni Arab negotiator Saleh al-Mutlaq as “land mines.” His concern springs from Sunnis’ status as a minority group facing the loss of centuries of privilege — and fearing retribution from other groups victimized under Saddam Hussein’s Sunni regime.
For Sunnis, the biggest risk is turning Iraq into a decentralized federal state. Supporters insist that is the best guarantee against a new dictator, the same argument used by the West Germans when they created a decentralized government after the collapse of Adolf Hitler’s regime in 1945.