THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

But true leaders don't govern by committee.

‏Leading Iraqi political parties call for six-month elections delay ‏


‏POL-IRAQ-ELECTION-DELAY ‏
‏ Leading Iraqi political parties call for six-month elections delay ‏
‏‏
‏ BAGHDAD, Nov 26 (KUNA) -- Leading Iraqi political parties called on Friday ‏
‏for elections, scheduled for January 30, to be delayed for six month because ‏
‏of the surging violence in the country and until taking the necessary ‏
‏administrative and organizational preparations for the voting process.‏
‏ Representatives of 17 Iraqi political parties, including the two main ‏
‏Kurdish groups; the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) and the Kurdistan ‏
‏Democratic Party (KDP), conferred today in the house of the Iraqi Sunni leader ‏
‏and former presidency candidate, Adnan Pachachi, in Baghdad and decided to ‏
‏support a follow up committee formed during Dukan conference of political ‏
‏parties in Iraq, and called for dialogue with this committee to reach a ‏
‏relevant satisfactory solution. ‏
‏ They signed a petition calling for the election to be put off for a ‏
‏six-month period, so as to allow "for changes in the security situation and ‏
‏completion of necessary arrangements in terms of organization and ‏
‏administration," the petition read.‏
‏ The gathering stressed commitment to the political process in Iraq ‏
‏according to the relating UN resolutions and the Iraqi constitution, so as to ‏
‏create a federal and democratic system that groups various political parties. ‏
‏The conferees also considered the upcoming elections an essential part of the ‏
‏political process in Iraq and a necessary step to make it legitimate, and set ‏
‏the suitable climate for the post-election conditions.‏
‏ They also cited the lack of security in the country, the terror operations ‏
‏and the interference by foreign countries in Iraq as hurdles banning holding ‏
‏the election, and urged for condemnation of such acts, and for giving priority ‏
‏to the security demands.‏
‏ Iraqi Planning Minister Dr. Mahdi Al-Hafez told Kuwait News Agency (KUNA) ‏
‏he believed the majority of the Iraqis and the national council would support ‏
‏the postponement.‏
‏ Iraq's interim constitution says elections must be held by the end of ‏
‏January 2005, to choose a parliament that will form a new government and ‏
‏oversee the writing of a permanent constitution. (end)‏
‏ mhg.ad‏

Bush says he hopes election can proceed as scheduled

November 26, 2004
The Associated Press

BAGHDAD, Iraq Despite a new call today for a postponement of the Iraqi elections, President Bush says he hopes they still go forward.

Seventeen political parties say the election should be put off for at least six months, until the government can protect the polling places.

Most of the parties are Sunni Arab, Kurdish and secular groups. Their position is opposed by the majority Shiite community -- which strongly supports holding the elections on time.

The balloting is currently set for January 30th. Bush says the Iraqi Election Commission has scheduled the election and he hopes it will go forward then.

Among the minority Sunnis, there's widespread doubt that the elections can be held, because of continued insurgent activity in Sunni regions in central and northern Iraq.

A group of Sunni clerics wants Sunnis to boycott the election to protest this month's U-S-led assault on Fallujah.

If you think he is speaking unilaterally and is not speaking the minds of many, you would be wrong.

The Chicken Little people are always going to whine that something can't be done or things are so bad, they are impossible. I am grateful for a President who doesn't think in terms like that.

Somehow I just plain doubt that Walter.

I must have slept too long, does anyone here believe the current administration's stance on human rights, (which is, god only knows what), an administration peopled by the same folks who derided Jimmy Carter's efforts at supporting human rights, the same administration which has to date -with one exceptional statement by the now lame duck Colin Powell-- has ignored the tragedy in Darfur, has been silent on the still missing in Kosovo and if asked to produce a single effort on behalf of human rights during it's first term would have to remain mute, would back an idea such as Occam Bill's? Of course, they would. They'll say anything.

Then they'll say "Well, we tried. We went hunting rabbits but came back with a duck, so we weren't lying but now we have to withdraw from the UN because of our great moral values and all."

What I can't figure out is how someone who can think of an idea like basing an international community on human rights can throw in with the bunch of cowboys we just re-elected? Ask yourself, have the words 'human rights' ever appeared in a Republican platform? And the other day, in reply to my question about "Who wants democracy in the Middle East?" a bunch of Bush backers came back with answers like 'it's the people who must want it." sounding like about half the hippies I used to hang out with in 1972. You're speaking like a Eugene McCarthy Democrat and voting Republican.

I need more coffee.

So you doubt those 17 parties? Even your former closest allies in Iraq, namely the Kurds?

Interesting point.

Walter writes

Quote:

So you doubt those 17 parties? Even your former closest allies in Iraq, namely the Kurds?

Interesting point.

You sound almost hopeful that will be the case Walter. Surely you can see how smug and how encouraged the murderous insurgents will be if they are successful in interfering with a lawful election that they do not want. They certainly wanted to disrupt the recent U.S. election as well and the leftish media was perfectly willing to go along with the ridiculous rumors that the election might have to be postponed if there was an attack or imminent threat of one. All the non-Chicken Little people well knew how disastrous that would be, however, and that nothing short of the Rapture and onset of Armagaddon could have stopped the U.S. election.

I would be terribly disappointed in our president were he to cave in to this kind of malicious pressure. And I hope the Iraqis hang tough too and refuse to capitulate to murderous Islamic facists.

A John F. Kennedy School of Government researcher has cast doubt on the widely held belief that terrorism stems from poverty, finding instead that terrorist violence is related to a nation's level of political freedom.

Associate Professor of Public Policy Alberto Abadie examined data on terrorism and variables such as wealth, political freedom, geography, and ethnic fractionalization for nations that have been targets of terrorist attacks.

Abadie, whose work was published in the Kennedy School's Faculty Research Working Paper Series, included both acts of international and domestic terrorism in his analysis.

Though after the 9/11 attacks most of the work in this area has focused on international terrorism, Abadie said terrorism originating within the country where the attacks occur actually makes up the bulk of terrorist acts each year. According to statistics from the MIPT Terrorism Knowledge Base for 2003, which Abadie cites in his analysis, there were 1,536 reports of domestic terrorism worldwide, compared with just 240 incidents of international terrorism.

Before analyzing the data, Abadie believed it was a reasonable assumption that terrorism has its roots in poverty, especially since studies have linked civil war to economic factors. However, once the data was corrected for the influence of other factors studied, Abadie said he found no significant relationship between a nation's wealth and the level of terrorism it experiences.

"In the past, we heard people refer to the strong link between terrorism and poverty, but in fact when you look at the data, it's not there. This is true not only for events of international terrorism, as previous studies have shown, but perhaps more surprisingly also for the overall level of terrorism, both of domestic and of foreign origin," Abadie said.

Instead, Abadie detected a peculiar relationship between the levels of political freedom a nation affords and the severity of terrorism. Though terrorism declined among nations with high levels of political freedom, it was the intermediate nations that seemed most vulnerable.

Like those with much political freedom, nations at the other extreme - with tightly controlled autocratic governments - also experienced low levels of terrorism.

Though his study didn't explore the reasons behind the trends he researched, Abadie said it could be that autocratic nations' tight control and repressive practices keep terrorist activities in check, while nations making the transition to more open, democratic governments - such as currently taking place in Iraq and Russia - may be politically unstable, which makes them more vulnerable.

"When you go from an autocratic regime and make the transition to democracy, you may expect a temporary increase in terrorism," Abadie said.
Abadie's study also found a strong connection in the data between terrorism and geographic factors, such as elevation or tropical weather.

"Failure to eradicate terrorism in some areas of the world has often been attributed to geographic barriers, like mountainous terrain in Afghanistan or tropical jungle in Colombia. This study provides empirical evidence of the link between terrorism and geography," Abadie said.

In Abadie's opinion, the connection between geography and terrorism is hardly surprising.

"Areas of difficult access offer safe haven to terrorist groups, facilitate training, and provide funding through other illegal activities like the production and trafficking of cocaine and opiates," Abadie wrote in the paper.

A native of Spain's Basque region, Abadie said he has long been interested in terrorism and related issues. His past research has explored the effect of terrorism on economic activity, using the Basque country as a case study.

Abadie is turning his attention to the effect of terrorism on international capital flows. Some analysts have argued that terrorist attacks wouldn't have much of an impact on the economy, since unlike a war's widespread damage, the damage from terrorist attacks tends to be relatively small or confined to a small area.

In an era of open international capital markets, however, Abadie said terrorism may have a greater chilling effect than previously thought, since even a low risk of damage from a terrorist attack may be enough to send investors looking elsewhere.