|
Unifying force - or just a peace treaty?
14.10.2005
|
|
|
|
Opinion is divided in
Iraq and beyond on whether its new constitution, to
be voted on tomorrow, will help to hold the country
together - or accelerate its disintegration into
three separate, mutually antagonistic Shia, Sunni
and Kurdish statelets.
But what is clear is that the document that emerged
from tense, and often bad-tempered, US-directed
negotiations between Iraq's main communities is very
different from the blueprint for a "democratic,
federal, pluralistic and united Iraq" originally
envisaged by the Bush administration.
Zalmay Khalilzad, the US ambassador, said at the
outset he hoped to produce a "national compact
overcoming the loss of trust among Iraq's
communities". But what began as a nation-building
exercise mutated into the de facto negotiation of a
"tripartite peace treaty" amounting to "ratification
of a break-up that has already happened," said Peter
Galbraith, a former US envoy who attended the talks.
"Underneath an Islamic veneer, Iraq's new
constitution ratifies the division of Iraq into
three disparate entities: Kurdistan in the north, an
Iranian-influenced Islamic state in the south, and
in the centre, a Sunni region that has no clear
political identity," he told the New York Review of
Books.
Yet for all its faults, the ultra-loose federal
union now proposed represented "the last chance to
hold Iraq together," Mr Galbraith said. "It is the
most positive political development since the fall
of Saddam Hussein ... The alternative is not a more
centralised state. It is disintegration and chaos."
The key question in the referendum is supposedly
whether the Sunni Arab minority, the big losers in
the negotiations, will defeat the charter by
mustering two-thirds majorities in any three of the
four provinces where they predominate. But the
Sunnis are split. The Iraqi Islamic party has backed
the constitution; other groups are urging a no vote
or a boycott; and some voters may stay away because
of threats from Sunni insurgents. Yet with most
Shias and Kurds in favour, the constitution looks
likely to pass, despite a continuing row over
control of Kirkuk and other issues.
A far bigger question concerns the impact of the
constitution's many uncomfortable and hurried
compromises on Iraq's future governance. Some of its
provisions appear barely compatible with a unified
state.
The central government will oversee foreign, defence
and monetary policy. Otherwise, agreed or proposed
federal regions, such as Kurdistan, will control
their own military forces and territory, enforce
their own laws (which override federal law), raise
taxes and distribute water, and enjoy sole authority
over new oilfields.
That suggests a limited future role for Iraq's still
notional national army, and that the offices of
federal president and prime minister could be
rendered largely symbolic.
The constitution's vague maxim that "Islam is the
official religion of the state and is the basic
source of legislation" means in practice that
secular Kurdistan will be under no obligation to
comply. But it also means that Islamic parties such
as the Iranian-backed Sciri, whose leader wants a
Shia "super-region" in the south, will be free to
impose a strict interpretation of sharia law. That
has raised fears that women's rights - of particular
concern to Washington, which wishes to portray Iraq
as a showpiece for Arab democracy - will be
curtailed. That process is already under way in
Basra.
"The constitution is fantastic for the Kurds," a
senior British official said. But he denied it would
encourage moves towards independence there and in
the south, while further alienating Sunnis and
fuelling the insurgency.
"Overall, it's a decent compromise based on what was
do-able. It's a flawed document. But there are a lot
of fundamental freedoms in there. It's not the end
of the process. Of course it could all go rat-shit.
In the end, it's up to the Iraqis."
www.guardian.co.uk
Top |
Kurd Net
does not take credit for and is not responsible for the content of news
information on this page
|
® 