KurdistanObserver.com

The Dilemma Of Iraqi Politics

Mar 31, 2005

By: Dr. Nazhad Khasraw Hawramany

The statement of the political process between the three key players in Iraqi politics, Arab Shiites, Kurds, and Arab Sunnis in the aftermath of January 30 2005 elections and the lingering process of choosing a new transitional government, is slowly creating frustration and unease in Iraqi society. The recent failure of the National Assembly on 29th March 2005 to elect a speaker highlights the crisis in the relations between those main factions of Iraqi society.

The Shiites are  inflexible and vague in their tactics and always are trying to postpone issues for some indefinite date and at the same time blaming the Kurds for raising the ceil of their demands. There are conflicting statements from representatives of  Shiite block, The Kurds have been negotiating now over weeks with the Shiite block over vital issues like Kirkuk, federalism and Peshmerga and tentatively reached a consensus over those issues with Shiite Alliance and we suddenly hear some provocative statements fro Ammar Alhakeem ( son of Abdulaziz Alhakeem, the leader of Shiite block) in Turkey and some provocative statements from firebrand cleric Muqtada Alsadr over Kirkuk and Peshmerga which is contrary to the understanding agreement between Kurdish and Shiite block, such statements raise suspicions in the Kurdish street about the seriousness and trustworthiness of Shiite block.

The Kurds blame the shiites for their indecisiveness and their internal divisions which is causing considerable delay in reaching any consensus, The Kurds want agreement on the details on several key issues like future of Kirkuk, future of Peshmerga forces, federalism, separation of religion from state, fair distribution of wealth on Iraqi provinces as it was agreed upon in previous opposition conferences in London, Salahudin, Nasiriya and under the auspices of the Iraqi Governing Council and written in the Transitional Administrative Law (TAL), especially the articles concerning Kirkuk and federalism and are playing by the rules of the democratic process. The Kurdish block, contrary to the Shiite block, is solid and clear in  its direction and vision. As it has always been in the past, the Iraqi and Arab media are trying to put the blame on the Kurds for the delays in reaching consensus on the new Iraqi government, instead of criticizing themselves for their chauvinistic and hegemonies attitudes and their lingering on previous promises.

The Arab Sunnis on the other hand are divided and so far have failed to find any credible representatives, which could defend their rights after their historic failure of boycotting the  milestone 30th January 2004 elections.
The truth of the matter is that Iraqis should face the new realities, that there isn't any possibility for any of these factions to play a dominant role single handed and that Iraq should be governed by consensus of these groups as it was mentioned in UNSCR 1546 in 2004 . The Shiites will commit a historic blunder if they try to sideline  either Kurds or Arab Sunnis.

The new foundation of Iraq must be based on justice and equal rights and opportunities for its citizens, The injustices of the deposed regime in Kurdistan, like Arabisation of Kirkuk must be reversed as soon as possible, the victims of Baath regime in Halabja, Anfal campaigns and south Iraq must be compensated and the perpetrators brought to justice.

The old policies of branding the adversaries as traitors or separatists or foreign agents must be replaced by open and transparent dialogue based on the principles of freedom of choice and expression.

Without this attitude of tolerance and plurality the future of Iraqi state as a unitary state is bleak and the alternative is the disintegration of the country into three states Kurdistan in the north, Sunni state in western Iraq and Shiite state in south Iraq.  If Iraqis can't find a way of living in harmony together in one state, then it is only conceivable to go their own ways, for democracy is in essence the right of choice for individuals and groups and the protection of  rights of minorities rather than  the dominant rule of majority, even if that majority was won at the ballot box.