The battle over the Iraqi constitution

Constitutional expert Brendan O’Leary wonders if the dominant European vision on contemporary Iraq distorts political and moral sense. He concludes that The Bush administration has neither been a competent imperialist, as suggested by its European critics, nor an intelligent democracy-exporter, as claimed by some of its supporters. If it had been comprised of the ruthless oil-stealing imperialists its opponents imagine then dividing Iraq, and having a sovereign Kurdistan and a sovereign “Shi‘astan” able to supply large amounts of oil to the world-market would have been its smart strategic choice. In short, it has not sought to do what Osama bin Laden has said it is trying to do. If, by contrast, as it has claimed, the Bush administration had been interested in promoting a democratic Iraq, and transforming the Middle East, then it would have worked out a long time ago that it should support and broker a settlement between Kurdistan and the United Iraqi Alliance, while encouraging them to make a settlement that was fair to Sunni Arabs – which is not the same as supporting their so-called leaders’ unappeasable demands. As negotiations splutter toward the second deadline it is past time that outsiders, especially Americans and Europeans, reframe their thinking, morally and politically. I fear, however, that it will be too late. It won’t only be the Americans who should be held responsible if there is a full-scale constitutional train-wreck. (Hat-tip Normblog)