March 08, 2004

Iraq Cleric Drops Opposition to Charter

Iraq's most powerful cleric signaled to Shiite leaders that he won't object to an interim constitution, clearing the way for the charter to be signed Monday without changes.
[...]
Shiite politicians, who days earlier had refused to sign the constitution because of al-Sistani's opposition to certain clauses, said after talks with the cleric Sunday that they would sign the document unchanged.

Hours later, at least seven rockets exploded in central Baghdad, five of them hitting the al-Rasheed Hotel which houses members of the U.S.-led coalition. At least one person was injured, the U.S. military said.
[...]

Even if the charter is signed, the fallout from the political crisis remains. The squabble exacerbated sectarian tensions and reinforced fears of Shiite domination by the Sunni Arab and Kurdish minorities, politicians and observers said. Shiite politicians say they are motivated by a genuine concern to build Iraq's democracy on a sound basis.
[Let's hope they mean it!--Jen]

"To say that the Shiite religious leadership is now meddling in politics is to understate the case," said senior politician Naseer Kamel al-Chaderchi, a Sunni Arab on Iraq's Governing Council. "The majority must not be allowed to usurp the rights of others."
[Amen, Mr. al-Chaderchi! And I'm no Sunni! What Iraq needs is more of a constitutional republic like the U.S.A. and less of a pure democracy by mob majority rule!]
[...]
"You've got people in Iraq who have never experienced democracy, and they're wrestling with some of the big issues of democracy. Democracy's not just about majority rule - it is about protecting minority rights," Bremer said.
[Jerry Bremer is just awesome, isn't he? What wisdom and patience he possesses!]

The adoption of an interim constitution is a key step in the U.S.-backed plan to hand power to the Iraqis on June 30, a date that the Bush administration is keen to keep during an election year in the United States.

Sources closely involved in the constitutional process said the fight over the constitution has poisoned relations between members of the main blocs on the U.S.-appointed council - whose 25 members are 13 Shiites, five Kurds, five Sunni Arabs, a Christian and an ethnic Turk - and eroded the goodwill between them.

"There is a strong feeling there now that the Shiites are pursuing policies aimed solely at protecting their own interests," said one source, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
[Duh.
I wouldn't trust these Shi'ites farther than I could throw them. I worry that they're picking their battles and engaging in magical thinking--which would be so typical. They think that when we hand over "sovreignity" on June 30th, that the Coalition's occupation will end and then they can take over (I think.).
They are in for some unhappy surprises!]
The disputed clause in the interim charter gives Kurds and Sunni Arabs - who together make up 30 to 40 percent of Iraq's 25 million people - the voting power to veto a permanent constitution.

[...]
The Shiites, as well as the Kurds, were brutally oppressed during Saddam Hussein's 23-year rule. His removal gave the Shiites hope that they can translate their favorable demographics into political power. The Kurds, Washington's closest Iraqi allies, saw Saddam's ouster as a chance to enshrine their 13-year-old autonomy in Kurdish regions in the north.

Keep your fingers crossed for tomorrow and hope for the best!
However, at some point in time, it's going to be High Noon in Iraq for Bremer and al-Sistani.
And as with Mad Max and Thunderdome, 2 men go in, but only one can emerge victorious and my money's on Paul "Jerry" Bremer.
He'd better win and he has to, because if he doesn't, the gains and sacrifices of Operation Iraqi Freedom will have been for naught.

Tomorrow (Monday), we also have the Muslim-led IAEA dealing with feckless Iran, too:
UN weighs Iran's nuclear project

he UN watchdog is set to consider Iran's controversial nuclear programme in the light of a critical report.

The International Atomic Energy Agency may table a resolution noting its findings that Iran failed to declare activities possibly linked to weapons.

Iran has insisted its programme is purely peaceful and has asked the UN to halt its monitoring.

The US has called for pressure to be maintained on Iran, which it says does not need to develop nuclear power.
[Not when they're sitting on one of the largest deposits of oil in the world they don't and are an IslamoFascist state driven by violent jihad against all non-Shi'ite Muslims!--Jen]
[...]

The IAEA report on Iran, details of which were revealed last month, notes that Iran failed to reveal sensitive research involving advanced centrifuges which could be used in the production of bomb-grade material.

The BBC's Bethany Bell in Vienna says diplomats are unlikely to send Iran's case to the United Nations Security Council but they are considering a draft resolution noting the discovery of the omissions.
[I wouldn't bet on it. This issue is going to come before the UNSC whether the BBC or Bethany Bell want it to or not because President Bush and British PM Tony Blair both know that Iranian nukes are a huge problem and that Iran is the next gathering storm on the horizon.--J.T.]
[...]

A senior Iranian official urged the IAEA on Sunday to close its files on the country's nuclear programme and accept that it is a peaceful project.

Hassan Rowhani, head of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, said the international community must recognise Iran as a civilian nuclear power.

He said Iran had an inalienable right to continue its nuclear programme which had been shown to be peaceful.
[This must be one of those "inalienable rights" that escaped Thomas Jefferson because it's in the Koran and not the Bible. Ya think?]

"That means Iran be recognised as a country having the nuclear fuel cycle, and enriching uranium," Mr Rowhani said.
[...]
US Undersecretary of State John Bolton said last week that America was "absolutely determined not to reduce the pressure on Iran".

"We think the Iranians are still trying to conceal a clandestine weapons programme and that's why the Iranians remain a great concern to the United States," he said while in Lisbon, Portugal.

However, European states led by Germany, France and the UK have favoured a more conciliatory approach to Iran, pointing to the complicated political situation within the Islamic republic.

Pardon me, but what would that "complicated political situation" be to which the EUro-weenie triumverate refer?
Could it be the supposed "reformist" government of Khatami that was just brought to an ignominious end?
Tony Blair is being made a fool of by Chirac and Schroeder for going along with this farce (as usual).
If Tony's on board with President Bush and really meant what he said the other day about the mortal danger of rogue régimes combined with WMDs, then he needs to confront the Iranians about this perfidy along with us!
If left alone, Iran will have nuclear-tipped missiles that can reach Europe by the end of this decade, if not sooner!
So it's going to be time for Tony to pee or get off the WOT pot, as it were.
Ditto for Mohammed El-Baradei, who's been running interference for his IslamoNuclear pals, the mullahs!
(The excitement and plain nuttiness of the world is killing me!
Combined with the insane hate and relentless lies and psychotic rage from the Dimocrat Left here at home, I'll probably croak from the stress long before this November!)