Dear Mr. Brooks

by Cliopatria

In your 8/25 column, Divided They Stand, you conclude [http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/25/opinion/25brooks.html]:

But when you get Galbraith and Gerecht in the same mood, you know something important has happened. The U.S. has orchestrated a document that is organically Iraqi.

It's their country, after all.

However in your entire piece there is not a single quote from any actual Iraqi who may or may not have any opinion on the constitution. As I see it, you have demonstrated the myopia of the American enterprise in Iraq perfectly - American analysts talking about perceptions in the American media as counter spin in an American op-ed for American audience.

Since you couldn't find any "IRAQI" to tell you anything about what that constitution means to them, I really fail to see your conclusion. I take your words of esteem for "Peter W. Galbraith, a former United States ambassador to Croatia, and smart Iraq analyst, Reuel Marc Gerecht, formerly of the C.I.A. and now at the American Enterprise Institute" but I doubt that they call Iraq their country.

If you would like to get the Baghdad street view of the Constitution, perhaps you can call someone who is 1. An Iraqi 2. In Baghdad 3. Involved in the Constitution making process. THEN, you can conclude whether the Iraqi constitution is organic or not.

cheers,

Manan Ahmed
[yes, I emailed this to Mr. Brooks]

comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:

Jonathan Dresner - 8/26/2005

Sorry, I thought you were asking a question, not trolling for an argument. I was wrong.

chris l pettit - 8/26/2005

reading your piece, it semms as though you give MacArthur, a military man with very little constitutional and legal background, a lot of credit for the substance of the document, or at least the initial suggestions. In terms of the general principles of the document, or the rights articulated, I would think that MacArthur (or others as your exercise with the students showed) could have offered good suggestions, as it has long been shown that most societies and human entities are based in universal rights and principles and only run aground when their narrow minded ideologies begin to produce hierarchies of who is "more right" than others. However, it is not just the general principles that are important. just as important is the rationality underlying the system, and the ways in which rights and principles are guaranteed and implemented by various organs, within society and out. I did not see much analysis of this in your article, most likely because of length limitations. When I teach the Japanese Constitution and subsequent legal history in my Comparative Constitutions class at the law school, your second paragraph, and the point I was making originally, become very prevalent...that is, that Japanese society, legal scholars, and others have had profound influences on the constitutional system outside of any US influence...thereby greatly diminishing any claim that the US can be given all that much credit for the constitution or the way it developed. So many people confuse constitution making with constitutionalism. The best example I can give is the UK, which has no one constitution, but many constitutional documents and a rich constitutional system, for which no one can claim great influence.

I must admit to not being a huge fan of Dower's text, as my experience dealing with Japanese legal scholars and those heavily involved with the constitutional process over the years has resulted in a markedly different version of history than the text articulates. This is not to say that he is wrong in any way...he just has a different perception and saw different occurrences as important. I tend to look at legal progress and larger social movement implications and he, as a historian, may not have the proper background and scholarship to understand fully some of the finer nuances...as I do not fully comprehend some of the finer points of his historical analysis and may be prone to misinterpret what he is stating at times.

I still find it rather arrogant of historians to claim that the US played a major role in Japan's constitutional system and its progress. it seems a very far fetched claim...especially for a historian who should understand the complexity of such situations. Writing a constitutions (or at least its general principles) may not be all that difficult, as your class experiment proved on a small scale. However, constitutionalism is an entirely different animal, rarely accomplished by a singular actor and rarely able to be fully comprehended.

CP

John H. Lederer - 8/26/2005

is that the Iraqis vote on whether or not they want the constitution. If not they draft a new one.

That way we need not worry about the opinions of an American diplomat, a professor, a newspaper columnist, our government, the Iraqi government, or a person selected from the street.

They get to vote. Neat concept. It ought be tried more often.

Jonathan Dresner - 8/25/2005

Mr. Pettit,

The US responsibility for the Japanese constitution is well-documented historical fact. Start here and if you have further questions, I'd strongly recommend John Dower's Embracing Defeat for a nuanced and thorough study of the period and the consitutional "process."

The US has been pressuring Japan on Article IX for over forty years; there's nothing new there. Japanese views on the constitution are mixed, and adherence to the document, which is remarkably progressive in several ways, has also been, shall we say, non-uniform.

chris l pettit - 8/25/2005

or whomever else...

Who were the major architects of the Japanese Constitution after WWII? By that I mean, who were the major influences on the writers who actually penned the document? The reason I ask is whether we can see the history as simply that the conditions were amicable to the development of the Constitution and that the Japanese and their lawyers and constitutionalists were able to develop a post war society that was "successful" (by whatever measure)...or whether the US influence actually played that big of a part in the matter. It seems a bit arrogant to give the US all this credit for forcing a constitution on the Japanese when the situation was almost hopeless for the Japanese after the atrocities wrought upon them during the war. Just because something turned out "successfully," does this mean that we can automatically assume that credit goes to those who imposed the Constitution? It seems that there are three aspects...the imposition itself, the ideas offered (such as Article 9, which of course the US is trying to get revoked since it does not fit their interests anymore) and articulated, and the direction which legal scholars, constitutionalists, and society itself decided to go with the new constitution.

CP

Ralph E. Luker - 8/25/2005

You said all the things that I hoped you would.

Manan Ahmed - 8/25/2005

There is no ban in Iraq on any discussions of the constitution. I am commenting not so much on the US influence on the constitution but on the ways in which media here conducts all discussions on Iraq - sans Iraqis [Ahmed Chalabi does_not_count].

Ralph E. Luker - 8/25/2005

Would you have a similar attitude toward the United States-imposed Japanese constitution at the end of WWII? Despite a ban in Japan of all discussion of the imposition, it seems to have served Japan reasonably well. If you wouldn't have a similar attitude toward the United States-imposed Japanese constitution, how are the two situations dissimilar?