Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: calgal who wrote (540723)	2/15/2004 5:19:41 PM
From: calgal	Respond to of 769667

TRANSFERRING SOVEREIGNTY Democracy Delayed Is Democracy Denied The sooner elections are held in Iraq the fewer American lives will be lost. BY HUSSAIN AL-SHAHRISTANI Thursday, February 12, 2004 12:01 a.m. EST A U.N. electoral fact-finding team has arrived in Iraq to discuss with local leaders and the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) the possibility of holding elections. Iraqis expect the U.N. experts to give advice on the best way to organize elections through which they choose the people they can trust to rule them. Since the fall of the regime, I have led numerous humanitarian and developmental projects in different regions of Iraq. Village elders, community leaders and professionals tell me of their dreams for a new Iraq. I am struck by the deep-rooted concern and fear felt by these people that the occupying forces will impose a new dictatorship on them that may cost them further hundreds of thousands of lives. Fair and free elections, they insist, are their only guarantee of living as free people. It was this very pulse of the nation that the Grand Ayatollah Al-Sistani touched when he first advised the CPA, in June 2003, to prepare for elections where all Iraqis--irrespective of gender, religion, sect or ethnicity--could vote to elect their representatives to a national assembly. Ever since, he has continuously reminded the U.S. that it occupied Iraq to bring democracy, which means free elections, and that it must deliver on that promise. Iraqis are told by the CPA that the reasons for delaying elections are the absence of voter registration lists and the security situation. However, in mid-2003 the Iraqi Central Bureau of Statistics, the body responsible for preparing voter lists, issued a report concluding that it could prepare lists and arrange for elections before the end of 2003. The CPA and the Transitional Governing Council chose to ignore this report, and together signed an agreement that would allow them to handpick transitional assembly members through a complex caucus process. The Nov. 15 agreement gave no role to the U.N., and set a timetable for a handover of sovereignty to these handpicked Iraqis by June 30, 2004. Having recognized that this process violates the fundamental principle of a fair election--one person, one vote--Ayatollah Al-Sistani issued an edict, "[T]he mechanism in place to choose members of the Transitional Legislative Assembly does not guarantee true representation of the Iraqi people. Therefore this mechanism must be replaced with one that guarantees the aforesaid, which is elections." On the Ayatollah's insistence, the U.N. was invited to send a mission to study how it can help prepare for such elections and to assist in the transition of sovereignty to a legitimate Iraqi authority. This is an extremely important opportunity for the U.N. to exercise its mandate to maintain peace and security in this volatile part of the world, and to uphold the right of nations to self-determination. The current impasse is far more than a showdown between Iraq's most influential leader and the CPA. It raises the disturbing question of whether Washington truly understands the Iraqi reality. National identity and self-determination are strong forces in Iraq. Instead of dismissing them, the U.S. ought to work with the U.N. to start preparation for a national election under U.N. auspices. CPA head L. Paul Bremer might be right that there is not enough time now to organize elections by June 2004; but surely preparations could have been made over the last nine months--if, indeed, an election was ever a U.S. priority. He also points out that security conditions are not conducive to elections; yet clearly, impeding the legitimate demand for direct and fair elections would further aggravate ethnic and sectarian tensions. The U.S. administration should not force its agenda onto the Iraqi people, based on a U.S. election timetable. The aim should be the creation of a new Iraqi government that has legitimacy in the eyes of its own citizens, so that in the years ahead, a stable, democratic and peaceful Iraq will emerge as a responsible member of the world community. If America is genuinely committed to democracy in the Middle East, then it should avoid handpicking rulers for Iraq. Only a very short-sighted policy would orchestrate a process that leaves behind a government that may be friendly, but will not endure. Without a constitutional process, Iraqis cannot be assured that their basic human and political rights are respected. Failing to engage the people in the political process will further destabilize the country and provide fertile grounds for the remnants of Saddam Hussain's security apparatus to recruit zealots to carry out terrorist acts. Iraqis--Arabs, Kurds and Turkmen; Muslims and Christians; Sunnis and Shias--have lived together for centuries, and can continue to do so. With its rich cultural heritage, gifted people and natural resources, Iraq can be built into a prosperous, progressive and democratic country. It can be both a model and a locomotive for social and political change in the Middle East. To play this role and make a contribution to stability in this region, Iraqis should be encouraged to move to democracy as soon as they desire. Al-Sistani is perhaps the only person who can realize both the dreams of the majority of Iraqis, and the declared goal of the U.S.: to create a stable democracy that could potentially transform the Middle East. The U.S. should value the role the Grand Ayatollah is taking to lead the Iraqi people away from militancy and toward the international system of democracy. If Washington plays it right, this path that Al-Sistani spearheaded in Iraq could prove to be the most significant victory in a war on terrorism. Let us hope--and pray--that Washington has the wisdom to seize it. The most practical way to help Iraq now is to allow the U.N. to work with representatives of all constituents of the Iraqi society to develop a formula for early direct elections--an achievable task. Elections will be held in Iraq, sooner or later. The sooner they are held, and a truly democratic Iraq is established, the fewer Iraqi and American lives will be lost. Mr. Al-Shahristani is chairman of the standing committee of the Iraqi National Academy of Science. He was held in solitary confinement for 10 years under Saddam Hussein.

To: calgal who wrote (540723)	2/15/2004 5:20:04 PM
From: calgal	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Democratic dreams By Tod Lindberg RIGA, Latvia. — Undeniably, the project of building liberal democracy in Central and Eastern Europe since the end of the Cold War has been a resounding success. But the purpose of this international gathering in Latvia's capital last week, which drew a high-powered congressional delegation led by Sen. John McCain, was not to celebrate success but to draw attention to one conspicuous failure: Europe's last dictator, Alexander Lukashenko of Belarus. Belarus, a former Soviet republic of 10 million people bordering North Atlantic Treaty Organization members Poland, Lithuania and Latvia, has since independence largely remained the domain of its former communist leaders. Mr. Lukashenko became president 10 years ago and moved swiftly to consolidate his hold on the country, closing newspapers, jailing opposition figures, granting broad powers to his intelligence service (the BKGB) and arranging for his 2001 re-election by means neither free nor fair. His ambition went so far as imagining himself the supreme leader of a reunified Russia-Belarus, a prospect that, fortunately, now looks remote — for reasons having nothing to do with any newfound moderation on Mr. Lukashenko's part. Meanwhile, he has driven Belarus' economy straight down, a fact especially noteworthy by contrast with the success of Belarus' Baltic neighbors, which began the post-Soviet period with no great special advantages over their neighbor. Mr. Lukashenko's methods are brutal. Last year, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe authorized an investigation into the disappearances of several prominent Belarus opposition figures. The rapporteur's report, released in late January, pointed straight to the top: "In view of the seriousness of the facts established so far and the grave suspicions arising from these facts against senior government officials, and even President Lukashenko himself, I consider it necessary to send a strong signal to the Belarusian regime." Parliamentary elections in Belarus are scheduled for October. Once again, there is no reasontoexpectMr. Lukashenko to organize anything but a sham. This time, however, it looks like he may face a challenge he really hasn't had to contend with before: a united opposition. The quarreling among opposition factions made it easier for Mr. Lukashenko to contend that they were responsible for their own defeat, notwithstanding his cheating. At the Riga conference titled "The Future of Democracy Beyond the Baltics," leading opposition figures came forth to tell their stories and to pledge their willingness to work together. Some of them are in Washington this week to bolster the message. The most urgent task is to draw up a single list of opposition candidates for the parliamentary elections. More broadly, the opposition must develop a reform agenda that will appeal to voters who have been relentlessly propagandized by the Lukashenko government and fear the loss of the meager pensions and wages they currently receive. There is little doubt but that Mr. Lukashenko will do whatever he must in order for his followers to "win" the parliamentary elections. The key point is that with a united opposition, he will have to be much more blatant in doing so, and this in turn will expose him to local and international pressure. On the latter score, the nations of northern Europe, especially, have committed themselves to working together to keep the pressure on Mr. Lukashenko. The European Union, cognizant of the danger that will be on its own border once the European Union expands to Poland and the Baltics in May, is also likely to increase its visibility on Belarus. Another consideration, and no small one, is that the United States and Europe are in fundamental accord on Belarus, which positions them to present a united front of pressure against Mr. Lukashenko. With hard work and good luck, the pressure will be too much going forward for Mr. Lukashenko to grant himself a third term in the presidential election scheduled for 2006. And that in turn will put to rest any notion that he is developing a useful model for others to follow in maintaining their hold on power through repressive measures. Especially moving in Riga wasaspeechbyIrina Krasovskaya, whose husband, a prominent businessman who helped fund the democratic opposition, disappeared along with another opposition leader in September 1999. They are presumed dead, and their cases were among the ones examined by the Parliamentary Assembly rapporteur. Mrs. Krasovskaya, is considered by one prominent member of the delegation as a potential Corazon Aquino, the widow-by-assassination around whom Filipinos united to pressure Ferdinand Marcos out of office in 1986. As she noted, the path to the end of Mr. Lukashenko's tyranny and success for democracy in Belarus calls for "the United States and Europe behind us and a united opposition in front of us." That's a challenge, but a manageable one. It's certainly one worth rising to not only for the sake of Belarus, but also to banish dictatorship in Europe once and for all.