The draft Iraqi constitution is set to break the country into three, pitching ethnic and denominational differences against each other and isolating Arabs, writes Abdallah Al-Ashaal* The draft constitution of Iraq is subject to heated debate, the intensity of which has been fuelled by rumours that Washington provided the template and that it is now in such a rush to see it completed that President George W Bush personally called up Iraqi leaders to help overcome the difficulties encountered with the country's Sunnis. Peter Galbraith, former US ambassador to Croatia and currently charged with monitoring the progress of the constitution, offers some insight into Washington's thinking on the matter. Rather than dividing the country, he said, the proposed constitution is tailored to a country that is already divided. Drawing up a constitution that would artificially bind three divergent societies would create only friction, violence and civil war. "It's not a problem if a country breaks up, only if it breaks up violently," he said, adding, "Iraq wasn't created by God. It was created by Winston Churchill after World War I." The Bush administration easily shrugs off the accusation that it is the architect of the Iraqi constitution. It argues that it drew up the constitutions of Japan and Germany during its occupation of those countries after World War II, and sees no reason why it should not do the same for Iraq, which was no less hostile to democracy, peace and liberty. As Nazism was the disease that led Germany to war against the rest of Europe, the US was determined to eliminate all manifestations and sources of Nazi ideology and behaviour. It outlawed the Nazi Party, rounded up former Nazi members and ensured that the constitution contained clauses prohibiting the display of Nazi emblems and all forms of Nazi propaganda. The US was equally keen to eliminate the militarist creed that had driven Japan's brutal belligerency in the 1930s and 1940s. The Japanese constitution it drafted sought to create a total rupture with that bellicose past and it therefore prohibited the creation of a new army and it simultaneously placed great emphasis on the democratic structures that would obviate against a resurgence of militarist hierarchism. The Bush administration applied the same approach to Iraq whose Baath Party it placed in the same category as Germany's Nazi Party and Japan's military elite. Not surprisingly, therefore, the new constitution not only bans the Baath Party, but gives new status to a national committee that works in coordination with judicial and executive authorities to purge former Baath members from government organisations and to bring the most prominent of these to trial. But can Iraq's Baath Party truly be equated to Germany's Nazi Party and the pre-World War II Japanese militarist creed? As we know, it was Japan's attack against Pearl Harbor that drew America into the war that ultimately led to Japan's defeat, the US occupation of that country and the imposition of a constitution drawn up by the commander of the US occupation forces, General MacArthur. Similarly, if Germany's National Socialist movement was initially an expression of the German people's longing to compensate for the humility of defeat in World War I, Hitler's decision to invade Europe had transcended all permissible legal and political bounds. Eventually, the US was drawn into the war on the other side of the Atlantic and thus came to champion the defence of the free democratic world from the combined forces of German and Italian fascism and Japanese militarism. In the case of Iraq, by contrast, the US was the aggressor, moving into the attack, moreover, even as Baghdad was abiding by the provisions of UN Security Council Resolution 1441 regarding weapons of mass destruction inspections. Furthermore, the US justified its actions on grounds that have since been established to be palpably false but even then were insufficient under international law to justify its unilateral aggression. When discussing Iraq, it is also important to take into consideration that Saddam Hussein and his Baath Party's crimes were directed against all Iraqis, and not just the Kurds and Shia, as the Americans claim. More importantly, here, there is no question that the US fully supported Iraq in it's war against Iran and was more than willing to keep silent over Saddam's crimes against his own people as long as he was fighting, on America's behalf, to defeat Iran's Islamic revolution. There is also little question that Washington lured Iraq into invading Kuwait, through which ploy the US succeeded in establishing its military presence in the Gulf, consolidating its control over the natural wealth of the region, encircling Iran, strengthening Israel and partitioning Iraq and divesting it of its Arab identity. There is thus a vast difference between the Baath Party, which was used to serve US interests, and the German Nazi Party, which was working for Germany alone. The Iraqi constitution contains several provisions that have grave ramifications. The first article states that Iraq is an independent nation, thereby setting this constitution apart from others in this part of the world that emphasise the Arab character of the state. The article goes on to describe the system of rule as a democratic, federal, representative (parliamentary) republic. There is a lot packed into those four words alone. The centre of power is to reside in parliament, as opposed to the president as was the case before the occupation. More significantly, as a federal system considerable powers and control over resources will be dispersed on a regional/sectarian basis, leaving only scant powers to the central federal government. The wording of the provisions pertaining to Kurdistan in particular make it clear that the constitution aims to partition Iraq after having stripped it of its Arab character. But more ominous provisions follow. Article 3 states that Iraq is "part of the Islamic world" -- another anomaly among all constitutions in the Arab and Islamic world. The notion of the Islamic world is a moral concept rather than a basis for relations between states, which could be more appropriately accomplished by stating that the nation is an Islamic state. Then to round things off, the article states that Iraq's "Arab people are part of the Arab nation." In effect, the constitution has divided the country into a large part that belongs to the greater Islamic world and a smaller part that has some affiliation to the Arab world. Otherwise put, it is as though the Shia of Iraq no longer regard themselves as Arab, just as the Kurds do not regard themselves as Arab. Article 2 is a recipe for confusion. It states that Islam is "a basic source of legislation", as opposed to "the basic source". On the basis of this premise it lists a number of prohibitions that neither follow logically nor use precisely defined terms. It states, "no law can be passed that contradicts the fixed principles of Islam... the principles of democracy... [and] the rights and basic freedoms outlined in this constitution." The second paragraph of this article states, "this constitution guarantees the Islamic identity of the majority of the Iraqi people and the full religious rights for all individuals and the freedom of creed and religious practices." Nothing more clearly illustrates the intent to fragment Iraq and weaken its Arab character as clearly as the constitutional provisions concerning language. Article 4 recognises both Arabic and Kurdish as the nation's two official languages. Accordingly, the official gazette must be issued in both languages; oral communications in official domains, such as parliament, the cabinet and the courts, must be conducted in either of the two languages; official documents and correspondences must be produced in both languages; and public schools must also use both languages. At the same time, the article guarantees Iraqis the right to educate their children in their mother tongues, such as Turkomen or Assyrian, in government educational institutions. It adds that federal agencies and institutions in Kurdistan must use both languages, that Turkomen and Assyrian will be official languages in the areas where they are spoken and that any region or province can take a local language as an additional official language if a majority of the population there approves this in a referendum. The high degree of decentralisation under the constitution is guaranteed to strengthen the forces of fragmentation. The constitution divides the country into "regions, decentralised provinces and local administrations". Each region effectively has its own government, with a broad range of executive, legislative and judicial authorities. The constitution also provides that oil and gas are the property of all Iraqi people in all regions and provinces, and that the federal government will administer oil and gas extracted from current fields in cooperation with the governments of the producing regions and provinces on condition that the revenues will be distributed fairly in a manner compatible with demographic distribution across the country. There is no doubt that the American-designed draft Iraqi constitution is as wholeheartedly sympathetic to the Kurds as it is hostile to the Arabs, ridding Iraq of whose identity and influence was what really motivated the US invasion. If there is conflict between the Muslim and Arab character of Iraq, the authors of the constitution have made it clear how they want this conflict resolved: the majority of the population is Muslim but only a minority belong to the Arab nation. It would be a wonder if Iraq remains in the Arab League, as the constitution patently aims to isolate the country from its Arab environment and as the Arab League Charter stipulates that its members must be Arab states, a character that has cultural, linguistic and ethnic dimensions. What is certain is that with this constitution, the US has scored an immense success, at great cost to itself, on behalf of Israel. It has totally fragmented Iraq and placed bitter realities before the Arab world. The notion that there is a conflict between Arabism and Islam was formerly no more than a theoretical proposition that was raised whenever the Arab world was in crisis. Today it has taken concrete form in Iraq, where the constitution sets non-Arab Muslims against Arab Muslims. If Iraq was divided on a sectarian basis, the number of Shia and Sunni Muslims would be roughly equal as most Kurds are of the latter sect. However, the constitution divides Iraq both on the basis of ethnic identity and denominational affiliation to the detriment of Arab Sunnis. If Iraqis do not reach the conviction that they are all first and foremost Iraqis, the country itself will degenerate into civil strife that will have far reaching regional repercussions. Imagine for a moment what would occur if the federation collapses. Kurdistan would be vulnerable to assault from Turkey and Iran, which both share an interest in forestalling a national Kurdish revival. The Shia state would be almost immediately absorbed into Iran and the little Arab state that is left around Baghdad would be annexed to the Arab territories, which perhaps is precisely what American officials had in mind when they declared that they invaded Iraq in order to redraw the map of the region. * The writer is former assistant to the Egyptian foreign minister .
