Clash over 'Kurdish veto' looms in Iraq

[VegasWolf]

<snip>
A law promulgated during the US-led occupation of Iraq, which governs how the country's new constitution is to be written, has been largely rejected by members of the United Iraqi Alliance, which has a majority of seats in the new parliament.


The Transitional Administrative Law (TAL), which was brought into force last March by former US administrator Paul Bremer, was originally intended to head off a political crisis by, in effect, granting Iraq's Kurdish population a veto over the new constitution.

But while it solved a short term problem, the inclusion of the so-called "Kurdish veto" clause in the TAL seems set to cause a new crisis, as both Shia and Sunni Arabs say they now hope the new parliament will simply cancel it, before debate over the constitution starts in earnest.

Many Alliance members, including Ibrahim Ja'aferi, widely believed to be the leading candidate for prime minister, have said the law must be either amended or scrapped altogether.

<snip>

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/2620cbe8-8199-11d9-9e19-00000e2511c8.html

Well, let the dismantling of dimbulbs attempt to control Iraq
after its elections begin. Next comes the invalidation of
the oil contracts. We should be there a good long time to
"protect" them.

The Avenging Bombardier

[annabanana]

1. there are a lot of "Bremer Rules" that are going to be a problem

for ANY new Iraqi government..the oil contracts, the monsanto seeds etc etc...

[Zynx]

2. Yeah, until they're all ripped up

This is gonna be fun to watch. You want democracy, you've got democracy, Bushies.

[Igel]

3. Except that the veto provision is possibly the one thing that

could force the Iraqi constitution to a reasonably fair document. Dissing it just because Bremer put it in is saying it's better fir people to suffer so long as your enemy looks bad.

It means that the Shi'a and other writers will--wonder at the anti-progressive nature of it all!--have to make sure that the result is acceptable to not only Al-Sistani, but also to the Kurds and Sunni Arabs.

So of course the majority want to get rid of it, whether the majority is Shi'a who want domination, or the majority is Arab, making sure those pesky Kurds stay are subject to proper government.

The only real risk is that somebody will want supremacy before they want unity, or prefer death in "honor" over unity in "dishonor". So this provision does have the potential of causing the country's breakup (something the Turks are probably hoping for), but the majoritarianism that would probably result in its absence would be no better.

[LynnTheDem]

4. Heh...just wait until the SUNNI VETO.

The Sunni have veto power over the Iraqi Constitution that's to be re-written by this summer. Should be real interesting.