There is good and bad news coming out of Baghdad about the proceedings to present a draft constitution to the elected Iraqi assembly, but the best and the worst have not been much reported. The most hopeful development, more important really than any provision in the constitution, is the plan to present it to the people for ratification in October.
It has been widely reported that Sunni leaders are hostile to provisions for a federal structure. Some commentators are fearful that Sunnis, who have majorities in four Iraqi provinces, may be able to mobilize their adherents to take advantage of the provision that permits a vote by a two-thirds majority in any three provinces to prevent adoption of the constitution.
In fact, the resort to a popular referendum for ratification -- the movement to government by consent rather than by decree or intimidation -- represents a milestone in Iraqi history, whatever the outcome of that vote. Though Americans rightly venerate the role of its framers, it was the ratification of the US Constitution by the people that endowed it with sovereignty. Far from welcoming Sunni scepticism about the constitution, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi must be grinding his teeth. Elections are what he fears most.
In one respect, however, the new constitution has taken a highly unfortunate turn. Rather than giving every Iraqi an equal, inalienable share in a private holding company endowed with the society's oil and gas assets, and then requiring the state to tax the people in order to raise state revenues, the drafters have chosen to endow the state directly with Iraq's oil wealth.
This is a tragedy, for it means that Iraq will go the way of every wealthy oil state that takes revenue directly from the country's patrimony without levying taxes, such as Nigeria or Saudi Arabia -- where representative institutions have yet to take hold, profits are expatriated and government officials allocate all contracts.
It may sound cynical, but the genius of the US Constitution does not lie in its Bill of Rights, but in biannual elections for the House of Representatives, where every bill for taxing or spending must originate. Not one penny can be spent without congressional action. Every two years someone must come to the citizenry and explain precisely why he or she took money out of their pockets.
This constitutional point was at the heart of the Iran-Contra affair. Let me illustrate. Suppose current US deficits climb to even more vertiginous heights such that the budget of the Smithsonian Institution is cut by Congress. One result is that, say, the Museum of Natural History has to restrict its viewing hours. Into this breach steps a wealthy philanthropist (or corporation); a gala dinner is held among the dinosaur skeletons and stuffed mastodons; a huge sum is raised. The taxpayer is not required to put up any funds.
The museum reopens. Everyone is happy. Well, not everyone. Not the constitutional lawyers, for example, because the funding of federal projects without congressional action is unconstitutional.
Thus when former president Ronald Reagan's CIA director came up with the idea of privately financing a covert action agency to avoid congressional scrutiny, he was in fact proposing an end-run round the Constitution itself. The result almost wrecked the administration.
The great jurist Oliver Wendell Holmes left much of his estate to the US government, but this had to be passed by a congressional statute because not even the acceptance of bequests to the country is permissible without congressional action.
We long ago learned the error of taxation without representation. Now we are learning there is no real representation without taxation.
Only when the state is compelled to go to elected assemblies for money, as Charles I learned, does true government by consent flourish.
It may be that Iraq's first try at representative government will fail. If it does, a resourceful and ancient culture will simply try again until a workable structure can be agreed. What must not happen is that the new practice of representation through elections withers through a lack of state accountability. Great oil wealth will allow the new Iraqi state to bypass the necessity for realistic taxation.
This has profound implications for corruption, low economic performance and weak representative institutions. Then someday a populist demagogue will come to power through the very elections for which Iraqis have sacrificed so much.
This leader -- an Arab Hugo Chavez -- will blame the US and UK for the disappointments that ensued after the adoption of the constitution. That would be a bitter irony, because the US and the UK are also making great sacrifices to bring representative institutions to Iraq.
Philip Bobbitt teaches constitutional law at the University of Texas; his new book, The War Against Terror, will be published next spring.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with