From Al Jazeera:
Some sections in Iraq's draft constitution are a "recipe for chaos", Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa said on Monday, a day after Iraqi politicians completed the draft charter without the endorsement of Sunni Arabs.Moussa told the BBC that the Arab League shared Sunni Muslim concerns over federalism and the fact the charter does not identify Iraq as an Arab country.
Shiite and Kurdish officials have endorsed the document on Sunday. But Sunni politicians refused to sign it, and delivered their rejection in a joint statement, describing the final text as “illegitimate” and urging the Arab League and the United Nations to intervene before the document goes to a referendum on October 15.
The Sunnis fear that federalism could split the country into a Kurdish north and Shiite south, depriving them of the country's oil resources.
“I think if this constitution passes as it is, it will worsen everything in the country,” said Saleh Al Mutlaq, a Sunni negotiator.
On Monday, more than 2,000 Sunni demonstrators rallied in Tikrit, the hometown of the ousted Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, to protest the new constitution, AP reported.
The protesters gathered near the office of the Association of Muslims Scholars, a Sunni group opposed to the U.S. occupation, carrying Iraqi flags and portraits of Saddam Hussein, as well as pictures of Shiite cleric Moqtada al-Sadr and Jawad Al Khalisi who joined the Sunnis in rejecting the charter.
“We sacrifice our souls and blood for you, Saddam,” chanted the demonstrators...
“We sacrifice our souls and blood for you, Saddam,” chanted the demonstrators...
Great! While you're at it, can you get me HBO? There's a Pamela Anderson movie on this weekend and they're only giving me basic cable. The Daily Show - pfaugh! I ululate and slap the TV with my shoe. This is a travesty!
Sincerely,
Saddam Hussein
The more the Iraqis and every else fights over this constitution the more there is to like about it. It could end up being a decent constitution !
What is most worrisome to the Arab League and Amr Moussa and the rest of them is the dropping of the designation "Arab" to describe Iraq. This is worrisome. All the lands in which the Arabs are a majority, no matter how large the non-Arab population, must be claimed for the Arabs, must be part of that so-called "Arab world." There is the Arab Kingdom of Jordan. The Egyptian Arab Republic. The Arab this, and the Arab that. Never mind that the Berbers may outnumber the Arabs in Morocco -- that Kingdom of Morocco is Arab. Never mind the oppressed Berbers in Algeria; it is Arab. And in 1989, the Saudis who brokered an agreement at Taif to supposedly arrange things in Lebanon so that the Syrians would soon leave, forced upon the helpless Christians in the Lebanese delegation the requirement that they rename Lebanon an "Arab country." They balked, but there was no one to support them, no one to back up the belief of many, especially Maronites, that they may speak Arabic, but that does not make them Arabs (and, of course, it doesn't). And in attendence, either oblivious to the significance of this, or positively in favor of it, was a representative of the State Department whom Maronites in this country have never forgiven for his role: David Satterfield. He's still there. He's still allowing the likes of Condoleeza Rice to "learn" all about the Middle East from him.
So here's a question she might ask him: Gosh, David, why are the Arabs so upset that Iraq is not officially called an "Arab" state in the new constitution. Why should that matter? And can you tell me about any other place in the Middle East where that kind of problem has come up?"
Yes, he should be asked that. But he won't. The people running things have such a crude understanding of these "ectoplasmic shapes" (J. B. Kelly's phrase) that they solemnly call "Iraq" and "Syria" and "Saudi Arabia" and "Egypt" -- they will never sink below the surface, never comprehend for example the all-imporant inescapable role of Islam in shaping attitudes. They cannot learn. It will be necessary to train others, for the future, and hope that they take over.
The Arab nationalists like Amr Moussa, as well as the Western & Communist Arabists, so often want to have their cake and eat it too. On the one hand, since Lebanon is truly Arab, etc., then Arab states, like Syria, have the right to intervene there, to send in an "Arab deterrent force," and Syria can occupy and control the country too [since Syria, really being Arab, a sort of Arab big sister, can't be accused of really occupying a sister Arab land]. On the other hand, "Palestine" must have self-determination because somehow "Palestinians" are really a separate people --not exactly Arabs-- and their nationalism cannot be as threatening to Israel as a great pan-Arab state would be --or because "Palestinians" are so unique that they cannot satisfy their aspirations for self-determination within an existing Arab state and anyhow, the roots of the "Palestinians" go back into the mists of pre-history and ancient history, followed by "Palestinians" like Kings David and Solomon, and later by Jesus. And for the latter reason, they must have all of Israel.
The Arab nationalists like Amr Moussa, as well as the Western & Communist Arabists, so often want to have their cake and eat it too. On the one hand, since Lebanon is truly Arab, etc., then Arab states, like Syria, have the right to intervene there, to send in an "Arab deterrent force," and Syria can occupy and control the country too [since Syria, really being Arab, a sort of Arab big sister, can't be accused of really occupying a sister Arab land]. On the other hand, "Palestine" must have self-determination because somehow "Palestinians" are really a separate people --not exactly Arabs-- and their nationalism cannot be as threatening to Israel as a great pan-Arab state would be --or because "Palestinians" are so unique that they cannot satisfy their aspirations for self-determination within an existing Arab state and anyhow, the roots of the "Palestinians" go back into the mists of pre-history and ancient history, followed by "Palestinians" like Kings David and Solomon, and later by Jesus. And for the latter reason, they must have all of Israel.
Likewise in Iraq, the Kurds can't have any national dignity or self-respect, even though they are indigenous to Kurdistan. Iraq must be Arab and only Arab. An Arab League publication in the United States in the early 1960s even charged the notion of a Kurdish state with being like "A Second Israel." Horrors.
[sorry my post got posted twice]
To continue:
Likewise in Iraq, the Kurds can't have any national dignity or self-respect, even though they are indigenous to Kurdistan. Iraq must be Arab and only Arab. An Arab League publication in the United States in the early 1960s even charged the notion of a Kurdish state with being like "A Second Israel." Horrors.