CALIFORNIA YANKEE

Faith and Freedom

In today’s Washington Post, Anne Applebaum writes about Faith and Freedom.

Conceding that the U.S. model of religious freedom won’t work everywhere. She writes that given Afghanistan’s and Iraq’s histories and cultures, and given Islam's concern with state power, we should encourage religious tolerance.

Nevertheless, if there is one new element we should try hard to leave behind after American troops withdraw or U.S. occupation ends, it is a far more basic notion of religious freedom. By this I don't mean simply that both countries should allow Christians, Jews and other religious minorities to practice; such laws are important. But the real issue is even more fundamental: Both countries need rules that ensure religious freedom for Muslims, both to practice different versions of Islam, whether Shiite or Sunni, and to debate openly the tenets of their own faith.

Applebaum also echos my concern that some Iraqis argue what is good enough for Afghanistan is good enough for Iraq, when she writes:

It now appears that some Iraqis are interested in adopting a constitution with similar language. Although we can't and shouldn't impose a particular system, let alone a particular set of religious practices in Iraq, we must persuade them to leave space for religious debate in whatever system they adopt, after the occupation ends. President Bush has talked a good deal about "democracy" in Iraq, and many speak optimistically of a "moderate Islam" developing there in the future. But what good are elected leaders if they have to answer to clerical courts? What good is guaranteed "freedom of speech" if you can be arrested for discussing the role of women in your society? Moderate schools of Islamic thought will not grow if Islamic thought itself is forbidden.

Applebaum is right on about this, and expresses it much more articularly than have.

Our long term strategy in the war against terror is to bring freedom and democracy to the Middle East. President Bush set forth this stategy very eloquently in the Advance of Freedom speech he gave at the National Endowment for Democracy and the Three Pillars speech he gave at Whitehall Palace.

If this strategy is to have a chance to succeed, we must ensure that governmental structures are in place that will give freedom, especially freedom of speech and religion, a chance. Unfortunately, the draft Afghan constitution doesn’t do that. If it doesn’t then neither will Iraq’s fundamental law.

Postponed

Afghanistan’s Grand Council, or Loya Jirga, was postponed again today, the second time this week. It had been scheduled to start Wednesday, but difficulties have forced delays.

The Loya Jirga is charged with approving a constitution for Afghanistan. I have posted about my displeasure with the draft Afghani constitution here and here, and the difficulty it has caused in drafting an Iraqi constitution here.

The draft constitution was unveiled last month. It declares Afghanistan an Islamic republic and would establish a powerful presidency and a bicameral legislature. The president would be commander in chief of the military, appoint one-third of the legislature's upper house and name judges, military officers, police and national security officials. The draft constitution also guarantees a role for women in government and their right to an education.

Many reasons have been offered for the postponement of the Loya Jirga. The Associated Press reported that the delay was due, in part to inclement weather.

Reuters reports that some delegates said the main reason for the delay was that Karzai had been having to work harder than expected to convince delegates to back him. Another reason cited by Reuters was that some officials said, was that former monarch, Mohammad Zahir Shah, who now has the title "father of the nation," considers the 13th an unlucky day.

According to Reuters there has been protracted wrangling over sweeping powers demanded by President Hamid Karzai. Regional strongmen and warlords have used fraud and intimidation to get their supporters elected to the Loya Jirga. Candidates reported being threatened and some were bribed to drop their candidacies.

The evil doer Taliban remnants have vowed to disrupt the assembly and have said anyone attending deserved to die.

This is a critical step in bringing democracy to Afghanistan. There should be little doubt that such a convocation, the equivalent to our constitutional convention, would be rife with political intrigue. Hopefully the evil doer Taliban remnants will not be able to interfere with the Loya Jirga.

Al-Qaeda Pulls Back

Newsweek has published this article claiming that al-Qaeda is diverting a fighters from Afghanistan to Iraq. The article also claims that al-Qaeda decided to "reorganize the distribution of funding" reducing monthly payments to the Afghan resistance from $3 million to $1.5 million.

According to Newsweek, Bin Laden believes that Iraq is the perfect battlefield to fight the "American crusaders."

Newsweek takes this to be bad news for the U.S. war effort. I disagree, the fewer resources al-Qaeda allocates to Afghanistan the better. The fact that al-Qaeda must reallocate its resources is good news indicating the efforts to control the evil doers’ funding is making some progress.

As for Newsweek's concern that this is a bad omen for Iraq, I think the U.S. military is better able to defend itself in Iraq than in Afghanistan.

Blueprint for a new Afghanistan

The Washington Times and President Bush would think I am too negative about Afghanistan’s draft constitution.

In today’s editorial, “Blueprint for a new Afghanistan,” the Washington Times praises the draft. The editorial states that draft constitution effectively balances “hard-line calls for institutionalized Islamic law and the more secular leanings of its urban people.”

I explained here last week, I think these competing interests are, unfortunately, weighted towards institutionalized Islamic law.

It may be true, as the editorial claims, that the draft constitution “appears to reflect the views of most Afghans, who don't want a return to Taliban-style rule, but want their government to have some kind of Islamic nature.” This only indicates that we have failed to adequately demonstrate the advantages of a secular government.

The editorial reported that White House spokesman, Scott McClellan, also praised the release of the draft, saying: "The public issuance of this very important draft, the product of consultation and dialogue among Afghans, marks an important milestone in Afghanistan's development.”

It is certainly true that issuance of the draft constitution is an important milestone. So too will be the resulting Afghanistan governmental structure. The U.S. will surely be seen as responsible for establishing Afghanistan’s governmental structure because we removed the Taliban. We must therefore strive to ensure that our ideals about the benefits of a secular governmental structure are not ignored in the constitution finally adopted by Afghanistan.

Afghanistan Unveils Draft Constitution

Afghanistan revealed its draft constitution today.

I am disappointed with the draft constitution. I would prefer the constitution to lay more groundwork for a Western-style democracy. Under this draft constitution, Afghanistan can again be governed by principles outlined in sharia, or Islamic law. In my view, the removal of the Taliban will only be a partial success if Afghanistan reverts to extremism sanctioned by a constitution.

Writing for the Associated Press, Burt Herman reports that the draft constitution starts by declaring that

"Afghanistan is an Islamic Republic."

According to Herman, it also states that:

"The religion of Afghanistan is the sacred religion of Islam. Followers of other religions are free to perform their religious ceremonies within the limits of the provisions of law."

While the draft avoids direct mention of shariah, Herman reports that the constitution provides:

"In Afghanistan, no law can be contrary to the sacred religion of Islam and the values of this Constitution."

The draft allows political parties to be established as long as their charters "do not contradict the principles of Islam" and sets other conditions such as not having any military aims or foreign affiliation.

In the Christian Science Monitor, Ilene R. Prusher reports that the draft constitution calls for the creation of a bicameral national assembly which is forbidden to pass any law

"contrary to the sacred religion of Islam."

This deference to sharia concerns me. The experts say it is unlikely that the sort of brutal punishments imposed by the Taliban, such as stoning adulterers and cutting off the hands of thieves, will ever be meted out under this document; nevertheless, Afghanistan’s draft constitution should prohibit such fundamentalist extremism.