Arab states might believe that by encouraging Sunnis to endorse the permanent constitution they are working for Iraqi unity, but the opposite would result, writes Abdullah Al-Ashaal* During a 3 October meeting in Jeddah, the seven foreign ministers who are members of the Arab League's Iraq Committee stressed that they are intent on Iraq retaining its political and geographic unity. To this end they sent the League's secretary- general on a special mission. While I wish it success, it will do little to alleviate my real fears about Iraq. The United States insists that the 15 October referendum on a permanent Iraqi constitution will be a critical step in Iraq's current political process. Permanent rule will follow, and with it Washington will have completed what it began when it invaded Iraq in 2003. It freed the Iraqi people from a despotic ruler and commenced a political process with the formation of several interim governments to sow seeds of democracy in a land of waste that had never even heard of the concept, at least according to the American viewpoint. This democracy was established through ballot boxes, requiring international support from the UN Security Council via Resolution 1546, the Arab region and indeed the entire world. The United States stresses that if terrorism had not thrown hurdles before this wave of democracy the new Iraq would have been formed in record time given the blessing of international consensus. The US holds that Sunni Arabs alone have been the obstacle, boycotting the elections and depriving themselves of participating in the drafting of the constitution and defining the divisions of the new Iraq. They are the ones, according to the US, who have practised terrorism and who have sheltered foreign terrorist elements, allowing violence to take the place of discourse, making Iraq an unbearable hell, and causing efforts to establish democracy to falter. Hopes of reconstructing Iraq dissipated after Washington distributed its war profits to companies from states that participated in the grandiose charity campaign to save the Iraqi people, or that at least gave the campaign their blessing. Yet it appears that President George Bush was pleased by Iraq's transformation into a killing field. It allowed him to justify to the American people why they must follow him blindfolded, stripped of their freedoms and generous with their money, while he single- handedly saved them from the terrorism targeting the stronghold of the free world. This stronghold gambled its future on defeating this cursed terrorism that has cost the lives of the youth of the American nation; a nation where war expenditure, always for the sake of freedom of course, has consumed the lion's share of American gross national product for 200 years. President Bush has put before his people and the world a picture of Iraq standing before two pathways. The first is the ultimate defeat of terrorism in a global battle that would give birth to a new Iraq stripped of its Arabism. The new Iraq would emerge from the defeat of the Arab Sunnis to the favour of non-Arab Shia and non-Arab Kurds. Bush would then gain an unprecedented historical ally; an Iraq wrested from the pan-Arab community and repositioned in the Islamic community, even though Arabian culture has long been at the heart of the history of Baghdad. The second choice is to leave Iraq to terrorism, a choice that would keep the American nation's nagging conscience awake at night and make the American president seem negligent -- his greatest pitfall being Iraq. Yet the Arab world has numerous reservations about the constitution being considered in the 15 October referendum, particularly with regards to the Arabism of Iraq. The constitution as is stresses federalism and will serve as a tool to lay the foundations of fragmentation. This constitution is meant to be permanent, so that if the United States leaves Iraq it will be reassured that the new Iraq has been born and its relationship to Arabism has been severed, to serve as a headquarters for new alliances with no relation to the Arab world. The ultimate aim of the US is to create a new Greater Middle East that overrides traditional divisions. The United States views Iraq and the rest of the Arab region from the perspective that the global war on terrorism it is leading must be combined with changing the region's composition and planting democracy according to American conceptions. This scenario serves foreign interests that contradict the higher interests of the region. The current issue in Iraq is extremely critical, for the passing of the permanent Iraqi constitution is certain to succeed because the majority, which is composed of Shia and Kurds, support it. The Sunnis, on the other hand, consider this constitution a historic death sentence. It implies that any future efforts to affirm Iraq's Arabism will be unconstitutional and in opposition to over 70 per cent of the population. No one will aid the Sunnis, and this will result in new elements joining the Iraqi resistance against the American occupation and the new Iraqi government. Ordinary Iraqis will pay with their lives, security, and comfort in this battle destined to have no end. What constitutional form might strike a balance between the infighting parties in Iraq? What is the role of the Arab world at this late stage? Is it possible to depend on rational minds within all the sects to arrive at an agreement on a new national charter? Is it possible to consider the constitution temporary, as some have recommended, until a final agreement is made between all parties? Will the withdrawal of American forces lead to the outbreak of civil war? Have sectarian interests taken a position higher than that of a unified Iraq? All of these thorny questions need to be answered, and time is passing with the contradictions between Shias and Kurds growing, as expressed in the spat between the Kurdish president and the Shia prime minister. When Prince Saud Faisal frankly commented on this fact he was criticised by both Iran and Iraq; and the Saudi Kingdom bore their criticism alone, despite expressing the view of the Arab world as a whole. At the same time, we must take a good look at Iraq's current situation. If the constitution turns a blind eye to its Arab character, this does not imply that Iraq would no longer be Arab. This would only happen if the constitution was amended and Kurdish and Farsi became the official languages of the new Iraq. Our brethren in Iraq must realise that Arabism is not merely an article in the constitution, and that they cannot change the cultural reality by simply changing the text. Arabism is a culture and a civilisation, not a race or sect. If a federal system is established in Iraq, it will serve as a mere fig leaf to cover the rest of the constitution's flaws. And if Arab states urge Iraqis, including Sunnis, to vote (the US administration sees the Sunni vote on the constitution as a way to fight terrorism), the equation lacks logic. The Sunnis will boycott the referendum and will resist this constitution. One might say that their boycotting the elections was a grave mistake because it deprived them of proportionate participation in the National Assembly and the constitution drafting committee. One might also say if they boycott the constitutional referendum, they will isolate themselves from the political process and will fall behind the retinue racing to establish the new Iraq. Much Arab analysis has arrived at the conclusion that the Sunnis have gotten themselves into a jam, that they should have participated and attempted to alter the equations. But the Sunni position is one of many results of the occupation policy and such analysis overlooks its causes to focus on results. Rescuing Iraq from fragmentation and certain civil war is still possible through regional or even international settlements such as those in Cyprus and elsewhere. The Shias must define their identity and not settle with claiming that they are Iraqis. The pressure of Arab states on the Sunnis to endorse the constitution without amendments will lead these states to carry historic responsibility for the entrenchment of fragmentation, contributing to the sparks of civil war, and exacerbate Iraq's tragedies in the future. Arabs must stand against the division of Iraq and the stripping of its Arab character to sidestep the dangerous geo- political fallout that will bury us all if we neglect these issues. * The writer is former assistant to the Egyptian foreign minister.
