New Iraqi Law on Baath Worries Ex-Baathists
So the big political news today is that the Iraqi parliament on Saturday finally passed a revision of the "De-baathification" law issued by US viceroy Paul "Jerry" Bremer in May of 2003. That law got tens of thousands of Sunni Arabs fired from their government jobs and excluded from public life and helped kick off the Sunni-Shiite civil war we having been living through for the past few years.
The passage of the new law will be hailed by the War party as a major achievement. But as usual they will misread what really happened.
If the new law was good for ex-Baathists, then the ex-Baathists in parliament will have voted for it and praised it, right? And likely the Sadrists (hard line anti-Baath Shiites) and Kurds would be a little upset.
Instead, parliament's version of this law was spearheaded by Sadrists, and the ex-Baathists in parliament criticized it.
Somehow that little drawback suggests to me that the law is not actually, as written, likely to be good for sectarian reconciliation.
Al-Sharq al-Awsat writes in Arabic that the parliamentarians who criticized the law were drawn from the National Dialogue Council led by ex-Baathist Salih Mutlak, from the Iraqi National List of Iyad Allawi (an ex-Baathist), and from two of the three parties that make up the Sunni Arab National Accord Front.
So the parties in parliament that have the strong Baathist legacy did not like the law one little bit. But they are the ones that it was intended to mollify!
Parliament has been unable to get a quorum on several recent occasions, and barely mustered a quorum on Saturday, with 143 members in attendance out of 275. The new law passed with a narrow majority. The vote count was not published anywhere I could find it, but it could have been as low as 72.
Now, when the Iraqi cabinet of PM Nuri al-Maliki initially introduced the draft bill into parliament last November 25, the Sadr Movement deputies rhythmically pounded their desks in protest. The Sadrists have a special and abiding hatred for the Baath Party, which killed both major clergymen that they venerate, Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr (d. 1980) and Muhammad Sadiq al-Sadr (d. 1999). But on Saturday the Sadrists spoke for the new law. Very suspicious.
Al-Sharq al-Awsat says that the current head of the De-Baathification Commission, Falah Hasan Shanshal, is a member of the Sadr Movement. He said, "The law was legislated to punish anyone who committed a crime against the children of the Iraqi people . . . and in tandem, to provide that anyone who had not committed crimes must retire. Those persons may also return to public life, with the exception that some cannot work as bureaucrats in the judicial, ministerial or security bureaucracies, or in the ministries of Foreign Affairs or Finance. He added that "everyone agreed on punishing the Baath Party as a party that committed crimes against the Iraqi people." He expressed the hope that the law would be quickly ratified by the presidential council.
Baha' al-A`raji is a Sadrist and the chairman of the Legislative Committee in parliament. He said that the law in its current form differs essentially from the bill that was sent over from the cabinet. Al-A`raji told al-Sharq al-Awsat that "Some members could not vote for some passages or articles in the current version of the law . . . or could not accept the law in its entirety. But a majority of parliament voted for the law." He added that the law "took into account all the suggestions of the Sadr Movement." The Sadrists had demanded that the De-Baathification Commission not be dissolved, but would accept a change in name for it. They had demanded that the Baath Party remain dissolved, and that the high-ranking members of the party be forbidden to enter the new political life or serve as bureaucrats. The Sadrists had also insisted that any high-ranking Baathists presently employed by the new Iraqi government must be fired!
The headlines are all saying that the law permits Baathists back into public life. It seems actually to demand that they be fired or retired on a pension, and any who are employed are excluded from sensitive ministries.
Al-A'raji was completely unsympathetic to opponents of the law, which he said was now unstoppable.
Members of the Iraqi National Front (Allawi's group), the National Dialogue Front (Mutlak), and two of the three constituent parties of the Iraqi Accord Front (Sunni Arabs), along with some IAF independents, denounced the law in a circulated, signed letter. They said that the law would be "difficult to implement." They indicated that they had not voted for it and do not support it. They called it "unrealistic" because it contains an article forbidding the Baath Party "from returning to power ideologically, administratively, politically or in practice, and under any other name." The law's opponents charged that this language was unconstitutionally vague and could easily be "misused."
What are the ex-Baathists afraid of? Well, they are ex-Baathists in politics. So this objectionable passage seems to make it possible for the Sadrists, e.g., to keep people like Iyad Allawi from ever again enjoying high office. His secular, nationalist Iraqi National party could easily just be branded too close to the original Baath Party and dissolved, and he could be excluded from high office by this new provision.
Meanwhile, Reuters reports political violence on Saturday:
' DHULUIYA - Gunmen killed six people in attacks on two houses, including a former Iraqi army officer and two members of a U.S.-backed neighbourhood patrol in a village near Dhuluiya, 70 km (45 miles) north of Baghdad, police said.
BAGHDAD - U.S. forces arrested 15 gunmen during operations on Friday and Saturday in central and northern Iraq, the U.S. military said.
NEAR BAQUBA - A parked car bomb wounded four people including two soldiers when it struck an Iraqi army patrol in a town east of Baquba, 65 km (40 miles) north of Baghdad, police said.
BAGHDAD - Two roadside bombs exploded in succession, wounding two people in Palestine Street in eastern Baghdad, police said. "


10 Comments:
"They called it "unrealistic" because it contains an article forbidding the Baath Party "from returning to power ideologically, administratively, politically or in practice, and under any other name"
So their end game IS to regain power after all. Its like nazis in 1950 germany saying it is unfair that their party cant come back to power, or the white guys in south africa saying its unfair that apartheid is now outlawed.
Has anyone seen the videos of Saddam sitting cool as ice at the table at various baath conferences and watching emotionless as 'tratiors' are led out of the hall to be purged by shooting or hanging? THAT is how iraq has been run for 100 years. Purges until the brain has been drained. Do these baathis expect to be treated any differently to how they and their leader treated every other political group?
Wouldn't it be ironic if this law, which Washington is so happy about, ends up forever excluding the secular, pro-US figures like Allawi from power?
Professor Cole -
I was wondering if you could comment on the recent US bombing campaign in Baghdad. All I've heard in terms of results was a statement by the military that it was "successful".
So how was the law received among our new best friends, ex-Baathists Newly Awakened in the Petraeus Councils?
Captains realize US will not "win" in Iraq with a military solution.
The Maliki governemnt needs to find some political compromise or US should leave.
Also, lobbing mortar shells on basis of targets picked from a map and not actual intelligence will only increase insurgent activity by engendering more hostility towards US
[Thousands of U.S. soldiers are moving against one of the largest known concentrations of fighters from the group al-Qaeda in Iraq here in a 50-square-mile pocket of Diyala province known as the Bread Basket. Company H expected resistance from 40 to 50 fighters from the Sunni insurgent group, but most of them appeared to have fled by the time the unit rolled in…
Inside the Stryker, the soldiers scoured a map for areas where insurgents could hide. Then they called in mortar strikes…
A few minutes later: Thud. Thud. The mortar shells landed nearby...
Stinchfield sighed. "There is not black and white," he said. "That's what I learned. There's a lot of gray here in Iraq.
"In no way is this war going to be solved militarily," he added.]
emphasis added
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/10/AR2008011003994_pf.html
Iraq is not safe for the senior ex-Baathists, so the law is academic.
But the big Iraqi news is today's Nationalists pact:
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2008-01/13/content_7414950.htm
They claim to have a praliamentary majority and plan to support Maliki on a purely Nationalist program.
Left out are the Kurds, Hakim, and Hashimi (who appears to have ended his prospects to remain a Vice President by his pact with the Kurds.) Zebari, the Kurd given the Foriegn Ministry, is bound to be thrown out too, together with his long-term pact proposal with the USA which has really angered the Iraqi people.
Apparently the Sadrists are learning something from the Bush administration: just name a law the opposite of what it actually implements (e.g., the "Clean Skies Act") and the media will be completely confused.
Here is CNN's headline:
Iraqi lawmakers vote to allow Baathists to return to government jobs
"Just the facts, ma’am!"
But what are the facts about the Great Rebaathification Fuss of January 2008?
Prof. Cole claims -- I think from Ash-Sharq al-Awsat, -- that "[W]ith 143 members in attendance out of 275[, t]he new law passed with A NARROW MAJORITY. The vote count was not published anywhere I could find it, but it could have been as low as 72.
On the other hand, an account provided by ’Aswát al-‘Iráq, "Voices of Iraq," :
Baghdad, Jan 12, (VOI) – The Iraqi parliament approved on Saturday the accountability & justice draft law BY OVERWHELMING MAJORITY amidst rejection by four blocs. "The draft law was approved with the new amendments introduced to it by overwhelming majority of members of parliament," Rashid al-Azzawi, a legislator from the Sunni Iraqi Accordance Front (IAF), told the independent news agency Voices of Iraq (VOI) after Saturday's session.
So was it a "narrow margin" or an "overwhelming majority"?
Furthermore, a news story I read yesterday but can't find at the moment claimed that the quasideputies voted by show of hands over thirty times -- on the original bill and its amendments in committee -- and that nobody ever raised her hand even once to signify Nay.
Finally, this morning's Washington Post adds the following detail,
During the reading of the legislation in parliament Saturday, members of the Sunni bloc led by Saleh al-Mutlaq walked out, according to an aide to the deputy speaker of parliament. Some Sunnis wanted no restrictions on former Baath Party members.
***
As a proceduralist, I infer that once the day's quorum has been formally registered, any number of quasideputies may drift away if they like without affecting the validity of what a majority of the remainder enact.
Those not so excited as I about such technicalities may nevertheless wonder whether it was not in fact slightly LESS than half of slightly more than half of the august Majlis an-Nuwwáb that has just given the former Iraq its Qánún al-Musá’ala wa l-‘Adála, "Statute of Accountability and Justice."
That's just the factual muddle about HOW the thing was done, mind you. The factual muddle about WHAT is actually dressed up inside that fancy verbal wrapping is a whole separate can of worms. However, if anybody's sectarianism was seriously shafted, doubtless we shall hear some howls soon enough and be able to identify the victims.
JHM makes a great point but it is a little obscured by his ironic use of "quasi-deputies." What he means is that the Members of Parliament drifted away during the day after the quorum was registered, so that there may no longer have technically been a quorum when the law was voted. Moreover, the vote seems to have been done by acclamation among the deputies still in the room (Aljazeera showed video), so we don't even know how many voted for it. Allawi's list has 25, Mutlak's 11, and 2/3s of the Tawafuq would be nearly 30. As many as 66 of the 143 could have left if these parties had been there in full force when the quorum was recorded.
Seems a bit ironic that the only planned achievement to come out of our half trillion and counting invasion/occupation was the elimination of Saddam Hussein and destruction of the Baath party. We wanted it and we did it. Now we want to reverse the Baath part.
By almost any measure of human well being, Iraq is worse off now than before the invasion. Our current goals,like pacification and ending sectarian violence, are set against post invasion benchmarks, e.g. fewer dead bodies on the street than last year.
It looks like CHENEYbush is retreating on the only success its had that was based on pre-invasion objectives. Debaathification was probably a bad idea. But when did CHENEYbush ever have a good idea.
Post a Comment
<< Home