Spreading Democracy? Why the Rush?

We rushed into a war with Iraq based on erroneous information – Iraq buying uranium from Niger, Saddam possessing WMDs, etc., etc. Now a U.S. envoy, led by Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad appears to be rushing to encourage the Iraqi government to complete their constitution by August 15 – even if many of the 23 clauses dealing with rights, freedoms, and basic responsibilities are attached with the phrase “in accordance with law,” which means that the law might be drafted in a way that severely limits or excludes the rights.

What’s the point of outlining rights if they might later be ignored or eradicated?

And, is it right to create a document that outlines rights – but says they can exist only so long as they “do not violate Shariah or Koranic law?”

Would it not better serve the idea of “spreading democracy” to work with other governments in helping them create legally binding democracy such as what Americans enjoy?

Oh, but wait… perhaps we are helping them create the kind of democracy that we are “enjoying” under current administration policies:

• Our anti-terrorism legislation has created a “vicious climate of suspicion around any charitable work in the Middle East, especially in Palestine….[which] has [been] used to challenge the independence of all U.S. aid organizations.”

• We can now indefinitely detain non-citizens based on suspicion of terrorism

• Our president created an order whereby, as commander in chief, he has the exclusive right to identify, try, and even execute foreign terrorists, without the constitutional or evidentiary protections ordinarily afforded defendants in the United States.

• Our government may monitor religious and political institutions without suspecting criminal activity to assist terror investigations.

• The Free Trade bill signed by President Bush “recognize[s] that, under NAFTA, foreign corporations have more privileges than domestic ones. Their solution? [It] stipulates all corporations may challenge the local, state and federal laws that govern the rest of us.”

Maybe these lapses in our democratic principles helps explain why the current draft is deemed worthy of rushing ahead with even though two elements of the constitution are of particular concern to Iraqi women. One of the articles gives religious courts authority over civil and family law. This “would limit not only women's rights but also the rights of certain religious minorities,” according to a Boston Globe editorial, even though the wording, which is not final, suggests that people could choose which Islamic sect they want to be judged. Another concern is a provision that requires women to represent 25 percent of decision making bodies – a provision that would be removed after the first two elections.

---
Written in conjunction with Jennifer Hicks