|
KurdistanObserver.com
The Constitution and The
Kurds
By
Peter W. Galbraith July 25, 2005
ERBIL, Iraq (Southern Kurdistan)
THERE ARE NOT many places in Iraq where the
locals want to celebrate American Independence Day. But, in Iraq's
self-governing Kurdistan region, the newly elected government decided to host a
Fourth of July party for their American allies. Top coalition officers were
invited along with US civilians, food and drinks ordered (the secular Kurds
serve and drink alcohol), and the Kurdistan prime minister had prepared his
speech. Then America's top diplomat in the region delivered an ultimatum: She
would not attend unless the Kurds flew Iraq's flag at the party. The Kurds
refused and canceled the party.
The current Iraqi flag was chosen by Saddam
Hussein's Ba'ath Party to signify the unity of Arab lands. For the non-Arab
Kurds the flag is not only a symbol of their second class status but they also
associate it with the atrocities-- including use of poison gas-- of the former
regime. Many of Iraq's Arab leaders have been sensitive to Kurdish concerns.
When they visit the region, they do not make a fuss over the flag.
For Iraq's Kurds, the flag episode epitomizes
America's ingratitude for their role as an ally in the war to overthrow Saddam
Hussein and as the strongest supporter of US postwar policies. They note that
American diplomats have no qualms about calling on Shi'ite politicians who
display portraits of Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini and that the United States has
pushed for the inclusion of Sunni Arabs, many former Ba'athists, in the
constitution drafting committee. Iraq's Prime Minister Ibrahim Jafaari was
warmly received at the White House even though his party, Dawa, was on the State
Department terrorist list until a few years ago for the 1982 suicide bombing of
the US embassy in Kuwait.
US indifference to Kurdish sensibilities could
have far reaching consequences. The Kurds are engaged in a struggle with the
Shi'ite majority of Iraq's constitution drafting committee over the principles
that will guide the new Iraq.
The majority draft would make Iraq a ''federal
Islamic republic." Rights of women would be sharply restricted as Islamic law
replaces Iraq's relatively progressive civil code on matters of inheritance,
divorce, and child custody. The document is anti-Jewish, denying Iraqi Jews
rights granted other Iraqis. The Shi'ite majority is even proposing to
incorporate the ''marjah" -- Iraq's leading Shi'ite cleric -- into the
constitution, a step that could give the Ayatollah Sistani powers similar to
those Khomeini exercised in the first decade of Iran's Islamic Republic.
The Kurds oppose all these measures. They are
secular and insist that any reference to the Islamic character of Iraq be
balanced by a declaration that no law can violate fundamental human rights. They
are proud of the progress that women have made in the 14 years of Kurdish
self-rule in the north of Iraq and do not want it rolled back. They share none
of the antipathy Arab Iraqis feel toward the Jews.
With a population almost unanimously in favor
of independence, Kurdistan leaders insist that Iraq have a federal structure
that will allow them to retain their secular, Western-oriented political system
even if the rest of Iraq falls under the sway of the religious parties. They are
alarmed by growing Iranian influence in Baghdad and in the Shi'ite south, and
see a strong, self-governing Kurdistan as a barrier to enlarging Iran's
influence.
No constitution can be approved unless the
Kurds go along, and the Kurds want to be in the position to walk away from a
constitution that is illiberal and too centralized. But, instead of support from
the Bush administration, they feel intense pressure to make compromises so as to
meet the Aug. 15 deadline.
While the Bush administration professes a
hands-off policy toward constitutional deliberations, it has been lobbying hard
against a provision that would give Iraq's regions control over natural
resources. Having been dependent on payments from Baghdad in the past, the Kurds
know that meaningful self-government requires control over their own petroleum.
The Bush administration apparently believes a Shi'ite region in the south would
be less favorable toward US oil companies than the Shi'ite-run Oil Ministry in
Baghdad, but in reality there is unlikely to be a difference. To the dismay of
the Kurds, there has been no similar American engagement with regard to the
anti-Jewish or antiwoman provisions of the proposed constitution.
The United States should take a genuine
hands-off approach toward the new constitution. The content is far more
important than meeting the deadline for its completion, and the Bush
administration should not punish America's best friends in Iraq if they walk
away from a document that blatantly contradicts the democratic values President
Bush now says are the reason for our continued presence in the country.
Peter W. Galbraith, a
former US ambassador to Croatia, is senior diplomatic fellow at the Center for
Arms Control and Non-Proliferation |
