January Elections in Iraq?

bettiwettiwoo writes "Last week Kofi Annan claimed, in a BBC interview, that: 'You cannot have credible elections [in Iraq] if the security conditions continue as they are now.' Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi disagreed ('pointedly disagreed', according to the International Herald Tribune):'We definitely are going to stick to the timetable of elections in January ... Democracy is going to prevail and is going to win in Iraq.' According to Tony Blair: 'The people who are trying to stop that Iraq coming about, who are engaged in killing, maiming and acts of terrorism, are people who are opposed... to every single one of the values that we in countries like this hold dear.' Iraq the Model points to an IRI poll which states: 'In a stunning display of support for democracy and a strong rebuttal to critics of efforts to bring democratic reform to Iraq, 87% of Iraqis indicated that they plan to vote in January elections. Expanding on the theme, 77% said that "regular, fair elections" were the most important political right for the Iraqi people and 58% felt that Iraqi-style democracy was likely to succeed.' It would appear that the poll was undertaken sometime in July/August this year, but if such a large majority of the Iraqi population continues to favour elections, would it really be fair to the Iraqis to postpone the January elections whatever the security situation and whomever might be against them?"

Comments

Re:IRI

[Lars T.]

For further reading, it seems that a portion of UNSCAM money may have gone to Osama after all. (Thanks U.N., you're doing a bang-up job!)

Uh-oh, a FOXLies link. And it doesn't take long:

And the Sept. 11 Commission has shown a tracery of contacts between Saddam and Al Qaeda

Together with

Investigations have shown that the former Iraqi dictator grafted and smuggled more than $10 billion from the [United Nations Oil-for-Food] program

this "proves" that the UN financed Al Qaeda.

It doesn't say "democratic" elections...

[Lars T.]

"THIS IDEA OF A FUNCTIONING DEMOCRACY HERE IS CRAZY" (quoting a senior U.S. diplomat in Baghdad), which also points back to this piece about the IRI poll.

The second and more immediate problem is that Iraqis know they want immediate elections, but they have no idea what they'll be voting for. Only 35 percent were able to say that the elections are supposed to be held in January. Nearly as many didn't know; about 30 percent gave the wrong answer. [...]Nor do they know what's at stake at the election. The overwhelming majority, 74.6 percent, incorrectly believe they'll be voting for "President of Iraq." Not even nine percent correctly responded that they'll be voting for a Transitional National Assembly.

Re:Learn to say it. quagmire

[Guppy06]

"the democratically appointed Kofi Annan"

"Democratically?"

Let's see... the People's Republic of China gets as many votes as the Federated States of Micronesia (namely, one), so it's not democratic in the popular sense (double entendre!)

"Democratic" can be more broadly defined as being selected by a mechanism through which the people at large have ultimate control. The US ambassador to the UN is selected by a democratically-elected president and approved by a democratically-elected Senate, so it can be said that the American people have ultimate (though indirect) control of the US vote in the UN, and from what I gather the situation in Ireland and the rest of the "Western" world is fairly similar. However, the people in many UN member states in Asia and Africa (to name a few) have no influence in their government or their government's choice of UN ambassadors short of armed rebellion, so Annan's position cannot be easily called "democratic" even in that broader definition.

The UN is not a democracy, it is an oligarchy. Just because a slim minority in that oligarchy are chosen by a democratic process doesn't make the body as a whole democratic. In that sense, Annan and Allawi came into their jobs in exactly the same way, they were just chosen by different people (some of whom you apparently don't agree with).

Require member states to have a verifiably democratic government (much like what is required of US member states), and maybe toss in a "lower house" to the General Assembly that are elected by direct popular vote, and then we can start talking about "UN democracy."

"If you think I'm talking waffle then google 'canary wharf IRA' and compare that with last weekends round of talks where sworn enemies are now sitting around a table to talk."

Diplomacy only works when both sides are rational and the parties at the table actually care about what happens to the people they claim to represent.

Reagan bought the hostages several more months.

[Doc Ruby]

The hostages were kept by the Iranians (still in power, building nukes these days) in exchange for promises of support by the Reagan campaign, negotiated by campaign director William Casey, who took over as CIA director after the election. The Iranians needed that support, as Carter cut off their American banking, necessary to resupply the American technology military they siezed. Once Reagan was in charge, the CIA started secretly, illegally, treasonously supplying the Iranians with parts, in exchange for money to fund their secret, illegal, gunrunning to massacre thousands of Central American people. That's why it was called "Iran/Contra", and it's documented all over the place, perhaps most compellingly as part of Veil, Bob Woodward's story of Casey's career.

Re:Absolutely unrealistic

[Korpo]

Iraq is not as safe as, say, downtown Singapore, but it's a whole lot safer than downtown Washington D.C. or Mexico City.

This shows what a cynic you are. I don't hear of regular autobomb explosions, and jets bombing urban centers in both that cities. You are an apologist.

For the free media: There are newspapers, but most of them are organs of policy of a political force (see here, in German ).

People signing up for police and army have deserted on a lot of various occasions. A need for jobs triggered by mass poverty should not be equated to actual support.

Iraq's economy stronger? If you take away business going from US government that goes into the hands of US corporations and similar stuff, I guess that drops a lot. There are billions moved, but to no benefit of the Iraqis. How many of the rest of the economy is subsidized and not actually sustainable on its own?

The interim government is targetted because it is viewed as a US puppet regime. So every strike against the puppet regime is hoped to get "good PR", because the populace in general resents the Americans and their allies.

Oh yeah, and there is actually little or no progress in rebuilding Iraq: here, a study .