The US Senate resolution to divide Iraq prompted rejection and dismay, writes Doaa El-Bey Although it is non-binding, the Senate resolution is viewed by commentators as interference in Iraq's affairs. Kheir Allah Kheir Allah said the resolution to divide Iraq was supported by a number of senators including Democrat members. It was the outcome of the plans of the influential Democratic senators Joseph Biden and Leslie Gelb who wrote a series of articles in US newspapers explaining the reasons for the resolution. First, as Kheir Allah wrote in the Lebanese daily Al-Mustaqbal, Biden and Gelb regarded the division as the only way to reduce violence between Iraqis from different sects, factions and ethnic groups. Hence, the US administration would eventually be capable of withdrawing its troops from Iraq. But Kheir Allah regarded the resolution as an attempt by the Bush administration to buy time until it would have to clearly declare that it fragmented Iraq and was no longer capable of reuniting it. What is happening in Iraq at present is worse than division because there are no clear lines according to which division could take place especially at a time when Iraq is in the middle of a civil war in the full sense of the word and when cleansing operations according to ethnic origin are in full swing. Kheir Allah questioned whether Iraq is subject to division. "Iraq is subject to fragmentation. There is a race at present between division and fragmentation in the wake of the US failure to create a paradigm for democracy and political plurality there," he added. In the United Arab Emirates' independent daily Akhbar Al-Arab Omar Naguib wrote that the resolution was a mere manoeuvre on the part of the White House to cover up for its defeat in Iraq. However, Naguib added that the plan was inapplicable, was rejected by the majority of Iraqis and ignored the cities in which Sunnis, Shia and Kurds live together peacefully. In addition, he pointed to intermarriages among the three groups which have produced generations which do not believe in sectarianism any longer. Naguib argued that the occupation of Iraq and its consequent division was in the interest of Israel in order to implement "the Big Middle East" or "Greater Israel" project by fragmenting Iraq and completely destroying it. "The US and international Zionism used the constitution and federalism to achieve their aims in Iraq. The former would give the US and Zionists the right to loot Iraq by dividing it into three small and weak states and the latter would fragment Iraq in a legal and constitutional way," he wrote. Naguib concluded that the neo- conservatives' plan to divide Iraq was part of a more ambitious US-Zionist plan to break up the Middle East into at least 50 small states. Abdul-Rahman Al-Rashed regarded division as a silly idea because, he wrote, some senators think that by giving Sunnis, Shia and Kurds an independent state each, then that would satisfy the Iraqis and put an end to the conflict. If that were the case, as Al-Rashed argued in the London-based daily Asharq Al-Awsat, nobody would have opposed the division. But the truth is the majority of Iraqis want one central state as a US referendum showed, and that 61 per cent of Iraqis want one state. Division is likely to face other problems. It is difficult to draw clear borders of three states and various groups intermingling in many areas. "Thus dividing Iraq would automatically cause wars over land, resources and governing. That entirely contradicts Senator Biden's vision that division would disengage the warring groups," Al-Rashed wrote. The way out for Iraq at present is to try to form a political system that represents most of the Iraqis and resolves any issues in a parliament that represents the various groups. Al-Rashed ruled out that this would be easy, but added it was achievable by clarity, fairness and patience. Sardar Abdullah wrote that we should question the importance of the resolution from the practical point of view. Given that it was impossible for all Iraqis to live under a central despotic state, and that dividing it into small states was almost impossible, we are left with two options: insisting on imposing a central state which is rejected by many Iraqis and could lead to wars and possible genocide which could cause the end of Iraq, as happened in the Balkans. The second is to work out a new system that would protect the unity of Iraq and guarantee a fair representation of all Iraqi factions. Abdullah added that by voting for the constitution which called for establishing federal states in Iraq, the Iraqis showed they do not want to divide their state, but are in fact giving up absolute centralisation of power in favour of a less centralised system. Thus he summed up that the UN resolution as lacking bite. "It is a hollow resolution that lacks any actual ability to change the situation on the ground. We should not overestimate it but should also focus on supporting all Iraqi factions regardless of their religious, national or ethnic affiliations," Abdullah wrote in Asharq Al-Awsat. Zuhair Qusaibati blamed the Iraqi Kurds for welcoming the resolution which he described as a lethal drug or the last nail in the coffin in Iraq. Qusaibati compared it to the Balfour Declaration which gave Israel Palestinian land. He called the resolution "the mother of scandals" that is being passed at a historic moment when more than one plan for regional war is being drawn up for and around Iraq. "The suggestion to divide Iraq is just a sample of what would happen to other states in the region. If Israel and the US Zionist lobby cannot allow the possibility of Iraq possessing nuclear weapons, how will they accept a nuclear Iran?" Qusaibati asked in the London-based daily Al-Hayat.
