Commentators warned that establishing a federal Iraq is the beginning of the end, writes Rasha Saad The call by powerful Iraqi politician Abdul-Aziz Al-Hakim, head of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) to establish a federal Iraq in the south and parts of the centre was heavily criticised by several Arab commentators. Predicting that establishing a federal Iraq is just the beginning and that the worst is yet to come, Syrian writer Hussein Al-Oudat wrote in the UAE's Al-Bayan that Al-Hakim's proposal provided religious authorisation to the establishment of a Shia federalism in Iraq that might turn in the future into confederalism and even an independent state. Al-Oudat also criticised Al-Hakim's "common characteristics" justification for a federal state and wrote that this step "will also open the door in the Arab world to every Islamic sect which numbers more than 70 to call for a similar federal government in their country since the only necessary condition is "common characteristics". Kuwaiti writer Mohamed Al-Rumeihi wrote in Al-Bayan that the message behind Al-Hakim's speech was clear: Iraq will have three parts that enjoy self-rule: Kurdish, Shia and Sunni under the slogan of sharing wealth and power, "the same slogan which the Sudanese accepted," Al-Rumeihi wrote. Al-Rumeihi warned that the formation of a Shia state in the south of Iraq will eventually help create the perceived political sectarian "Shia crescent" that is expected to start from Tehran and end in south Lebanon while passing through Iraq. Al-Rumeihi concluded, "in this respect the biggest losers are the Sunnis because they will be lost in a geographical environment that is scarce in oil with few water resources and will not have borders to any neighbouring countries." Columnist Jihad Al-Khazen also said that federalism in south Iraq might create an Iranian-style Islamic republic. In the London-based Al-Hayat newspaper Al-Khazen asked, "did the US fight in Iraq to establish an Iranian-style Islamic republic?" Days before the draft of the constitution was submitted, Al-Khazen predicted the constitution will have less in the way of freedoms than the transitional laws used by the Coalition Provisional Authority to govern. "Women and minorities will lose out and human rights will diminish," Al-Khazen wrote. Al-Khazen also denounced Al-Hakim for asking for compensation for Iran for the war with Iraq, for which the Iraqi government has officially apologised. "I say to Al-Hakim that Saddam Hussein began this war, but Ayatollah Khomeini was not innocent. He exported revolution and targeted Iraq, which prompted Saddam to engage in self-defence in the face of an imminent invasion," Al-Khazen wrote. More importantly, Al-Khazen said Saddam was a criminal dictator who did not reach power through democratic means. International law, wrote Al-Khazen, says that a democratic government that follows a dictatorship is not obliged to repay debts or meet commitments that are not in the interest of the people. "SCIRI, which was based for years in Iran, is indebted to the rulers there and is trying to pay off its bills at the expense of the future of the Iraqi people. It is trying to do so as the US government tries to persuade Iraq's creditors to forego debt repayment, partially or totally." Al-Khazen concluded that the debate and divisions over the constitution "prove that Iraq as we know it has ended although I hope I'm wrong." Iranian writer Mohamed Sadeq Al-Husseini did not see the benefits gained by Iran by applying federalism in Iraq. He said the main winners will be the US and Israel. Al-Husseini wrote in Al-Hayat that 15 August, the date announcing the draft constitution, "marks the destruction of the Iraqi state and the establishment of the 'Greater Middle East' on the basis of sectarian divisions in the Arab and Islamic region." Al-Husseini also warned that the impact of establishing a federal Iraq can easily backfire on other Arab and Islamic countries including Iran. He explained that there are some people who perceive great and direct danger to the unity and security of Iran, "Why? Because what happens in this invaded land [Iraq] is not the outcome of natural peaceful social development but a divisionist-enforced project coated with democracy, a multi-sectarian regime whose aim is creating constructive chaos based on serving the security of Israel and residing over the wealthy resources of the Arab and Islamic world with Iraq as a launch pad." Al-Bayan however drew attention to the suffering of Iraqis who do not know where there next meal is coming from. Al-Bayan warned that Iraq is in great danger "if its politicians are more concerned with national, ethnic and sectarian gains at a time when millions of Iraqis are suffering under the invasion and random violence and amidst dire living conditions with no services." The newspaper said life had deteriorated so much that some Iraqis "remember the UN economic sanctions inflicted on Iraq after its 1990 invasion of Kuwait as the good old days." Al-Bayan concluded, "Iraqis might lose confidence in their present leaders if they are not able to manage the state, guaranteeing the safety and unity of the land and people."
