On Tuesday, 18 October 2005 Report, BBC said "Iraq's independent electoral commission says statistical irregularities in last week's referendum could indicate fraud.". ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4351680.stm )

It has been a cause of concern, especially in countries other than the US that US will interfere (if not already) with the vote to install a system of their preference. Also, that the Sunnis, Kurds or Shia will try to influence the vote. Many Europeans and Middle Easterns fear that these irregularities are result of outside interference and that the involved parties will try to silence these.

Now;

- Do you think that the US or any other interested party is trying to interfere with the vote?

- Even if they tried to interfere, would they be successful?

- What precautions should have been taken to prevent such interference.

- Are the result truly "democratic"?

- Do you believe that there can be "democratic" elections when foreign soldiers occupy every corner?

Most of the questions are beyond my ability to answer, but as for this one-

"Are the result truly 'democratic'?"

my only reservation about the "democracy" angle is the way in which the Iraqi people have been constantly hassled into voting for this thing. Basically, the position of the U.S. and others is that they way the Iraqis are supposed to prove that "democracy works" is by voting for the proposed constitution. Does anyone else see the oxymoronic reasoning here? Personally, I think I'd have more respect for the Iraqis' commitment to democracy if they voted against it, just as a way of flipping off everyone who's telling them how they're "supposed" to vote.

And as for this one-

"Do you believe that there can be 'democratic' elections when foreign soldiers occupy every corner?"

I'm a little puzzled by your question. What do you think the soldiers are doing that would obstruct the democratic process? Have they been harassing proponents or opponents of the constitution? Have they been intimidating people who show up to vote? Certainly they can't be intimidating people to vote one way or the other, since it's a secret ballot. So what exactly are you implying with this question?

2. Even if they tried to interfere, would they be successful?
They might be "successful" in swinging the election one way or another, but in the end, I don't think it matters. The constitution passing at this point is really a matter of pride and an "accomplishment" for the Bush Administration. In reality though, the major issues that the Constitution was supposed to address, never were. Those issues are now to be amendments to be voted on a year from now...plenty of time of the US to jump ship right before the fire starts heating up over the real issues.


Do you believe that there can be "democratic" elections when foreign soldiers occupy every corner?

Nope. The Hague Convention of 1907, to which the U.S. is a signatory, prohibits the occupying power from creating any permanent changes in the government of the occupied territory. It doesn't matter how many people turn out.

Do you think that the US or any other interested party is trying to interfere with the vote?
I’m unable to make a determination either way at this point but it is curious that Operation River Gate blew up 8 of the 12 bridges over the Euphrates river that crosses from Syria to Iraq before the referendum vote. According to Bush there are “more than 100 battalions are operating throughout Iraq.” We couldn’t man 12 bridges? And isn’t blowing up infrastructure a defensive tactic? Soldiers died keeping the Wehrmacht engineers from destroying bridges in 1944 – 1945. The bridge destroyers surrendered in 1945.

Anyway, with a large Sunni Arab population in western Iraq this operation can be seen as serendipitously disrupting the election’s outcome.

What precautions should have been taken to prevent such interference.
In the context of Iraq this question deserves its own thread.

Do you believe that there can be "democratic" elections when foreign soldiers occupy every corner?
Bush doesn’t:


In reference to Syria and Lebanon.

1. Do you think that the US or any other interested party is trying to interfere with the vote?

I think the US intervened with the vote count in January to prevent the Shiia religious parties from gaining a 2/3rds majority and to boost the vote of the Alawi faction. I don't think it likely that the US interfered with this election but others did. See Time Online Article.



2. Even if they tried to interfere, would they be successful?

It all depends on your definition of success. I think the US got away with its counting shenanigans in January. The Kurds and Shiia boosted the Yes vote this time around but only at the expense of farther embittering the Sunni population.

3. What precautions should have been taken to prevent such interference.

I doubt that there is any effective preventative measure given the security situation and the control that the militias exert in the Kurdish and Shiia areas.

4. Are the results truly "democratic"?

Of course they aren't, but who really believes the US is looking for a true democracy? A democratic government would be dominated by the religious Shiia which would likely reject the "free market" regulations imposed by Bremmer and be closely allied with Iran.

5. Do you believe that there can be "democratic" elections when foreign soldiers occupy every corner?

It depends on the motives of the occupying power. In the case of Iraq, it is highly unlikely that anything approximating a "democratic" election could take place without the supervision of a fair minded outside party. Since there isn't such a party, we will continue to see election manipulation by both the Iraqis and the occupying power.

I made this a signature a while back because I find the following information almost always necessary in Iraq threads.

I changed it for a more amusing witticism but I'll repeat it hear for everyone's information.

The US is not occupying Iraq. That terms refers to a specific military/political dynamic which is simply not present in Iraq.

Now, to the questions.
Do you think that the US or any other interested party is trying to interfere with the vote?
I'm not sure. I sincerely doubt the US did as it if far too obvious a ploy and pointless as they have nothing to gain by it.

Perhaps other parties, we shall see in the investigation, it may simply be that the recruiting power of the Shiite and Kurdish leaders is just that strong.

3. What precautions should have been taken to prevent such interference.
The elections are backed by the UN and monitored by international monitors. That's about the best we can do through government, I think it's actually pretty good and monitors have generally said the elections have been free and fair.

Are the results truly "democratic"?
If they are accurate, then they are the very definition of democratic, the expressed opinion of the people of Iraq.

5. Do you believe that there can be "democratic" elections when foreign soldiers occupy every corner?
Two problems.

1. The US is not occupying Iraq.

2 Most Iraqi have never even come into contact a US soldier according to polls. This is a country of millions, there really aren't enough US troops to stand on a tenth of the corners.

..as for an answer, yes.

As long as the military doesn't not interfere elections can be democratic despite their presence.

Would you be able to provide a link to those documents? I'd be interested to see on what basis this was decided and the wording of the resolution.

No chance of me remembering the Resolution of the top of my head. I've just been reminded today of what a horrid memory I have

Fortunately, the Internet never forgets.

The "Coalition of the Willing" was first recognized an "Occupying Power" in Iraq in UNSC Resolution 1472(PDF)(March2003)
At that time the Coalition Provisional Authority was the legally recognized government of Iraq.

Occupation refers to military government and since the CPA head reported directly to Sec of Defense Rumsfeld, that's precisely what it was.


All of that changed in June 2004 with the formation of the Iraqi Interim Government which was a body separate from any control of the US or other foreign power.

UNSC Resolution 1546(PDF) clearly and unambiguously refers to its formation as "the end of the occupation"

Simple as that.

Thanks. I withdrawal my comment about the Hauge convention above.

But I still stand by the first paragraph

Forgive me if I am being a cynic but I give little importance to UN Resolutions. (I belive that UN is simply a bureaucratic organization with no executive power) How can one claim that the occupation has ended when the troops actually stayed in the same place? Yes, "officially" it has ended but that does not eliminate the physical reality that the "coalition" (Mainly US) has a huge armed force stationed there with the capability to filter, edit and control the flow of information in and out of the country.

Also there is something of note in the UN resolution: "10. Decides that the multinational force shall have the authority to take all necessary measures to contribute to the maintenance of security and stability in Iraq..."

By the way, wasn't the Iraqi Interim Government set up while the US "officially" occupied Iraq. How can it be separate from the US? It is like saying Vichy was free of the Third Reich. (The example is a bit unjust but I included it to emphasize the fact that you can't bee free from the foreign force that placed you in power)

Under these conditions, I fail to see how the elections can be democratic.

Firstly, I think you heavily exaggerate the coalition's ability to control the flow of information. They can't really even control the flow of insurgents.

Travel to and from Iraq happens by Air, Land and, Sea daily and is regulated by mostly by the Iraqi Armed Forces, not the US.

Secondly the term occupation does not merely mean the presence of foreign troops. It referes specifically to a foreign military government over a country.

The CPA was a military government in it's time. The government of Iraq is now a civilian one elected domestically.

Hence no occupation.

Call it what you will, but it is simply not accurate to refer to it as such.


The CPA transferred power to the Iraqi Interim Government and then ceased to exist. Paul Bremer and his staff packed up and went home.

The UN notes that marked the end of the occupation.

By necessity the IIG was chosen while the CPA still existed but it was an independent body not under US military control, period.

..and none of this makes any difference to whether the elections were democratic.

Democratic means they respond to the will of the people and that exactly what these elections did.

Iraqis picked the leaders they wanted, they ratified the constitution they wanted, that's democracy.

In a narrow legalistic sense you are correct; however, the ordinary or dictionary definition of occupation is "the control of a country by military forces of a foreign power." The US continues to exercise this kind of control in Iraq. By your definition the West Bank is not occupied by Israel since a Palestinian authority exists. So long as the US military can operate at will without sanction of Iraqi law, I will continue to refer to the situation in Iraq as an occupation.

I'm am correct in the only true sense of the word.

Your analogy to the Palestinian Authority is simply not true. The Palestinian Authority is not a sovereign government. It is a temporary organization set up under the Oslo Accords.

Palestinian National Authority
It has some trappings of a government, but does not rule Gaza or the West Bank. It has only observer status in the UN as it does not represent a nation.

All of this is the opposite of the Iraqi government.

The coalition forces in Iraqi act only with the sanction of the Iraqi government.

Again many people choose to call it occupation.

Many people are simply incorrect.

And the Iraqi government exists only because the US military ensures it does...


It must be nice to have such a didactic perspective that allows you to arbitrarily decide that so many people are simply incorrect when in fact your own position is no more solid than any one else's.

A difference in perspective is not simply decided by one side claiming it is correct because it is supported by a UN resolution. For you, and the US government, the presence of the US military in Iraq may not be seen as an occupation, but for the majority of people on the planet, the USA is indeed occupying Iraq.

It doesn't matter how many UN resolutions are passed or how often you chant the party line, having 150,000 foreign troops in a country constitutes an occupation when those troops are the only thing standing between the government and civil war.

Whether or not the US military extends the courtesy of waiting for the Iraqi politicians to ask it to intervene before it does, makes no difference either when those same politicians are only in power because the US military ensures they are.

The day the US military is no longer required and asked to leave, then we can start talking about the occupation ending. As things stand in the world today however, the USA maintains its grip for a very very long time as can be seen by the continued US military presence in every single nation the US has ever liberated.

Whilst to you, snug in the nation at the heart of the 'Evil Empire', having never seen foreign military personnel striding about your nation as if they owned the place, then perhaps the legal definition is a real one.

But for other people, proud of their nation and unwilling to be controlled from a foreign capital, the presence of US soldiers, however many treaty's and agreements have been signed by cunning domestic politicians to put them there, is a clear indication that their nation is not free of the influence of Washington.

...and talk of democracy, freedom, the global community, the international market, &tc all ring hollow when every single soft drink in the cornershop bears a US label and every single film in the cinema (even the domestic ones) were made by an American company.

Occupation is a reality in more ways than you can imagine and your insistence that other people are 'incorrect' only goes to show how little you really understand as to how other people perceive the United States of America.




editted to fix quotes

This is true and why I asked for the UN Resolutions. West Bank and yes, even Gaza are still under occupation based on the idea of "control of a country by military forces of a foreign power." The UN knows this and they haven't claimed that Palestine isn't under occupation. Therefore, I would've expected them to apply this same definition to Iraq. Which, based on the Resolutions Turnea produced, shows they did not.

Well, not to be a stickler—alright, I am being a stickler—but this isn’t true thanks to a conflicting U.N. resolution that doesn’t restrict coalition military forces/operations to act or not act with the government’s approval. With insurgents infiltrating Iraq security forces I’m not sure U.S./British troops would respect Iraq’s laws even if the resolution didn’t exist for fear of our soldiers being executed once they’re turned over to the government.

We won’t enter negotiations with Iraq on a Status of Forces Agreement until a permanent government is found. The agreement outlines conditions for releasing accused U.S. military personnel to the host nation for trial. A SOFA was rumored to be in the works for 2005. With the last minute attempt to bring Sunnis on board with the addendum that this constitution is temporary we may not have an Iraq SOFA until 2006.


Given the above do you still characterize the Iraq Transitional Government as autonomous and sovereign?

I think you're splitting hairs here.

Do American troops obtain visas to enter Iraq, or do they come and go on orders from the American government? Are all missions in Iraq by US troops done only with the prior approval of the Iraqi government? How many US troops are in Iraq? Are you saying they all have tourist visas? That they were invited there to attend a conference?

So we're not occupying Iraq... what exactly are we doing? Do we need to invent a new word? We're not occupying Iraq, we're spleboodling Iraq!

There are strong indications that the January elections were fraudulent, and that we had a hand in it.

I think it is very possible we will do this again. I am not going to say that the war was about oil, but the economics of oil play a big part in the future of Iraq. Not only does the US want Iraq to be the beginning of 'democracy' in the Middle East, but you can be certain that it is equally important that their country join that peculiar institution of international neoliberalist trade, which might be read as "privatize everything, open your arms to capital flight, and please oh please serve at the whim of the multinational corporations."

On the other hand, if the "wrong" interests come into power in Iraq through the election, we may use it as a way to claim "victory" and withdraw. You can be sure that there are plenty of smart marketing people in the administration who know that whatever happens in Iraq after we leave, most Americans will forget about it in the next news cycle. Being able to claim victory and leave would likely provide a bump for Bush in the polls at home, which might help deflect attention away from the rapidly unraveling domestic problems so many administration officials are having. Cynical? Of course. But I would bet a lot of money there are many people working for the White House who are thinking about this.

Aside from studying myself I do spend much of my time tutoring so perhaps it is reflected is my posts. Any who teaches must be direct about what in known and unknown. A didactic perspective is invaluable when explaining the difference between truth and falsehood as I intend to do here...

..and that would be totally irrelevant.

The truth of the situation is not subject to a global opinion poll. If the world got up and declared whales to be fishes I would laugh, shake my head, and continue to tell the truth.

Whales are mammals, period.


That's not what the word occupation means, and not measure of anger with US policy will change the meaning of the term one letter.

Here lies the problem with this particular I will elucidate later.

You see, I'm not the only one. I thank you for your accurate and topical response.

That's an excellent point but I'll have to agree with the Security Council on this one.

Firstly the resolution you state give US forces this immunity is not a "conflicting resolution".

Ironically it is the same resolution that declared the end to the occupation and the sovereignty of the Interim Iraqi government.

Let's take a look at what UNSCR 1546 actually says.

The annexed letter in question is a letter from then Iraqi PM-elect Iyad Allawi.
The resolution says absolutely nothing about immunity, the word does not appear in the document one time.

As for the SOFA, a State of Force agreement technically takes away from the local governments power (albeit with their permission).

In the absence of that agreement all US forces in Iraq are legally under Iraqi jurisdiction.

I agree that in practice this is not so but I argue that the Iraqi government has thus far allowed to US to proceed policing i's own troops (as it does under all of its full SOFA agreements anyway).

Despite occasional disagreements, the arrangements are working.

I dislike the lack of a written agreement as well, but that does not take away from the sovereignty of Iraq.

It sows confusion, which is its own problem, hopefully to be solved soon.

No

What more is there to say to to such irrelevancies? Visas are not the only form of invitation. Coalition forces have the expressed invitation of the Iraqi government.


We are engaged in combat in Iraqi with the the permission and support of the Iraqi government.

Must all descriptions be congealed into a single word or will a sentence do?

Let's have honesty here, statements like your's above and...

Demonstrate quite clearly that this is not a debate about the simply accuracy of terminology.

There is emotion attached to his word "occupation" and those who insist on its improper use do so for a reason.

Are there now?

Might you elaborate If we are to discuss tampering in current election a pattern of behavior would go a long way as you yourself have indicated.

So, where is this evidence?


That's funny, considering that the constitution some say the US cheated to support legislates that Iraqi oil-production is to be state-owned.

To me this kind of pick and choose which resolutions we're going to follow. I personally would agree that Iraq is still under occupation (Isn't the media still using this term?) but, if the UN is going to pass a resolution saying it's not, well, then in order to allow the UN to have substance, we should follow that. If we choose to ignore the resolution that says it's not under occupation, then trying to attack Bush for going into Iraq against UN Resolutions is hypocritical. Trying to say that Israel should follow through with UN resolution 242 is hypocritical and so on and so forth.

This of course, assume anyone still cares what resolutions the UN passes. It seems most people have gotten to the point of ignoring whatever the UN decides. I still hope that they have meaning and thus follow them whether I agree with them or not.

Turnea, I may not’ve been thinking of the resolutions directly when I said conflict of interest, but it seems to me you’ve highlighted parts of Res. 1546 that stress the right of our forces’ right to be in Iraq without the same regard for the “coordination and consultation” part that would likely negate the justice minister’s critique of illegal arrests and detentions and their assured continuation through U.S. and British vetoes.


SOFAs allow host nations to determine where the foreign military will have a base, but more importantly, it hammers out “jurisdiction associated with military individuals and properties.” Typically the military retains the exclusive right to try servicemembers that commit crimes against other service members. Off the base, committing a felony can, and probably will, mean, trial by the locals. After you serve time and are turned over to the military, the military may try you again for its own reasons.

Without SOFAs peoples in some foreign nations may feel more resentment towards our servicemembers than they already do. You’ll have to try something else if you want to make UNSC Resolutions 1511 and 1546 sound like better deals.


U.S. forces answer to the president. It used to answer to Congress. U.S. forces are in Iraq by the Iraq Transitional Government’s leave. Apart from that MNF’s mission is a partnership. The ITG has no authority over the Coalition other than "beat it."

On a short, related note it looks like officials expected voter fraud from the locals, but I haven't heard of U.S. tampering during and after the Oct. 15 election.

It's true the resolution mentions consultation only briefly (though it is mentioned in the excerpt I posted).

That said this does not at all equate with the ministers claim that the resolution grants the US some type of immunity. Far from it.


Strictly speaking it does not, though this is certainly true in practice.


The Legal Status of Coalition Forces in Iraq After the June 30 Handover

Thus the law actually states that the Iraqi government has more legal power over troops without a SOFA.

Now the rather ad hoc arrangements that govern these cases in Iraq have prevented this, but the Iraqi government has not usually complained.

I agree more substantial arrangements are needed, but the lack of a SOFA does not in any way constitute a lack of sovereignty.


Most of the established media is avoiding it and those who continue to use it tip their ideological hand.

Well, it looks like yet again claims of US vote tampering have failed to pan out.

Iraq voters back new constitution

..at what point does the theory of the US setting up a puppet government through false elections need to come up with some actual evidence to remain plausible in the eyes of the world?