[Peace-discuss] Fwd: IAC Statement on the Election in Iraq

[Morton K.Brussel]

A decent corrective to the gushing stories in our mass media about the 
success of the Iraqi elections. mkb

Begin forwarded message:

> From: "Action Center" <actioncenter at action-mail.org>
> Date: January 31, 2005 3:37:34 PM CST
> To: brussel at uiuc.edu
> Cc: action.news at organizerweb.com
> Subject: IAC Statement on the Election in Iraq
>
>
> A Statement from the International Action Center
>
>
> The Election in Iraq:
>
> "a tale, told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."
> -William Shakespeare
>
>
> The media and the Bush Administration are in high gear, trumpeting 
> this weekend's election as a victory for democracy. However, this 
> election changes nothing on the ground in Iraq.  On Monday, January 
> 31, the day after the election, the people of Iraq woke up with 
> 150,000 U.S. troops occupying their country, CIA asset Ayad Allawi the 
> appointed head of state, and the Pentagon's plans to build 14 
> permanent military bases still proceeding.
>
> Democracy means, "rule of the people."  What happened on Sunday merely 
> continues rule by military occupation and an appointed government.
>
>
> This was a meaningless election.
>
> This piece of political theater can't even be accurately described as 
> an election.  In an election, voters get to choose candidates who will 
> then hold office and exercise some measure of power.
> In this election, voters didn't get to vote for a candidate, or even 
> for a political party.  Instead, they were allowed to vote for a list, 
> which may include several parties or individuals--there was no way to 
> know.  These lists were approved by the Bremer-appointed High 
> Commission for Elections. The names of the 7,700 candidates were not 
> publicly available, so there was no way to know who  was actually 
> being voted for.
>  The candidates who are eventually selected by this process will 
> exercise no executive or legislative authority.  They will form a 
> transitional national assembly, which will draft a constitution under 
> the supervision of the occupiers.
>
> The people of Iraq were not given the opportunity to vote against the 
> occupation--they were allowed to vote for anonymous lists, 
> representing U.S.-approved candidates that will not have the power to 
> alter U.S. plans to colonize Iraq.
>
> Of course, the people of Iraq want to vote in free and open elections 
> to determine their own future, but the occupation was not on the 
> ballot, rendering any pretense at an election meaningless.
>
> The more than 100,000 people who were killed by the U.S. during this 
> war were not given the opportunity to vote. Nor were the prisoners in 
> the torture chambers of Abu Ghraib.
>
>
> Returning Iraq to 1955.
>
> It is telling that the Bush Administration is claiming this is the 
> first democratic election to be held in Iraq in fifty years.  The 
> election referred to as the last democratic election was held under a 
> U.S. & British appointed monarchy to select an advisory  body that had 
> no executive or legislative power.  Its only function was to provide a 
> façade of legitimacy to the puppet regime; the election did not change 
> the fact that the people of Iraq were under the thumb of U.S. and 
> British oil companies.  Less than 3 years later, a massive popular 
> revolutionary upheaval overthrew the corrupt monarchy and, since that 
> time, the U.S. and Britain have been trying to return Iraq to the same 
> semi-colonial status.  This election is part of their plan.
>
> The U.S. government has never demonstrated any interest in bringing 
> democracy to the Middle East.  Former U.S. Secretary of State Henry 
> Kissinger outlined U.S. policy in the region when he said, "Middle 
> East oil is too important to be left to hands of the Arabs."  The U.S. 
> has made no effort to bring democracy in any of the nations in the 
> region where it has maintained troops-the people of Kuwait, Saudi 
> Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates all live under feudal monarchies, 
> without free elections, civil liberties, civil rights, union rights, 
> or rights for women.
>
>
> This was an election under occupation.
>
> It is important to emphasize the circumstances under which this 
> election was held. More than 150,000 U.S. troops occupy the country, 
> patrolling the streets with guns trained on the Iraqi people. 
> Throughout Iraq, the U.S. occupation forces imposed an unprecedented 
> series of security measures - including shoot-on-sight curfews, closed 
> borders, and a ban on cars and travel restrictions within Iraq.
>
> This election was held under the supervision of U.S. Ambassador John 
> Negroponte.  Negroponte served as U.S. Ambassador to Honduras from 
> 1981-1985 and was involved with Contra terrorists and death squads.  
> While he was Ambassador, Honduras was the launching pad from which the 
> Reagan administration conducted its violent attacks on the people of 
> Nicaragua, El Salvador, and Guatemala.
>
> Negroponte's predecessor, Paul Bremer, set up the rules for this 
> election.  The organization that ran the election, the High Commission 
> for Elections, was appointed by Bremer, and had the authority to 
> disqualify any party that did not meet with Washington's approval.  
> Before he left his post, Bremer issued a series of articles which 
> cannot be reversed by any election.  Many of these articles, which are 
> in violation of international law, have to do with the plundering of 
> Iraq's resources and control of the economy by U.S. corporations.  No 
> matter what list the Iraqi people voted for, decisions that affect 
> their future are being made by the occupation government under orders 
> from Wall Street.
>
> Assisting Negroponte were two U.S.-funded organizations with long 
> records of manipulating overseas elections on behalf of U.S. corporate 
> interests, the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs 
> (NDI) and the International Republican Institute (IRI).   Both 
> organizations work closely with the National Endowment for Democracy 
> and the U.S. Agency for International Development, long used by the 
> CIA for covert operations abroad. They were, for example, involved in 
> orchestrating the failed coup and recall referendum in Venezuela in an 
> attempt to remove the democratically-elected and popular President 
> Hugo Chavez.  Both were involved in manipulating the election in the 
> Ukraine to ensure that a pro-U.S. head of state would be installed.
>
> Similar elections were held during the U.S. war against the people of 
> Vietnam.  They were conducted under military occupation, administered 
> by the U.S., and in no way allowed for any real self-government.  None 
> of the U.S.-managed elections in Vietnam succeeded in conferring 
> legitimacy on the occupation government or in ending the resistance.  
> Likewise, this election was conducted at gunpoint, administered by a 
> war criminal, and stage-managed by CIA front companies. To pretend 
> that this has anything to do with democracy is outrageous.
>
>
> This election has no credibility.
>
> This election was almost unique in that it had no international 
> observers.  There was no outside source to monitor the voting, the 
> integrity of the ballots, or the counting.  The only monitoring was by 
> observers trained by groups like the National Democratic Institute--in 
> other words, by the CIA.
>
> With no international observers monitoring the election process, the 
> elections are only as credible as the people running it--the Bush 
> Administration, who lied about weapons of mass destruction, lied about 
> ties between Al Qaeda and Iraq, lied about everything associated with 
> this war and occupation.
>
>
> This election was a public relations campaign.
>
> Opposition to the occupation has been growing in the U.S. Many people, 
> including members of Congress, have begun to demand an end to the 
> occupation.
>
> The election was staged to create the illusion of progress, much like 
> the phony transfer of power held on June 28 of last year.  The idea is 
> to create a new fiction to legitimize the occupation.  The lies about 
> weapons of mass destruction have been exposed.  The lies about the 
> people of Iraq being involved in the attacks on September 11 have been 
> refuted.  So now, the Bush Administration is taking up the cause of 
> democracy to justify the ongoing occupation.
>
> The claim that the U.S. needs to bring democracy to Iraq, that the 
> country would descend into civil war without the U.S. presence, is 
> pure racism.  It is a rehash of the arguments used by the British 
> Empire and other empires to justify the colonization of entire 
> nations.
>
> Many of those who did vote, took part in the election thinking that it 
> would be part of a process that would lead to ending the occupation of 
> their country.  All polls indicate that an overwhelming number of 
> Iraqis want an immediate end to the occupation.  Once they realize 
> that the election serves only to justify further occupation and 
> plundering of their country, this will give rise to a new level of 
> outrage and resistance.
>
>
> The myth of high turnout.
>
> Despite the media's claim that turnout was overwhelming, in many 
> areas, polling centers were closed or deserted. Only a handful of 
> people voted in Fallujah, Samarra and Ramadi.  Among Iraqis living 
> abroad, 80% of eligible voters did not vote.  This dispels the myth 
> that low turnout was due to security concerns.  Turnout was low 
> because the people oppose occupation and recognized that the election 
> was a public relations effort by the occupier of their country.
>
>
> The Iraqi people want the occupation to end now.
>
> Any real interest in democracy would lead us to recognize that the 
> Iraqi people are opposed to the occupation. Polls have repeatedly 
> shown that the people of Iraq want the troops to leave now--not after 
> they have stage-managed an election and installed a puppet regime.
>
> The growing resistance throughout the country demonstrates how the 
> Iraqi people feel about the occupiers.  The occupiers are not there to 
> bring democracy--they have instead brought death, destruction, and 
> torture.  The Iraqi people and a growing number of people worldwide 
> want it to end.
>
>
>
> March 19
> Troops Out Now!
> March on Central Park in NYC!
> Regional Demonstrations Across the U.S. & Worldwide
>
>
> The International Action Center
> http://www.iacenter.org
> mail to:iacenter at iacenter.org
> _______________________________________________
> _______________________________________________
> This message was sent to brussel at uiuc.edu
>
> Anyone can subscribe. Send an email request to
> Action.News-subscribe at organizerweb.com
> To unsubscribe Action.News-unsubscribe at organizerweb.com
>
> Subscribing and unsubscribing can also be done on the Web at
> http://www.organizerweb.com/mailman/listinfo/action.news
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 10811 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/private/peace-discuss/attachments/20050131/abb9c810/attachment-0001.bin