Different iraqi blogger. Tuesday, January 20, 2004 Still Brooding... My head has been spinning these last few days with decision No. 173 on changing Family Law to Shari'a. I've been darkly mulling over the endless possibilities. I'm not the only one- everyone I talk to is shaking their head in dismay. How is this happening? How are we caving in to fundamentalism? Talabani was saying that the decision wasn't taken or passed because it didn't get enough votes by the GC, but all the signs say that the decision was made and might be implemented as soon as they get Bremer's signature. Nisreen Barwari, the only female minister on the cabinet, was out demonstrating with several of the women's rights parties a few days ago against the decision. Christopher Allbritton over at Back to Iraq 3.0 has written something on the subject and so has the Washington Post. The question is, even if the personal status laws aren't going to be subjected to change now- immediately- what about the future? What does that say about 6 months from now when Bremer's signature isn't necessary? Two days ago, there was a conference on women's rights in the elegant Nadi Al-Sayd (or Hunting Club) in Baghdad led by the major women's rights groups and they were condemning decision No. 173 saying that it'll be a blow to women's rights in Iraq. The frightening thing was that one of the more secular members of the GC was championing the decision and claiming that it was going to be a 'great advance' in the rights of Iraqi women. He didn't explain how or why, but he condescendingly sat in front of the angry mob of women and gave them a mysterious Mona Lisa smile that, I assume, was supposed to be reassuring. Seeing some of the GC members give press conferences these days, reminds me of the time I went to watch my cousin's daughter 'graduate' from kindergarten. They had about 20 kids up on this little stage with their teacher, Miss Basma, standing benevolently in their midst. As long as she was on the stage, they all stood correctly; simultaneously reciting a poem they had learned just for the occasion. The moment Miss Basma stepped down, there was a stampede- 20 students rushed for the only microphone on the stage all at once, grappling to see who could reach it first and drown out the other voices with their own. Now we face a similar situation. Miss Basma- er, I mean Bremer- has been off the stage (in Washington and New York) and there has been a rush to grab the metaphorical microphone. For example, while the decision on family law seems almost definite, Talabani adamantly denies it… other members only reluctantly discuss it. A couple of weeks ago, when federalism was all the rage with the GC, Talabani made statements on how the decision was almost final: federalism based on ethnicity was just around the corner. The same week, Ibraheim Al-Ja'affari, head of Al-Da'awa Al-Islamiya Party, also made an appearance on either LBC or Al-Arabia, claiming that there was no chance Iraq was going to be split up. Adnan Al-Pachichi then gave a press conference stating that while federalism was an option, it wasn't going to be immediate or 'loose'. There is now talk of it being some sort of a tradeoff or compromise- federalism for the Kurds on the GC, and Shari'a for the Shi'a Islamic groups… It doesn't matter in the end- the Iraqi people will be the losers. Meanwhile, there have been huge demonstrations in the south these last few days and in Baghdad, demanding elections. The roads were blocked in Baghdad in the areas around the demonstration and there were helicopters overhead all day. Most of the demonstrators were supporters of Sistani who has made himself a national figure in this mess. He was eerily silent about the occupation in the beginning and now he is probably the most influential challenger of the GC. He fluctuates- one day, he claims that if elections aren't held there'll be a fatwa ordering civil disobedience. On another day, he claims that the decision to hold elections should be made by Kofi Annan. The most significant thing he has said so far is that even if elections are held, people from abroad shouldn't be able to run (i.e. 95% of the GC). I watched the meeting today between some GC members, Bremer and Kofi Annan on CNN. They didn't seem to come to any conclusion except that *maybe* Kofi would send a delegation to assess the situation in Iraq. Meanwhile, 100,000 Shi'a and Sunnis demonstrated in Baghdad today (although the Shi'a outnumbered the Sunnis by far on this occasion), holding up pictures of Sistani, Al-Sadr and some others. It wasn't violent, but it was angry, forceful and frightening. This has been the largest demonstration since the war. I'm torn on the topic of elections. While I want elections because it's the 'democratic' thing to do, I'm afraid of the outcome. All the signs lead one to believe that elections will lead to a theocracy (which I dread). The current GC is *not* representative of the Iraqi people- neither Sunnis nor Shi'a approve of them… but will elections bring about a more representative group of would-be leaders? Furthermore, what if the Iraqi 'majority' *do* want a theocracy like the one in Iran? If the choice boils down to a democracy styled like the one in America or a theocracy styled like the one in Iran, how do you think a Muslim country is going to choose? For more info on Al-Sistani, check out his site- it's in Arabic, Farsi, English, French and Urdu... quite impressive. His biography is here: Sistani's Biography and for those who were *very* interested in temporary marriage, check this out. http://www.riverbendblog.blogspot.com/2004_01_01_riverbendblog_archive.html
Yes I would say that the breakup of Yugoslavia has made Europe much less stable and if you look at the state of the Croatians, Serbians, Montenegrans, Macedonians and especially Bosnians they were far better off being part of Yugoslavia when they had peace and a functioning economy. If you look at the situation with Europe it is on a trend toward more integration and the break up of Yugoslavia and the Soviet Union threw a big wrench into that and its not clear what will happen. Also the US at the time of the breakup tried to prevent the breakup. Even when we drove the Serbs out of Kosovo we still insisted Kosovo was part of Serbia. The truth is that the Clinton Admin and world community did a bad job dealing with the situaiton. At the same time the situation with Europe is much better than the Iraq breaking up because there is a stable infrastructure of the European Union to at least deal with the repercussions of Yugoslavia's break up. Around Iraq there is no such thing and an independent Kurdistan is more likey to lead to a domino effect of ethnic war in Turkey, Syria and Iran than to democracy. For me personally I agree that people should have the right of self determination and ideally every people should have their own country. That said how that happens is not pretty and in many cases lead to more trouble than it was in the first place. My own argument regarding Iraq is purely from a US POV. While it is nice to think that the Kurds and Shi'ites should and could have their own countries its not really in our interest that they do. Since we occupy Iraq now we're the ones who are stuck dealing with those aspirations while trying to keep things stable in the Mideast. In regards to democracy how are you to judge what is honoring the voice of the people. Most people in the Mideast hate us and given a democratic voice will and have elected parties that espouse hatred of America and Sharia law (the Muslim Brotherhood that won elections in Egypt, Jordan and Algeria only to have those annulled by the ruling parties). Under democracy this is the legitimate voice of much of the Arab world. Its almost impossible that somehow given democracy that the Arabs will elect westernized peaceful secularists. My main point is that while democracy and self-determination are nice things I don't think its possible to impose those on countries. I believe these are things that have to evolve. Overthrowing Saddam might speed up the process but in the meantime we're stuck with the mess of overseeing it rather than letting Saddam's regime run its course.
