From: Asfilho@aol.com
Date: Wed Mar 19 2003 - 06:45:47 EST
> Iraq, the 51st state
>
> Engel in America
>
> Matthew Engel
> Wednesday March 19, 2003
> The Guardian
>
> Now that war is finally upon us, we must all hope or (if we share our
> leaders' piety) pray that, within a matter of days, the thing is done with,
> the Iraqi people will be free of their oppressor and able to enjoy the
> benefits of American-style democracy. Here is a brief reprise of some of
> the changes they can expect if the US decides to give Iraq a facsimile of
> its own highly regarded system. 1. At present, according to the official
> website of the Iraqi National Assembly ("a major organ for the expression
> of democracy") the 250 members are elected by blocs of 50,000 voters
> throughout the country. This suggests the outline principle is the same as
> in the US. However, the American constitution demands that the 600,000
> inhabitants of its own capital city should not be allowed to take part in
> this process. The reasons are so obvious that no one can remember what they
> are, but most of those affected are poor and black, anyway. To ensure true
> devotion to US principles, the same will have to apply in Iraq; doubtless
> the Americans will break the news to the people of Baghdad tactfully.
>
> 2. In Iraq's last presidential election, Saddam Hussein received 100% of
> the votes, a fact we know because officials said so. Instead, the Iraqis
> can expect a choice between two different American electoral models, either
> (a) the one employed in Florida in 2000, designed to ensure that the
> candidate with the most support loses, or (b) the modern version, as
> applied in more advanced states, where people vote on touch-screen
> computers. No one has yet got 100% of the votes by this method but
> Republican senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska did get 83%. We know this
> because the company that built the machines - which he part-owns - said so.
>
>
> 3. Under various decrees of the revolutionary command council, capital
> punishment can be handed out cruelly and whimsically in Iraq for a wide
> variety of offences. Guilt or innocence is irrelevant. This is reported
> only by a few outside human rights bodies. This would cease under an
> American-installed system. Instead, executions would be largely confined to
> black murderers, most of whom will probably be guilty, accused of murdering
> whites and too poor to afford a decent lawyer. This will be reported only
> by a few outside human-rights bodies.
>
> 4. Under decree 59 of 1994, Iraqis can lose their right hand for theft of
> more than 5,000 dinars and their left foot for a second offence. This will
> presumably be replaced by the three-strikes law, ratified this month by the
> supreme court, under which Leandro Andrade has been jailed for 50 years for
> stealing nine videos and Gary Ewing got 25 years to life for the theft of
> three golf clubs.
>
> 5. Any Iraqi journalist thought likely to ask Saddam Hussein a difficult
> question is now subject to the dictates of paragraph 3. The American way
> (as seen during the presidential press conference two weeks ago) provides
> for such people to be stuck at the back of the room and simply not called.
>
> 6. Saddam has been universally seen firing his gun indiscriminately and
> menacingly. Under the second amendment, this right would be extended to
> everyone.
>
> 7. Saddam has conducted unnecessary and aggressive foreign wars to distract
> his benighted people from domestic economic collapse. Such behaviour would
> be unthinkable under American democracy.
>
> 8. Under Saddam, prisoners are held secretly and without trial, and
> tortured to extract information. Ditto.
>
> 9. The Iraqi system is largely dynastic and a leader like Saddam can pave
> the way for his son to attain wealth and power without regard to merit.
> Same again.
>
> 10. Saddam "electronically bugged" UN weapons inspectors, President Bush
> said in his speech on Monday night. The US has not yet tried to refute the
> Observer story that it bugged private meetings of other security council
> members. It's probably too busy to dignify it with an answer.
>
> 11. Saddam has also threatened his neighbours. A well-placed source in
> Chile reports that Robert Zoellick, the US trade representative, informed
> the Chilean foreign minister that, if they didn't do as they were told in
> the security council, their free trade treaty would not be ratified and
> loans would mysteriously cease. One small example.
>
> 12. The National Assembly's system of passing legislation has proved
> inadequate. Things are different here. When a Georgia congress man slipped
> in an exemption to organic food labelling rules into a recent bill to
> protect a firm that gave him a $4,000 campaign donation, it was noticed and
> criticised. True, the bill was already law before this happened, because no
> one in Congress had bothered to read it. But the US will ensure that the
> new legislature cannot be bought secretly for long. At least not that
> cheaply.
>
> 13. There will be no setting fire to oil wells. We need that stuff, dammit.
>
>
> 14. It would be impossible for a war to be conducted solely because one
> domineering leader forced a cowed and compliant parliament into agreement.
>
> The new Iraq will be nothing like that. It could only happen in Britain.
>
> <A HREF="mailto:matthew.engel@guardian.co.uk">matthew.engel@guardian.co.uk</A>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Mar 20 2003 - 00:00:01 EST