You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Afghanistan
Joe Farah - WND - Doesn’t Like Afghanistan’s Draft Constitution
2003-11-17
Those who were hopeful the new Afghan government would be open, pluralistic and tolerant of other religions, extending rights to women and minority religions will be disappointed by the first draft of the constitution. It is a blueprint for a repressive state, what the U.S. Commission for International Religious Freedom calls "Taliban-lite."
We've rolled our eyes over it here, too. But, as I've said over and over again, it's their country. They're free to screw it up any way they want. Just don't expect us to pay for it. There's a reason the Afghans bitch about short-changed on all the money they need to rebuild their country.
While international press reports have focused on the mechanics of the government, the structure of a bicameral legislature with no prime minister, it also states clearly and ominously that "no law can be contrary to the sacred religion of Islam."
Pakistan nearly collapsed after Zia’s constitution required conformity of law to the "injunctions of Islam."
Contrary to reports in major news sources that the constitution makes no mention of shariah, the legal code based on the Quran, Article 130 says that, in the absence of an explicit statute or constitutional limit, the Supreme Court should decide "in accord with Hanafi jurisprudence" – one of the four main Sunni schools of sharia.
"In accord with Hanafi jurisprudence" means: sharia.
Supreme Court justices will be required to have higher education "in law or Islamic jurisprudence" and, like the president and Cabinet members, must take an oath to "support justice and righteousness in accord with the provisions of the sacred religion of Islam." The draft outlaws any political party "contrary to the principles of the sacred religion of Islam."
Is that what we got for all those smart-bombs?
The new constitution says men are still allowed to have four wives.
And the ladies get the same. Not!
That's cultural, not religious. Or maybe a combination of the two.
The Afghan model is not promising for the new Iraqi government. Last week, President Bush called home for consultation his chief Iraqi administrator, Paul Bremer, and told him to speed up Iraqization. Iraq is well behind Afghanistan in drafting a constitution – a process that took two years in Kabul.
On the other hand, we've learned from the mistakes we made in Afghanistan. There's no Iraqi Karzai, and there's no Iraqi Loya Jirga.
Iraq has other problems. There is no Hamid Karzai.
I just said that. It's a feature, not a bug.
No leader has emerged who can bring together even a modest coalition of the diverse groups within the stratified nation held together for a generation by the brute force of Saddam Hussein.
Also a feature...
So slow is the progress in Iraq, in fact, there is talk in Washington about replacing Bremer. Iraqis have been unable to agree even on how to choose delegates to draft a constitution despite a Dec. 15 deadline to submit a timetable to the U.N. Security Council. As insurgents step up attacks on coalition forces, pressure is mounting to find some way to speed the transfer of power to the Iraqis. That suits many Iraqi leaders just fine. Council member Ahmed Chalabi has been insisting for months that the Americans hand over power quickly and give the Iraqis an expanded role in fighting the insurgents.
That's been a pretty fine balancing act from the start...
"What is needed now is that Iraqis should take more and more charge of the security situation," Chalabi told BBC radio Thursday. "There is a vigorous, committed and able and experienced political leadership in Iraq now in the presidency of the Governing Council who can take charge of this situation and produce results very quickly." However, Chalabi has close ties to the Pentagon but lacks broad support, even among fellow Shiites, in part because of his wheeler-dealer reputation. Selling Karzai to the Afghans as a national leader was simpler. A hereditary tribal chief, the urbane, multilingual Karzai enjoyed a reputation for integrity and was a member of Afghanistan’s largest ethnic community, the Pashtuns. The United States preferred a Pashtun leader to win support from an ethnic group that formed the core of the Taliban.
Karzai worked for a US oil company, with Republican Party connections. Not exactly a man of the Afghanistan people.
Had it been me, I'd have taken the Northern Alliance government and reinstated it, with added Pashtun components. My way probably would have turned out slightly worse than what they actually did. Had it been me, I'd probably have had an "interim government" in my back pocket when we went into Iraq, ready to take office as soon as Sammy was gone. My way probably would have turned out significantly worse than what they actually did.
Karzai was acceptable to the country’s second-largest group, the Tajiks, because they were given control of most levers of power, including the army. Karzai has struggled to extend his authority outside the Afghan capital because, though he has Western backing and a presidential title, his rivals have the guns.
What’s in this for me?
Posted by:Anonon

#6  Easy on Joe Farah. He is one of the most decent persons I have ever spoken to. I endorse the "Northern Alliance Solution," retroactively, as little as that is worth. It would have meant a scorched earth policy in the Pashtun areas, but it beats permanent war. Actual war conduct - smart-bomb intimidation, and negotiated armistices - was in large part, a status quo ante. Taliban/al-Qaedism underlies existing Pashtun social-political culture. The Northern Alliance should have been given a free hand in liquidating these elements. A future civil war is inevitable.

Also, Wilsonian' "self-determination" was not inclusive of aggressive and racist ideological movements. I respect the shura choice of Taliban Afghanis, about as much as I support the democratic choice of the citizens of the Weimar Republic who voted for Hitler in large enough numbers to eventually allow Nazi government. Again, the choice is for OUR security, even if it means suppressing THEIR freedom.
Posted by: Anonon   2003-11-17 4:05:44 PM  

#5  I know, I know the Afghan constitution is bad, however don't judge it in US terms: this is not the US where people swear to defend the Constitution all of its ennemies, this is one of those countries where the Constitution is designed to be sit upon (that is why they tend to be 300 pages thick). Stalin's Soviet Union had an incredibly liberal constitution. On the opposite side Franco had saddled King Juan Carlos with a Constitution who didn't allow him to restore democracy, Juan Carlos swore fidelity to Franco's constitution... and had it undone in less than three years.


All it takes to unmade this constitution is a liberal ruler, or more exactly a liberal ruler and enough guns and money.

Posted by: JFM   2003-11-17 2:40:04 PM  

#4  I used to read WND fairly regularly, and usually agreed with most of what was said there. However, in the last two years, many of the comentators that contribute regularly there, including Farah, Buchanan, and others, have moved FAAAARRRRR Right - way beyond my inclusion zone. I still visit, I just pass everything I read through a bullshit filter before allowing it to penetrate.
Posted by: Old Patriot   2003-11-17 2:17:28 PM  

#3   "in the absence of an explicit statute or constitutional limit, the Supreme Court should decide "in accord with Hanafi jurisprudence" – one of the four main Sunni schools of sharia."

key words - in the absence of an explicit statute" IOW theyre treating it as common law, the basis for judicial decisions when NOT overridden by explicit statute. Presumably explicit statute and constitutional limit will stop the objectionable aspects of sharia - whats left may be relatively innocous questions of civil procedure, etc. I know traditional jewish law is filled with such things, i presume muslim law is as well. Also note that theyre selection Hanafi jurisdiction - IIRC its the Hanbali school that is the one associated with Wahabis and other hardliners. Hanafi is more moderate.

I got to agree with B. We didnt go into Afghan to establish a secular liberal democracy - afghan is MUCH farther from the social conditions for that than Iraq. We went in to crush AQ - and while we're there to make things better than they were before we went in - which I believe we've done.
Posted by: liberalhawk   2003-11-17 9:47:01 AM  

#2  Well, anon...since we didn't get a perfect world...we should have just left the Taliban in place. Right? Boy were we stupid. Oh sure, we CRUSHED AQ, but instead of occupying their country, we gave them back the reigns of power to self-determine their governement based on their own culture and beliefs. Such a failure has never been seen.
Posted by: B   2003-11-17 9:30:51 AM  

#1  I was initially surprized by the ability of anti human rights Islam to hand on in a country oppressed by the Taliban. But, as explained in this article

http://www.faithfreedom.org/Articles/ohmyrus30816.htm

human rights and Islam are essentially incompatible concepts
Posted by: mhw   2003-11-17 8:07:38 AM  

00:00