Iraq Council Close to Choosing Federalism

[pinto]

Tuesday January 6, 2004 12:01 AM
By SARAH EL DEEB
Associated Press Writer

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - The Governing Council is close to agreeing on a federal system for Iraq and will defer until next year the explosive issue of whether to give greater autonomy to the northern Kurdish region, two council members said Monday.

Dividing Iraq into federal states along ethnic and religious lines is a sensitive matter for Iraqis as well as for others in the region who fear such separations will lead to the disintegration of the country. Turkey and Iran also worry about an increasingly autonomous Kurdistan because of their own Kurdish minorities.

<snip>

In Baghdad, members of the Iraqi Governing Council were focusing on how to structure the country in the post-Saddam Hussein era, including a proposal by the council's five Kurdish members to allow Kurdistan to exist as an autonomous region.

<snip>

``The Kurds wanted to have a federal system based on two ethnic states. This is going to be difficult,'' said Muwaffak al-Rubaie, a Shiite member of the Governing Council. ``We will agree on the principle of federalism but leave the details for later.''

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-3590300,00.html

rocky road for Iraq, imho

[jpgray]

1. Hell-o-o-o Yugoslavia! (nt)

[Dirk39]

2. We need one, two, three, four - many Yugoslavias...

http://globalresearch.ca/articles/COL312A.html

Hello from Germany,
Dirk

[pinto]

3. I am fundamentally opposed to partitions as a means to an end, as I've

posted here re: Iraq. Seems like there's going to be an interim "compromise" on federalism as a functioning framework.
What worries me, easy to say from the US, is that the Shi'ite are playing for time in light of assurances to the Kurds from the US for "autonomy". I'm struck by the Shi'ite mention of working the details out later. I read that as post occupation.

(Perhaps a true federalist government might work...it was an option considered in our (US) constitutional debates. We ended up with a sort of stand off between the states and the federal government under a constitution aimed specifically at the rights of the individual. A workable and combative balance. And, of course, we went to war amongst ourselves about those individual rights.)

Back to partitions....the track record is bad: Ireland/Northern Ireland, India/Pakistan/Bangladesh, post WWII Germany, Israel/Palestine...etc.

My point: If federalism is an option the differs from partition and represents a role for each "group" in Iraq, perhaps it has a chance. I have my doubts. One way it COULD work, though, imho, is by socializing the oil production, as a nation, and allocating those funds for internal development within a federalist system....

Thanks for the post, it's a good read.

[legin]

4. I was going to say this

but it better coming from the horses mouth (from Dirk39's article):

But, to divide Iraq has, in fact, been an old Israeli dream. In 1982, Oded Yinon, an official from the Israeli Foreign Affairs office, wrote: "To dissolve Iraq is even more important for us than dissolving Syria. In the short term, it's Iraqi power that constitutes the greatest threat to Israel. The Iran-Iraq war tore Iraq apart and provoked its downfall. All manner of inter-Arab conflict help us and accelerate our goal of breaking up Iraq into small, diverse pieces."

-----------------------
I have a feeling there is a bit of 18th and 19th century European history type stuff in here.

[jpak]

5. In the bad old days it was "divide and conquer"....

under the Bush Regime, however, it's been updated to "conquer and divide"....

the Spoils that is....

(at least some concepts are timeless)

[Venomous_Rhetoric]

6. Great.....

It will be just like Canada, where the Provinces and their citizens have no control or say against the ruling "elite" in Ottawa....

[Venomous_Rhetoric]

7. I hope

They at least have the brains to demand an elected senate for the provinces.... otherwize it will be the SAME as Canada, except for the Queen... But they can ask Tony Blair if they can borrow his for the next 100 years or so...

[Dirk39]

8. And it has nothing nothing nothing to do...

with federalism in it's classic meaning. It's about "Ethnically Pure States"!
I live in one of the most federal of all democrazies, I guess (Germany).
Federalism here was invented as some kind of protection against a centralized power.
In Iraq they will try to isolate the resistance from the rest and punish those regions while at the same time reward those regions, who stay calm and accept everything. Just like in former Yugoslavia with the "devil" Milosevic and the "evil" serbs against the good KLA, against the good freedom fighting Al-Quaida etc. ppp. They have already engaged the same PR companies like before in Yugoslavia. Among them the Rendon Group.
Dirk

[Venomous_Rhetoric]

9. There has always

Been 'provinces' in Iraq. federalism, a central government, isn't really a bad thing, as long as the senate is representative and elected.
What has to happen, is federal candidates from each province need to be elected. Lets say there are 2-3 political parties in each province. Each of those parties must have a leader who himself must try be apealing to the whole country. Then they vote for the party who's leader they like best. That party forms the federal government. Also, each province must for a provincial government.
Oh the joys of politics.

Federalism, in Canada IS the central power. The problem is, we do not have an elected senate in Canada, so the senate is "apointed" by the ruling federal power for life, instead of that senator being elected by the people of that province for a term.
The Canadian system as close to a dictatorship as you can get while still calling yourself a democracy. You can change the federal government, but your stuck with the senate. The senate can literaly stall the new government.

[Venomous_Rhetoric]

11. here...

The federal Government in Canada can appoint Wayne Gretski to the senate.
Why? because he was a good hockey player, not because he is a good politician. Our senate is full of idiots like that, which is why our government is so screwed up now.

[jpak]

10. "those regions, who stay calm and accept everything"

are just biding their time, my friend...

After ChimpCo Occupation Forces leave I-raq, there will be a bloody civil war (to divide the meager spoils that have not been sucked into Haliburton's Black Hole).

And how does ChimpCo propose to deal with the very real possibility of Turkish intervention into a "Free" Kurdistan after the US withdraws??????

Who Knows???

(clue: more bombs, more death, more profits for their cronies)

[Venomous_Rhetoric]

12. Hope not

"After ChimpCo Occupation Forces leave I-raq, there will be a bloody civil war (to divide the meager spoils that have not been sucked into Haliburton's Black Hole)."

Unfortunatley, thats a very real posibility. Which is why a strong federal government is needed. I really doubt that Bush & co can put together a big enough federal government army strong enough to prevent that from happening. So, I can see the USA being in Iraq for quite a few years. It kinda ties Bushes hands to do other things, like go after the terrorists in other countries, or deal efectively with NK. Unless he builds up the Army and navy substantually in the next couple years.

Just my thoughts