Will a nation based on equal citizenship emerge in Iraq, or is it just the opposite, asks Mohamed El-Anwar in Baghdad Using the media and exploiting journalists' desire to be up to date with breaking news is a task that some players on the Iraqi scene tackle with an extraordinary literalism and shortsightedness. For the past few days certain Shia groups have issued a number of statements that describe ethnic cleansing carried out by the Sunni majority in the town of Al-Madain, 30 kilometres south of Baghdad and the ancient capital of the Persian state, against its Shia residents. A large number of statements on this issue were produced by the office of Al-Sayid Abdul-Aziz Al- Hakim, the head of the Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution. Muwaffaq Al-Rabei, Iraq's former national security advisor discussed Saddam Hussein's Sunni resettlement project, designed to create a buffer zone against the Shia south following the 1991 Baghdad-belt uprising. Hamam Hamoudi from the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution spoke of changes in the Shia political and demographic hold over Iraq, especially south of Baghdad. Individuals known for their extremist denominational views launched a frenzied campaign to mobilise and prepare the Iraqi street for civil war on the pretext that armed Sunnis had taken 150 old men, women and children hostage and were threatening to slaughter them if Al-Madain's Shia residents did not leave the city. As the government faced mounting criticism over its inadequate response, the news prompted Iraq's National Assembly to form a five-member committee to review events and present a fast-tracked report on the situation. Luckily the committee never made it to Al-Madain, where Iraqi and American troops entered last Monday at dawn only to find the streets calm, with no sign of kidnappings or hostages. The affair was nothing more than a run-of-the-mill tribal dispute over a piece of land formerly owned by the state. If the initial stories had been true, a well-known sectarian extremist on the committee would have told us all about Sunni Arabs massacring Shia. This falsified crisis raises important questions about those who fed and encouraged the rumours at such a critical stage in Iraq's development. Such behaviour damages their standing in the public opinion, both inside and outside Iraq and, sadly, shows how sectarianism has become the hallmark of Iraq's new powerbrokers, despite the fact that a number of Shia groups rejected news of the kidnappings from the outset. Foremost of these was the office of Muqtada Al-Sadr -- whose official spokesman in Baghdad, Abdul-Hadi Al-Daraji, insisted that the news was incorrect -- and the Association of Muslim Scholars. Yet these voices were lost in the midst of a flurry of excitable announcements and statements. This has prompted many to ask just who benefits from raising an issue like this at such a critical time, and just what their thinking might be. Could it be to draw attention away from what the Iranians are doing to the Ahwaz Arabs, or is it designed to terrorise Sunni Arabs and force them to accept ministerial positions in the new government and play a larger part in formulating the constitution? Could it be both? And what about the future? Wouldn't it be possible to re-use this issue at a later date for other reasons, maybe to help others benefit at the expense of an Iraqi people that continues to resist the occupation and fears the destructive ideas and whims unleashed by some of their new leaders, ideas that -- theoretically at least -- represent the beliefs of all Iraqis? On the other hand, we have the statement made by the new Iraqi President Jalal Talabani to the BBC, saying that he could bring an immediate halt to the "armed rebellion" by using the Kurdish and Shia militias (the 100,000 strong Peshmerga and the Badr Brigades, also 100,000 strong according to Abdul- Aziz Al-Hakim). "This would be more effective," Talabani continued, "than waiting for the Americans to hand over security to the Iraqi forces." Although his statement contained some positive tones it still goes against the spirit of his first speech to the National Assembly as president, in which he said he would be a president for all, work for the benefit of all and was prepared to set up a dialogue with those armed elements who had misunderstood the situation. The Peshmerga and the Badr Brigades is a touchy subject for ordinary Iraqis of all political and religious stripes. This sensitivity has a number of historical roots. In the case of the Peshmerga, it goes back to the pre-Saddam era when the Iraqi army fought the Kurdish militia in what became known as the Northern War. The Badr Brigades are associated -- in the popular consciousness at least -- with the Iran-Iraq war, an image that has an impact on Sunnis and Shia, Arabs, Torkomen and Kurds alike. A member of the Al-Mahdi Army, who preferred to remain anonymous, explains: "Would the Peshmerga and Badr Brigades arrest members of the Al-Mahdi Army in the event of another Najaf? Yes they would. We know that they were involved in the attacks on Najaf and Falluja, but on the Americans' side. They fought us for reasons that have nothing to do with national pride. It's a grave situation. Everyone knows that there's no link between the Badr Brigades and us." Another fighter continues: "It would have been better if the new Iraqi president had talked about building a new national Iraqi army without all this talk of Peshmergas, Badr Brigades and rebellions. There's enough tragedy in this country as it is." Another questions the new president's approach, saying that while he won't sign the order to execute Saddam Hussein, his words will result in the deaths of thousands of innocent Iraqis, especially since members of the Peshmerga and Badr Brigades have their own, incorrect understanding of what constitutes security issues. "The new military command," he added, "should provide security to Iraq and its citizens. If we start saying that so-and-so is from this group or that militia then it will lead to contradictions and tragedy. Instead of blending into the melting pot of the new army, these different groups will ensure it never holds together." These developments come amidst the intensive manoeuvrings that followed the formation of the third republic and Ibrahim Al-Jaafari taking on the task of forming a new government, which is expected to be announced shortly. During the interim, the political process has taken on new life, as people nervously examine the allocation of ministerial positions both to reward the parties who were most successful in the recent elections and to satisfy those groups that didn't participate in the electoral process, foremost amongst them the Sunni Arabs. Simultaneously, the National Assembly has started to sketch out the basics of its legislative work, building a state through almost daily parliamentary sessions. Yet Baghdad's residents pay the price: checkpoints and security measures that paralyse daily life in the capital and even enrage National Assembly members, angry at being subject to rigorous searches by American forces. Al-Sayid Hussein Al-Sadr is one of those most upset by these searches, describing the treatment meted out to National Assembly members by American and foreign forces as disgraceful and highly disrespectful. Another parliamentarian confirmed that despite claims that the occupation is almost non-existent, it maintains a highly visible and provocative presence, mistreating both ordinary Iraqis and their elected representatives. In some circles, the aggression shown to National Assembly member Fatah Al-Sheikh was seen as a blow to the assembly, and a deliberate message from the occupation forces to those MPs who represent groups opposed to the foreign presence, in particular the Sadrist movement represented by Fatah Al- Sheikh. Every day in Baghdad brings more pain, a pain that all pray will one day become hope. Responsibility for this now lies first and foremost with the new leadership and only secondarily with the occupation forces. The former are Iraqi and are obliged to work in the interests of the whole Iraqi people, not any one group.
