💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › kevin-carson-neocon-democracy-in-iraq.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 11:46:41. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

View Raw

More Information

➡️ Next capture (2024-07-09)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Title: Neocon “Democracy” in Iraq
Author: Kevin Carson
Date: February 18, 2005
Language: en
Topics: conservatism, Iraq, democracy, US foreign interventions
Source: Retrieved on 3rd September 2021 from https://mutualist.blogspot.com/2005/02/neocon-democracy-in-iraq.html

Kevin Carson

Neocon “Democracy” in Iraq

The main effect of all that ink-stained finger-waving and bathos, it

seems, is to guarantee the legacy of Paul Bremer, and to rubber-stamp

his neoliberal agenda for the near term.

MILAN RAI, ELECTRONIC IRAQ (via Progressive Review, February 16):

One US device is the Transitional Administrative Law, an interim

constitution written in Washington and imposed on Iraq in March 2004.

Jawad al-Maliki, member of Daawa, one of the two main Shia parties, has

pointed out correctly that ‘the body which we have elected has more

legitimacy than this document.’ Unfortunately, the TAL is self-defined

as the default constitution of Iraq until a permanent constitution has

been adopted in a referendum.

In a clause bitterly rejected by the Shia majority parties, the TAL

states that the permanent constitution must obtain the approval of at

least one-third of the voters in sixteen of Iraq’s eighteen provinces.

This was put in to give Kurdish provinces a veto over the final text...

If this veto is used by the Kurds, the TAL continues to be the

constitution. (And, according to Article 59 of the TAL, the Iraqi

military will continue to function under US command.)

Equally important, it’s worth mentioning again, is a couple of other key

provisions of the TAL: the intellectual property agreements signed under

Bremer and the “privatization” (corporate looting) of state assets.

The effect of these provisions of the Transitional Administrative Law is

to give Washington’s most loyal clients in Iraq — the Kurds — a powerful

veto over political progress.

Another device for US control is the debt relief plan put together in

November 2004, under which some of Iraq’s creditor nations will forgive

some of Iraq’s debt (in stages), conditional upon the Iraqi government

following an IMF ‘liberalization’ program. This program will prioritize

foreign investors, privatization, and ‘tax reform’, but not unemployment

or poverty in Iraq....

Translated from neoliberal-speak into English, of course, that means

further massive looting of state assets, embodying the sweat equity of

Iraqi taxpayers, by politically connected insiders. If a slightly less

whipped government were in power, it might do what Sean Corrigan

recommends:

....much less “forgiveness,” no self-respecting libertarian would cavil

at a free people wholly repudiating any debts contracted in their name

by the members of their former political elites, especially where this

was done with the less-than-disinterested connivance of alien powers,

themselves pursuing either cynical Realpolitik or “Open Door”

corporatist vote-buying (most likely, both).

The Electronic Iraq article continues:

Another device for maintaining control was Paul Bremer’s appointment of

key officials for five year terms just before leaving office. In June

2004, the US governor ordered that the national security adviser and the

national intelligence chief chosen by the US-imposed interim prime

minister, Iyad Allawi, be given five-year terms, imposing Allawi’s

choices on the elected government. Bremer also installed

inspectors-general for five-year terms in every ministry, and formed and

filled commissions to regulate communications, public broadcasting and

securities markets.

Once again, as has been the case with assorted other velvet and orange

revolutions, along with sundry exercises in “people power,” what’s left

after the smoke clears is a neoconservative counterfeit democracy. What

the neocons call “democracy” is a Hamiltonian system in which the people

exercise formal power to elect the government, but the key directions of

policy are determined by a small and relatively stable Power Elite that

is insulated from any real public pressure.