|
My
own thoughts, then as now, are that any post-Saddam
Iraq needs to develop a decentralized government
giving Kurds, Shiites and other groups a significant
voice both politically and economically. Iraq under
Saddam, like most Middle Eastern countries, denied
basic freedom of expression and security of property
to its citizens. An Iraq reconstituted as a federal
republic, with considerable autonomy for the
provinces, and an evenhanded and consistent civil
law, could provide the Iraqi people peace and
prosperity.
A glimpse of the future was seen in Northern Iraq in
the predominately Kurdish states. After the first
Gulf War, the Iraqi government blockaded the North
and the first winter saw starvation among many
Kurds. Infant and adult mortality increased, and
even today, their children who were born and
survived have an abnormally low rate of growth.
Today, Kurdistan stands transformed, illustrating
that a change in governance altered quality of life,
and showing that a federated Iraq could possibly
work. Iraqi Kurds are turning what was a wasteland
into a land of prosperity. After a decade of war,
the Kurds are now seeing reduction in infant
mortality and more births. Northern Iraq is the most
prosperous section of Iraq. Where a Republican Guard
base stood , now stands a supermarket. Kurds can buy
Italian designer clothing, imported electronics, and
Turkish canned goods that can be scanned by infrared
scanners at checkout counters.
In the decades between the wars, the Kurds scrambled
to create a political authority. The two major
factions, Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) and the
Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) were evenly
divided, and the early steps in governing did not go
smoothly. The coalition government between the two
leading parties unraveled and unofficial civil war
occurred—and tension between the two was exacerbated
when the Iraqi Republican Guard swept into a portion
of Kurdistan, driving the PUK into Iran. The KDP
cooperated with the Iraqis.
Northern Iraq is essentially divided between the two
sides and certainly problems exist within Northern
Iraq, but it does demonstrate that federalism could
work. Since the end of the civil war between the two
factions, life has improved for the Kurds as both
parties competed to win the hearts and minds of the
people. Both sides compete in building playgrounds
or Internet cafés, and as Michael Rubin of the
American Enterprise Institute observed, "Fears that
federalism might lead to separatism are misplaced.
Administrative federalism involves only devolution
of power to each of Iraq’s eighteen provinces,
keeping the power of the Kurds, Shites, and the
Sunnis in balance and preventing the domination of
any minority on a national level. A weak central
government would retain power over defense and
foreign policy."
Many of the major Iraqi ethnic groups are supporting
federalism as a means to keep the country together
and protect the rights of each minority. A
federalist state would encourage competition between
regions to see who can provide the best services for
their constituents. Iraq has the potential to be a
successful state, for it has natural and human
resources. Literacy in the 1980’s was 80%, and this
bodes well for Iraq to be able to take advantage of
the new technical age. Prosperity is within reach of
the average Iraqi. There is a core of engineers and
builders who can reconstruct the new Iraq.
A federated and western-oriented Iraq will face
severe challenges both within and beyond its border.
Surrounded by predators in a tough neighborhood,
Iraq would essentially be unarmed after a conflict
with the West. Many Iraqi neighbors would love to
see the new Iraq fail, and so
western—American—presence will be required to
maintain power. The major military powers left,
Turkey and Iran, face their own threat from a
federated Iraq.
Turkey's biggest fear is an independent Kurdish
state that could encourage the Kurdish minority
within its border to rebel for its own independent
state. Turkey has been a steadfast ally of the
United States and NATO. The United States will
maintain its own alliance with Turkey, independent
of Europe—and at least the United States has
influence over Turkey. The United States must regard
Turkey’s interest and security interests. A
federalized Iraq that is economically prosperous
will enhance Turkey’s long-term interest. For one,
Turkey will have access to a vital oil supply, and
trade between the two nations will boost Turkey’s
long-term economic prospects. A federated Iraq will
encourage the Iraqi Kurds to stay part of Iraq, and
reduce the call for an independent Kurdish state;
and such a federated state will respect all the
ethnic groups, including the Turkoman, who are close
to the Turks and whose ethnicity interests the
Turks.
Iran, however, fears a western-oriented federated
Iraq, for it fears that it is the next target of
Washington. Iran could use its influence among some
Kurdish Islamic group to undermine the northern
federated state, but its ability to impact the
Shiites in Southern Iraq would be compromised by
American presence on the Iraq Southern border. There
is a new generation of Iranians, who no longer fear
or love the Islamic revolution, and young Iranians
are now looking to the West. A federated democratic
Iraq will give an example to Iranian reformers.
Kuwait would be happiest, since its own security
will be secured by American presence in Iraq. The
Saudis have been playing their own game of paying
off selected terrorist groups to keep them out of
the kingdom, while trying to be America’s ally. Over
the past decade, Saudis have attempted to play off
America’s past support with a unofficial
rapprochement with Iran. In the 1970s, there existed
an Iranian-Saudi axis when dealing with oil prices,
but this manipulation ended with the Reagan
election. With the radical Iranian fundamentalists
threatening the Saudis on one side, and many radical
states supported by the Soviets on the other hand,
the Saudis needed the American guarantee of their
survival.
The Sunnis have opposed any federalist system, since
in the past, they dominated all of Iraq. At this
point, the Sunnis are opposing any attempt at
federalism, but this would prove an mistake. A
federalist system would allow Sunni autonomy in a
new Iraq. Without it, they will be at the mercy of
the Kurds and the majority Shiites. In the old Iraq,
the Sunnis controlled much of the economy and
military. Now the Kurds and Shiites are taking
control of the economic resources and military.
Sunnis find they no longer control their own
destiny, much less all of Iraq. The past days of
dominating all of Iraq is over. The rub for the
Sunnis is that in a federalist system, oil resources
would fall mostly under control of Kurds and
Shiites. And control of oil means political control
as well. A federalist Iraq will disperse control of
many government responsibities from a central
goverment to local entities. This will allow the
Sunnis to survive in a post-war Iraq, and reduce
possibilities of Civil War.
The Middle East has been a harbor of anti-western
radicalism that threatens world stability as
Islamic-fascists attempt to lead an entire faith in
a jihad against the West. Liberate the Middle East
from its past, and it will lead to world stability.
Afghanistan was the first step, now Iraq is the
second step.
Bush's policies have allowed new opportunities for
not just Iraq, but the whole of the Middle East.
This is still a dangerous neighborhood, but a
democratic Iraq on one side and a growing Democratic
Afghanistan on the other will give Iranian reformers
models to build upon. It is in the interest of the
United States to build stable, western-oriented
governments from the Turkish border through India. A
democratic Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran, combined with
a more stable Pakistan, will enhance world
stability.
This is why it is important to get it right in Iraq.
And one step toward reform in Iraq is a form of
Federalism that allows all sides within that country
protection and increased liberty.
www.blogcritics.org
Top |
® 
