The real issue in Iraq is not the constitution but the split between those doing business with the occupation and others fighting for fundamental sovereignty, writes Hana Al-Bayaty* The Iraqi legislators responsible for drafting a permanent constitution did not reach a consensus before the 15 August midnight deadline, as set by the Transitional Administrative Law (TAL). However, 20 minutes before, Iraq's parliament agreed to give a one-week extension to enable negotiators to resolve their disputes. This extension forestalled the alternative: the dissolution of parliament and the organisation of new elections. Issues that will determine Iraq's future both as a state and a nation, such as federalism, the role of Islam and the redistribution of wealth, have not been resolved. The Bush administration has been exacting intense pressure on the committee to respect the schedule. As consequence the drafting committee did not call for, before 1 August, the authorised six months extension provision permitted by the TAL. While it could be argued that Washington's wish to respect the timetable is a direct result of the increasing pressure the Bush administration is facing regarding its handling of "post-invasion" Iraq, along with its will to downgrade the number of troops present in the country ahead of next year's elections, there is more to it than that. Considering the antagonistic ideologies and agendas of the forces involved in the so-called political process, will one week make any difference? Intense manoeuvring from all sides, including the US administration, has been taking place for the past month in the heavily fortified "Green Zone". The forces which today form the third interim Iraqi government and participate in the drafting process agree only on one point: they accept the partition of Iraq along sectarian lines. Each group involved, however, has a particular understanding of the concept of federalism. The Kurdish movement hopes to constitutionally annex the oil rich city of Kirkuk and potentially declare its independence in the future. Until last week, both Shia parties -- Al-Dawa of Prime Minister Ibrahim Al-Jaafari, and the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) of Abdul Aziz Al-Hakim -- seemed to agree on having, through their new status as the governing majority, a federal state in which they would de facto control the central government and impose religious mores similar to and allied with Iran. Abdul Aziz Al-Hakim's call last week for the same kind of confederation in 9 southern provinces as the Kurdish would enjoy in the north shows a split among them. As the Kurdish movement is secular, bitter disputes arose over the legal basis of the constitution. The United States had, until recently, supported the Kurdish struggle for more autonomy, at the same time asserting the "historical democratic right" of the Shia majority to rule the country. The prospect of having instigated an alliance between Iran and a new Islamic republic, or worse, of southern oil fields falling under Iranian control, might push the US administration to alter its strategy. After having lobbied for the greater involvement of Sunni representatives in the drafting process, the US administration openly criticised the political agenda of its allies working in the Green Zone. Khalilzad, the new US ambassador to Iraq, expressed US concerns that a weakened central government could not hold the country together while the imposition of Sharia for personal status law would be equally displeasing. Khalilzad said the US would, "work to guarantee the rights of Iraqi women and to blunt the desires of ethnic and religious factions pushing for broader autonomy in the new Iraqi state". Nechirvan Barzani, prime minister of the Kurdistan regional government in Arbil and one of the US's closest allies, criticised the role played by the coalition regarding the drafting process. "The US and the UK are working behind the scenes," he said, "dealing with all the groups, saying it should be like this and it should be like that." He added, "Like the Sunnis, they seem to want to centralise power in Baghdad -- it's very disappointing." The US administration is under intense pressure as the Iraqi resistance grows in scale and efficiency: since 1 August at least 47 US soldiers have been killed. It needs to find a honourable exit, and fast. The occupation is well aware of the lack of legitimacy the government suffers from. It was thrown into power, after all, following controversial elections that were boycotted by half of the population. Those who did vote thought that a sovereign government would be able to negotiate the occupation's end. Instead, the government has had to abide by US dictate; conducting large-scale military operations across the country, alienating further swathes of the population, discrediting those in the Green Zone. It seems unlikely that Iraqi legislators will reach an agreement if they don't have US support. They could, however, decide to present an incomplete document that would be nothing more than an extension of the TAL drafted by the American civil administrator Paul Bremer. Or, the secular Kurds and religious Shia might make an alliance of convenience; yet if federalism and the status of Kirkuk are part of the constitution the Sunni community would reject it in the referendum. Despite their encouraging declarations, the US might be hoping that these forces cannot settle their disputes. This would result in the dissolution of the present parliament. Following new elections, it is unlikely that the Shia would yield a similar majority, having failed to achieve any improvements on the security front or in economic situation of the country, and being increasingly viewed as mere puppets of the occupation. The US would be able to bring back on stage a less controversial figure. Is this why former interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, the ex- Baathist secular Shia, is touring the region and being received as if he was the incumbent premier? Meanwhile, outside the heavily fortified Green Zone, the Iraqi resistance seems more and more confident in its capacity to confront the occupation. The unofficial "Iraqi Sunni Resistance" fights for a unified Iraq, rejects the TAL and the idea of partition. It seems unlikely that the greater involvement of Sunnis in the political process would draw support away from the armed struggle as the resistance expresses opposition to all forms of sectarianism, especially to being labelled as Sunni. It considers, at the present moment, anyone negotiating with the US coalition a traitor. "Sunni" self-appointed representatives in the National Assembly, therefore, are not recognised. Despite Condoleezza Rice's assessment that the insurgency in Iraq is losing steam as a political force, some major political developments took place at the end of last month. Representatives of all major anti-occupation forces, including nationalists, Islamists and leftists, met in Beirut on 27 July and issued a joint call for the creation of an Iraqi "National Front for Liberation and Democratic Reconstruction". In their statement, they do not claim to represent the resistance but rather recognise its legitimacy. They accept the principles of international law, which stipulate that no permanent law can be drafted under occupation. They declared their wish to implement the resistance's political agenda, given that they recognise it as the legal embodiment of the former independent state. To build a democratic state of equal citizens wedded to its Arab- Muslim identity, they vowed to struggle through varied means until Iraqi sovereignty is recovered, all laws passed under occupation abolished, and compensation for loses Iraq experienced due to its illegal invasion and subsequent occupation paid. US Ambassador Khalilzad might warn of the threat of a civil war in Iraq, but this conflict cannot be described as such. All components of Iraqi society are present both within the Green Zone and in the resistance. The conflict rather opposes the minority who agrees to participate to the so- called "political process" as set out by the occupation and those who want to reclaim Iraqi sovereignty and see the withdrawal of foreign troops from Iraqi soil. We are, for example, led to believe that all Shia support the present situation, but an aide of Shia cleric Moqtada Al-Sadr, Sheikh Abdul Hadi Al-Daraji, declared that Al-Sadr's followers managed to gather one million signatures demanding a US withdrawal. "The Iraqi people," he said, "confirmed that the presence of the occupation is not wanted." * The writer is a member of the organising committee of the BRussells Tribunal.
