The 'Peoples' of Iraq
Zuheir Kseibati Al-Hayat - 28/08/06//
One of the most outstanding outcomes of the Iraqi tribal chiefs conference is that it has criminalized the killing of Iraqis: Sunnis and Shiites, and Arabs and Kurds. It has also recognized the severe negative impacts of the forced migration and 'takfir' campaigns on the national awareness of the value of integrity. What is certain is that no one there can see light at the end of the tunnel of killing by preparing for other rounds of conferences and dialogue.
One of the chiefs among them is Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who is firm in his national reconciliation project, despite the attitude of other parties. These parties, although considered partners in the rule, try to discourage Maliki, because they are in favor of other projects. While he seems to be calling on the tribes to play a role which all other parties and militias have failed to secure, everyone seems to be at a standstill in face of the inherent dilemmas. No one admits that solving these dilemmas should be the top priority. Meanwhile, the disintegration and division of Iraq knows no peace, seen in the rounds of killing, and sectarian and ethnic immigration.
The American description of the position of Iraqis regarding the rounds and conferences of dialogue that do not yield any results - other than communiqués - is quite simple. The US attributes it to their lack of confidence and their natural fear of any form of solution. Many of us may still remember that the Americans were the ones who imagined and deluded others that the solution would be ready immediately after the elections and the endorsement of a new constitution to end the rule of the interim government. The Americans were the ones who suggested the recipe of federalism, an idea which turned into the biggest fear of the final form of Iraq, which is supposed to always be ruled with a permanent constitution.
In his endeavor to catch the train of national consensus, al-Maliki replaced his reliance on the US occupation with foreign influence. However, he did not fail to define the difficult priorities, the most difficult of which is fighting terrorism and the nightmares of sectarian strife. Then, the occupation became the Iraqis' reality. Driving out the invaders became a second priority for the Iraqis, whereas the Americans were eager to leave the country. Pre-occupied with preventing small-scale civil wars between parties, militias and tribes, the Iraqi people put their struggle against the occupier at the bottom of their priority list. But the Americans, pre-occupied with assessing their losses and looking for a way out of the quagmire, are eager to reach a solution to satisfy the Iraqis and justify a large withdrawal.
Looking into the contradiction between the US and Iraqi priorities, one should look for the biggest barricade in small wars in Basra, Baghdad, Baquba, Nasseriya, Tikrit and Kirkuk. Washington sees federalism as an advanced solution that would protect democracy in a Western fashion. Meanwhile, no party, or political or religious reference could deny the misery this recipe has brought to the Iraqis. This recipe has widened the gap between them on the basis of ethnic and sectarian affiliations.
I am sure that Maliki, like President Jalal Talabani, is not using the slogan of reconciliation to avoid the crisis. I am equally sure that political parties or forces leaders, such as Abdel Aziz al-Hakim, realize that what they pursue under the umbrella of federalism would not facilitate the reconciliation project, which postulates disbanding the militias in order to strengthen the State's grip. Does al-Hakim not know that most identity killings and sectarian and ethnic cleansing campaigns are committed in the name of or with the support of these militias?
At the opening of the Iraqi tribal chiefs convention in Babylon Hotel, al-Hakim's message was that federalism was the best safeguard to our people in central and southern Iraq. Basically, this united country becomes divided into peoples: the Sunni people, the Shiite people, etc… These peoples may need tens of conferences to define their affiliations, identities and loyalty. It will therefore take them years to agree on the criteria of common interest among the neighbors in a country that was once a strong, united country.
A day might come when Maliki, brave as he is in defending the reconciliation project, tells the Iraqis that the home-grown conflict with terrorism is a only a conflict over the borders of federal divisions. Then it would be the time to classify the 'peoples' of Iraq, to divide the country and share the loot.
|
