Sometimes when faced with an apparently insoluble problem, I have found that the best approach was to try to prove that it was insoluble. The flaws in my proof might then give clues how the problem actually could be solved.
MY VIEW:IRAQ
If only Iraq were that simple! But let us try, assuming that the difficulty of holding an election is a phony issue and not the real problem. The real problems seem to be that:
The Shiites want direct elections which, as the majority, they could dominate.
The United States fears the government which would result, both because it might not protect the rights of the other groups and because it is not in our national interest.
The U.S. wants power in the hands of the Governing Council, where we have balanced different factions and chosen people favorable to the U.S.
The Iraqi people do not want to be ruled by a puppet government.
Democratic institutions are so underdeveloped in the country that, once power is given to the Governing Council, they will hang on to it regardless of what agreements has been made beforehand. (Those old enough will remember that the Vietnam War started when the elections that were supposed to be carried out under the Geneva Accords were never held.)
I don't know how it should be done, but any solution to the Iraq problem will have to involve two competing bases of power. Just as Hitler used the SS to break the power of the SA, a contending center of power must be created which can terminate the rule of the Governing Council. This center of power cannot be, as I once thought, based upon existing local governments. Too many of their members have been selected by the U.S. and the Governing Council.
So far this looks like the solution should be to have the U.N. oversee direct elections which would elect members to a body which would draft a constitution. However, how can such a body be prevented from reaching a stalemate? How can we guarantee that the Governing Council will let any agreement that they do reach go into effect?
"There was a door to which I found no key
There was a veil past which I could not see..."
THANKING YOU
RUCHI AHUJA
If only Iraq were that simple! But let us try, assuming that the difficulty of holding an election is a phony issue and not the real problem. The real problems seem to be that:
The Shiites want direct elections which, as the majority, they could dominate.
The United States fears the government which would result, both because it might not protect the rights of the other groups and because it is not in our national interest.
The U.S. wants power in the hands of the Governing Council, where we have balanced different factions and chosen people favorable to the U.S.
The Iraqi people do not want to be ruled by a puppet government.
Democratic institutions are so underdeveloped in the country that, once power is given to the Governing Council, they will hang on to it regardless of what agreements has been made beforehand. (Those old enough will remember that the Vietnam War started when the elections that were supposed to be carried out under the Geneva Accords were never held.)
I don't know how it should be done, but any solution to the Iraq problem will have to involve two competing bases of power. Just as Hitler used the SS to break the power of the SA, a contending center of power must be created which can terminate the rule of the Governing Council. This center of power cannot be, as I once thought, based upon existing local governments. Too many of their members have been selected by the U.S. and the Governing Council.
So far this looks like the solution should be to have the U.N. oversee direct elections which would elect members to a body which would draft a constitution. However, how can such a body be prevented from reaching a stalemate? How can we guarantee that the Governing Council will let any agreement that they do reach go into effect?
"There was a door to which I found no key
There was a veil past which I could not see..."
THANKING YOU
RUCHI AHUJA
e-mail:
Homepage: