An Arab view.
Who Prevents Iraq’s Division?
Regional concerns about the eventual division of Iraq are increasing. What is worse is that the issue is being discussed, even if by rejecting it and calling to oppose it. The most important justification was, and still is, summarized in the following expression: 'it is difficult to rule Iraq,' for ever since it was established as a monarchy and transformed into a republic and finally a dictatorship, it did not produce political traditions that could be adopted in the coming stage.
Two things double the concern: first, the American occupation power does not consider the integrity of Iraq as sacred. And does not deal with any danger if it is not in its 'eternal' interests. According to its performance ever since the fall of Baghdad, one cannot rely on a surprising American wisdom in dealing with the future of the country, especially that it cancelled the state and let it be the subject of looting, thinking it was easy to rebuild from scratch.
The second, is about the weakness of the regional forces and their shrinking strategic weight facing the direct American presence, to a point where no one is listened to but Israel, which will never be a part of the region.
Israel has an interest in dividing Iraq, hence, so does the U.S. Even Turkey, the U.S.' staunch ally, discovered at the adequate time that it is not as heard as Israel. Because of the Kurds, or without them, Americans wouldn't grant Turks a role in Iraq that they would deny to Israel. Delaying and postponing the return of the UN to Iraq means that the occupation power wants to keep the country closed until it finishes drawing its new map. If not, 'governor' Paul Bremer would not have been angry because Mr. Abdulaziz Hakim sent a letter to Kofi Annan and protested on opening this channel between the ruling council and the UN. Would have Washington been serious in agreeing to 'a vital role' for the international organization, it would have found this step a beginning in the right direction; had it been sincere in the matter of 'transferring authority,' it wouldn't be angry because of Hakim's letter to Annan.
Bremer announced, yesterday, an initiative to beautify the image of the occupation. However, freeing prisoners who were detained randomly during savage security campaigns without any charge except that they used to belong to the Baath Party, and denying their parents, for months, to know anything about them changes nothing in the people's view of the occupation forces. True, the Iraqi people did not welcome them with flowers, yet, they were not hostile, until the soldiers started behaving as an occupation force and oppressing people. Hence, releasing the detainees might somehow ease the people's anger, but will never transform the occupation into a welcomed force. Despite the above, Bremer revealed some of the occupation forces' concerns: "it is time of forgiveness and solidarity between Iraqis for the sake of one cause." Which cause? He means establishing the state, reconstruction and democratization. But specifically, he means, not to attack the occupation forces.
In order to build the state, reconstruct the country and establish democracy, Iraqis need all sorts of foreign aids. However, they mostly need an Iraqi internal consensus to the state's concept and to the content of democracy, the authority's restrictions and a constitution that abides everybody to respect it. However, the general impression about internal Iraqi sectarian and ethnic relations does not assert that they already decided Iraq should be a final home for everybody. Each has its conditions, claims, desires and dreams and these are elements that hinder the establishment of any state, democracy, the rule of the law and the equality of people before the law.
No one can, American or Arab, replace the Iraqis in their search of internal consensus. They won't be excused if they hide behind American maneuvers and games to justify not reaching a consensus. They are called to define their national interests on the basis of cohabitation, participation and mutual respect. Saddam Hussein's regime was a catastrophe for Iraqis and Arabs. Hence, their 'successors' shouldn't be catastrophes for Iraq and the neighboring countries. As long as the regional fears exist, nothing would prevent the ruling council from taking a strong position that rejects the division, not only to reassure the neighboring countries, but also because it believes in the united nation for all Iraqis.
english.daralhayat.com
lurqer |
