Not entirely unexpected, the framers of the new Iraqi constitution are asking for more time to resolve several difficult issues. This is a hugh setback for President Bush who has been banking on a legitimate Iraqi government taking over the administration of Iraq, and relieving the US from its current quagmire in the Middle-Eastern nation. But there can only be a legitimate Iraqi government if it is elected under the provisions of the accepted constitution.
The stall in the new constitution may be traced to ethnic and religion-based differences, dissatisfactions and suspicions. There are three major players in Iraq today. Leaving aside for the time being the important question of who has been marginalised, either deliberately by the American overlords or the other Iraqi groups, the principal parties are the Shiite Arabs (60% of population), Kurds (20%) and the Sunni Arabs (20%).
While there are several differences over the proposed constitution, let us look at a few of the issues that have been blocking its acceptance and approval:
(1) Federalism – under the new constitution, Iraq will be a federation of several states, which unfortunately may lead to breakaways. In the multi-ethnic population where there has been a history of severe hostility, persecution and acrimony by one group (Sunni) against the others (Shiites and Kurds), the recipe is right for secession by ethnic controlled states.
For example, the Kurds aspire to its own homeland. It is the largest ethnic group in the world without a homeland of its own. Currently, it controls the oil-rich and fertile north. It will be a dream come true for Kurds around the world if a Kurdistan were to arise out of the break up of Iraq. Maybe this explains why interim President Jalal Talabani, himself a Kurd, has insisted that the deadline of 15 August must be met.
The Americans and Israeli would love to see that. For the former, it means that the oil assets will be controlled by friendly forces, while for the latter, a pro-American Kurdish state means better prospects for peace with a neighbour. Besides, Israel needs water and Iraq is probably the only Arab nation with plenty of both oil and water. A friendlier Kurdistan may be amenable to Israeli requests for water.
The Sunnis are of course against federalism for the reasons just discussed. As an added complexity to this probability, the neighbouring states of Turkey and Iran will be very displeased with a Kurdistan as they have significant Kurdish problems of their own.
(2) Religion - The Shiites want Islam as the principal source for the new constitution, for the codification of legislation to be along the religious laws. This signals that the Shiites are going for a theocratic state. The Kurds are against this. So are Iraqi women who fear the equal rights they had enjoyed under that secular Mother of them all, Saddam Hussein, will be taken away. Thus they are demanding equal rights under the new constitution, but a theocratic state is unlikely to grant them what they had enjoyed under Saddam Hussein.
What about the Americans? Well, they have supported various theocratic states around the world, like two of the worst, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, therefore as long as Shiite Iraq toes the American line, its President can call himself Ayatollah if he wishes. And bugger human rights or women rights – tough, sweethearts, Uncle Sam doesn’t care much about these values as long as cheap Iraqi oil flows regularly to the USA - don't believe me, ask the Iranians, especially those who had suffered under the heavy hands of the US-trained Savak of the Shah.
(3) Distribution of wealth – this ties in with federalism as one only talks about distribution of whatever, when there are more than 1 semi-autonomous state within a nation. Obviously this will be a tricky issue. How does one split the income? By population size, or by a province's production of oil and other products? Does this indirectly mean that a state has sovereign powers over its own production?
This has been a problem with Punjab state in India. Punjab is a very productive wheat bowl of India, and the Punjabis want or at least wanted to secede because they don't intend to feed the rest of India.
(4) The Sunnis are against proposals to reserve certain jobs for specific ethnic or religious groups. This gives them the sh*t as they fear the Shiites or Kurds dominating the security forces, as these two do now with the blessings of the USA.
(5) The Kurds don't want the proposal for Iraq to be named as a member of the Arab world , as they the Kurds aren’t Arabs. They also want confirmation of certain provinces and cities/towns as theirs, but the Arabs are stalling on this.
(5) A new name for Iraq – this is an amazing issue, because what is wrong with its current name Iraq? Why change it? Will it then be Sumer, Babylonia, Mesopotamia or that alleged Abrahamic state of Chaldea? All I can say is it doesn't smell good for a future indivisible nation.
The very existence of such issues does not spell good news for the future of Iraq. I would not be surprised at all that civil war will break out when the Americans pull out their troops, though not their interference.
The Americans will undoubtedly back the Kurds in the north and Ahmad Chalabi in the south. These two provinces contain the majority of Iraq's oil fields, and the USA will ensure they’ll be Iran and Saudi Arabia all over again, propping up dictatorships in these oil rich provinces.
Oh yes, perhaps the south may wish to consider the new name of Chalabi-stan?
No comments:
Post a Comment