The following is an archived copy of a message sent to the CASI Analysis List run by Cambridge Solidarity with Iraq.

Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of Cambridge Solidarity with Iraq (CASI).

[Main archive index/search] [List information] [CASI Homepage]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[casi-analysis] FW: Why US Occupation Continues after June

[ This message has been sent to you via the CASI-analysis mailing list ]

[ Presenting plain-text part of multi-format email ]

Dear all,

I would love to hear your thoughts on this - especially critical thoughts.
Any reasons why the below may not be true, according to the constitution?


-----Original Message-----

Why US Occupation Continues after June

Bush wants to claim that with the new Constitution passed, power will be
turned over to Iraqis after June of this year.

It's a lie.

The new government under the new constitution will be barred from
overturning any laws that the US has imposed on the country since the

Why can't they change them?

Because of this provision
<>  in the
Constitution, Article 26:

A) Except as otherwise provided in this Law, the laws in force in Iraq on 30
June 2004 shall remain in effect unless and until rescinded or amended by
the Iraqi Transitional Government in accordance with this Law.

Note that the "Iraqi Transitional Government" doesn't come into existence
until new elections occur, which can be as late as December 2005-- a long
period to be governed by Paul Bremer's recently enacted pro-corporate laws.

I saw author Naomi Klein lecturing over the weekend and she had an
intriguing argument why this provision could make the post-constitution
Occupation even worse for Iraqis than when the US directly controlled the

As she argued
<,5673,1079603,00.html>  last
fall, the Bush Administration goals of privatizing the country face a
stumbling block right now-- it's illegal as long as the US directly controls
the country.

The US was giving sanction by the UN for Occupation, with the US's own vote,
only conditional on its agreement to "comply fully with their obligations
under international law including in particular the Geneva conventions of
1949 and the Hague regulations of 1907." So what do the Hague regulations

The Hague regulations state that an occupying power must respect "unless
absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the country". The coalition
provisional authority has shredded that simple rule with gleeful defiance.
Iraq's constitution outlaws the privatisation of key state assets, and it
bars foreigners from owning Iraqi firms.

The point of those regulations is to stop the looting of countries by
occupying powers-- obviously a good idea when dealing with a government in
bed with Halliburton.

But as Klein argues, a "sovereign" Iraqi government could proceed legally
with privatizing the country. So having passed privatization and rightwing
laws to encourage the financial stripping of the country BEFORE turning over
the country, Article 26 requires the new "sovereign" Iraqi government to
IMPLEMENT those laws, thereby giving them retroactive legal sanction.

Don't believe the hype-- with Article 26, the Occupation continues after
June. A government that cannot change US-imposed laws is nothing more than a
remote controlled puppet regime.

Sent via the CASI-analysis mailing list
To unsubscribe, visit
All postings are archived on CASI's website at

[Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]