More like a police state
AFP
| July 9 2004
America’s stated intention during the
Iraq build-up was to turn it into a democracy. However, in its first policy
move, the interim government has armed itself with a wide range of emergency
powers, says DEBORAH HAYNES.
IRAQ’S interim government appears intent
on building a police state rather than a democracy to quell the violence,
some experts say, while others note that human rights cannot be fully enjoyed
without security.
The United States wanted to make Iraq an example of democracy
building in the Middle East, but the first policy move by Prime Minister
Iyad Allawi was to arm himself with a range of emergency powers, such as
to impose curfews and arrest suspects, to end a rebellion that grew during
the US-led occupation.
"The Americans always say one thing and then do the
opposite," said Nizar al-Samarrai, an Iraqi lawyer specialising in
human rights. "They pledged to make Iraq a centre of democracy but
instead the same sort of emergency measures (as seen in the past) have been
announced," he said.
"I don’t see any kind of democracy in this law,
instead I believe the order will make it harder to create a democracy."
The so-called national safety legislation grants Allawi the right to declare
emergency law in "any area of Iraq where people face a threat to the
lives of its citizens because of some people’s permanent violent campaign
to prevent the creation of a government that represents all Iraqis".
The state of emergency cannot extend past 60 days and must
be dissolved as soon as the danger has ended, but it can be renewed every
30 days, with a letter of approval by the prime minister, the president
and vice-presidents.
The law empowers the prime minister to issue arrest warrants
and restrict the movement of foreigners. It also gives the government the
ability to open mail, eavesdrop on telephone conversations, ban political
groups, cancel meetings and bar street protests.
Sarah Leah Whitson, who heads the Middle East and North
Africa division of the advocacy group Human Rights Watch, said while a need
for security was vital it should not come at the expense of individual freedoms.
"We do not support any law that infringes human rights,
such as freedom of movement," she says.
The population is clamouring for security but if the new
government is no better in terms of human rights than Saddam Hussein’s
regime, it renders the whole invasion redundant, she noted.
"The challenge is to bring democracy and if they do
not even get that right then what is the point," said Whitson.
At the same time, Hussain Sinjari, president of the Iraq
Institute for Democracy and editor-in-chief of a liberal newspaper called
al-Ahali, said that democracy cannot happen until the random bombings stop.
Asked what the difference was between the signs of an incoming
iron fist rule and Saddam’s dictatorship, Sinjari said, "The
old regime had no plan for freedom or for building democracy. Our new government
has such a plan and intends to create a free society with individual liberties."
Christopher Segar, the deputy head of mission at Britain’s newly-opened
embassy in Baghdad, supported the new measures as a necessary move.
"There is a programme of establishing the arrangements
for nationwide elections at the beginning of next year ... and that is part
of the progress towards an open society," he said.
"The re-establishment of an adequate level of security
and the advancement of a process towards nationwide elections go hand-in-hand."
Allawi has yet to flex officially his new legislative muscle, though more
Iraqi police and national guard checkpoints were clearly visible across
Baghdad as the law was announced, stopping cars at random and conducting
searches.
Underscoring the bloodshed that created the political climate
to initiate the new legislation, 388 Iraqis have been killed and 1,680 Iraqis
injured in the insurgency since the new Iraqi government was created by
the now-dissolved US-led coalition on June 1, according to official health
ministry figures.
