Iraq election may yet be postponed: Arab ministers:
Violence and boycotts could yet stop promised Iraqi elections going ahead on time, Arab ministers said, despite Baghdad's confident assertion the landmark vote would be held on January 30.
Iraq had somewhat upstaged a major international conference in Egypt on its future by announcing the date for the first post-Saddam Hussein elections a day before the meeting opened.
But not everyone was impressed by its confidence.
Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Abul Gheit, hosting the conference in the Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheikh said the meeting would be deciding whether the vote could be held on time, adding that 'the question needs to be re-examined'.
'The debates that will take place ... are very important because they will look at the question of the elections and decide on whether they can take place on the date envisaged or whether it needs more reflection.'
Jordanian Foreign Minister Hani Mulki, asked if the election date was not over-optimistic given the relentless violence in Iraq said: 'Dates are not sacred. What is sacred is the process.'"
wow. Egypt and Jordan critiquing Iraq's steps towards democracy. Do Those countries have democracies? Not at all! How dare they!
Whether the Sunni Arab minority -- which dominated Iraq under Saddam Hussein and previous regimes -- take part in large numbers will be a major factor in determining the credibility of the elections.
"It is important to assure participation in the elections of all the Iraqi forces, even if it is necessary to have another look at the date of the elections," said an Arab delegate to the conference, speaking on condition of anonymity.
"If the elections took place but were boycotted, there would be a lack of equilibrium in the Sunni representation," he warned.......
But the violence is also a major concern, raising questions about how democratic elections can be organized in a country were large bands of insurgents are still at large and capable of striking hard at civilians and security forces alike.
"We support all the measures taken for the conduct of the elections with the participation of the factions of the Iraqi people," Jordanian government spokeswoman Asma Khodr said in Amman.
But she added: "We are worried that the conditions could prevent the realisation of that objective ... The situation in Iraq worries us and we think it could have negative repercussions on holding the general elections on the date fixed."
Okay, so Sunni Arab countries like Egypt and Jordan are saying that the election is invalid unless the sunnis participate in the vote. Fine. But their Sunni brothers in Iraq are the ones who supported Saddam, and now attack the government. The Sunnis could participate at any time with the Shia and Kurds. The other 60% of Iraq seems to be fine with the new elections. They're just mad because they lost their ability to bully the rest of Iraq as they did under Saddam!
Then they say they want to put off the election in Iraq until the violence stops, when they are the ones causing the violence in the first place!
In Syria, the state-owned daily Ath-Thawra said that the Sharm el-Sheikh conference represented "the best chance for the international parties to affirm the importance of the United Nations and neighbouring countries" in organizing the elections.
But it also warned: "The elections must take place on all Iraqi territory and not on 75 percent of the country as the United States hints at due to the insecurity in regions where resistance actions are taking place."
How can you be resisting the government, in their own words, and at the same time whine that you're not being allowed to participate in the upcoming elections? It doesn't make any sense!
Violence and boycotts could yet stop promised Iraqi elections going ahead on time, Arab ministers said, despite Baghdad's confident assertion the landmark vote would be held on January 30.
Iraq had somewhat upstaged a major international conference in Egypt on its future by announcing the date for the first post-Saddam Hussein elections a day before the meeting opened.
But not everyone was impressed by its confidence.
Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Abul Gheit, hosting the conference in the Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheikh said the meeting would be deciding whether the vote could be held on time, adding that 'the question needs to be re-examined'.
'The debates that will take place ... are very important because they will look at the question of the elections and decide on whether they can take place on the date envisaged or whether it needs more reflection.'
Jordanian Foreign Minister Hani Mulki, asked if the election date was not over-optimistic given the relentless violence in Iraq said: 'Dates are not sacred. What is sacred is the process.'"
wow. Egypt and Jordan critiquing Iraq's steps towards democracy. Do Those countries have democracies? Not at all! How dare they!
Whether the Sunni Arab minority -- which dominated Iraq under Saddam Hussein and previous regimes -- take part in large numbers will be a major factor in determining the credibility of the elections.
"It is important to assure participation in the elections of all the Iraqi forces, even if it is necessary to have another look at the date of the elections," said an Arab delegate to the conference, speaking on condition of anonymity.
"If the elections took place but were boycotted, there would be a lack of equilibrium in the Sunni representation," he warned.......
But the violence is also a major concern, raising questions about how democratic elections can be organized in a country were large bands of insurgents are still at large and capable of striking hard at civilians and security forces alike.
"We support all the measures taken for the conduct of the elections with the participation of the factions of the Iraqi people," Jordanian government spokeswoman Asma Khodr said in Amman.
But she added: "We are worried that the conditions could prevent the realisation of that objective ... The situation in Iraq worries us and we think it could have negative repercussions on holding the general elections on the date fixed."
Okay, so Sunni Arab countries like Egypt and Jordan are saying that the election is invalid unless the sunnis participate in the vote. Fine. But their Sunni brothers in Iraq are the ones who supported Saddam, and now attack the government. The Sunnis could participate at any time with the Shia and Kurds. The other 60% of Iraq seems to be fine with the new elections. They're just mad because they lost their ability to bully the rest of Iraq as they did under Saddam!
Then they say they want to put off the election in Iraq until the violence stops, when they are the ones causing the violence in the first place!
In Syria, the state-owned daily Ath-Thawra said that the Sharm el-Sheikh conference represented "the best chance for the international parties to affirm the importance of the United Nations and neighbouring countries" in organizing the elections.
But it also warned: "The elections must take place on all Iraqi territory and not on 75 percent of the country as the United States hints at due to the insecurity in regions where resistance actions are taking place."
How can you be resisting the government, in their own words, and at the same time whine that you're not being allowed to participate in the upcoming elections? It doesn't make any sense!
Comments