Impasses?
As many of you know, the Iraqis are struggling to put together their constitution. I haven't covered it, because I have faith that they'll be able to put together a constitution by the time the deadline rolls around. I think that they know what they'd be risking by failing to get things together on time.
At any rate, I saw this article, and thought it was interesting. Have a look.
I think some degree of federalism could be a good solution to the factionalism in Iraq. Ideally, the country would have been appropriately divided up when the Allies divided up the Middle East after World War I, establishing an independent Kurdistan, an independent state for the Shi'is, and an independent state for the Sunnis. Of course, that's twenty-twenty hindsight. Iraq is what it is, and carving it up into independent countries at this stage in the game would be as severe a catastrophe as Hugh Hefner hiring President Clinton as a bouncer at the Playboy Mansion.
So, what's the solution? The solution is one country, in which people who have different cultures, different beliefs, and different backgrounds can deal with each other when they need to, and ignore each other when they don't. Even under Saddam, the Kurdish region was given some degree of autonomy. Under the new system, it would be counter-productive for the Sunni and Shi'i Arabs to be making laws and governing the Kurds, who have their own game going up north. A federalist system alleviates this issue, in much the same way that our own system here in the States allows the filthy hippies in Kahleeforneeyah to make their own rules, while the gun-toting patriots in Texas make a different set of rules, and the out of touch liberal twits in Massachusetts make their own set of rules. Iraq has the opportunity to make that system work for it better than we as Americans make our own system work for us.
It'll be interesting to see how this works. The Sunnis boycotted the elections in January, and failed to pick up enough seats to have a strong say in the conduct of Iraqi politics. The Shi'is and Kurds welcomed them when they decided they wanted to play ball, and now they're trying to filibuster. They don't represent the majority view of the Iraqi populace, but they want their demands to be met in the course of the political process.
That's right, folks. The Sunnis are becoming Iraqi democrats.
At any rate, I saw this article, and thought it was interesting. Have a look.
BAGHDAD, Iraq — Angered by Shiite calls for a federal region, Sunni clerics urged followers Friday to vote against the constitution if it contains measures they believe would divide the country in a dispute that threatened to delay the charter's completion by a Monday deadline.
[...]
Iraq's three major Sunni organizations appeared to have taken a united stand both for voting and against demands for federalism after they boycotted the Jan. 30 parliamentary elections.
Sunni Arab leaders were responding to a demand by a leading Shiite lawmaker for provisions to allow local Shiite control in the southern and central parts of the country. Sunni Arabs fear they will lose out on oil revenues if the country is split into federated zones.
"We reject it wherever it is, whether in the north or in the south, but we accept the Kurdish region as it was before the war," said Kamal Hamdoun, a Sunni member of the committee drafting the constitution. Some Shiite leaders want to replicate the success of Kurdish leaders in the north who govern an autonomous part of the country.
I think some degree of federalism could be a good solution to the factionalism in Iraq. Ideally, the country would have been appropriately divided up when the Allies divided up the Middle East after World War I, establishing an independent Kurdistan, an independent state for the Shi'is, and an independent state for the Sunnis. Of course, that's twenty-twenty hindsight. Iraq is what it is, and carving it up into independent countries at this stage in the game would be as severe a catastrophe as Hugh Hefner hiring President Clinton as a bouncer at the Playboy Mansion.
So, what's the solution? The solution is one country, in which people who have different cultures, different beliefs, and different backgrounds can deal with each other when they need to, and ignore each other when they don't. Even under Saddam, the Kurdish region was given some degree of autonomy. Under the new system, it would be counter-productive for the Sunni and Shi'i Arabs to be making laws and governing the Kurds, who have their own game going up north. A federalist system alleviates this issue, in much the same way that our own system here in the States allows the filthy hippies in Kahleeforneeyah to make their own rules, while the gun-toting patriots in Texas make a different set of rules, and the out of touch liberal twits in Massachusetts make their own set of rules. Iraq has the opportunity to make that system work for it better than we as Americans make our own system work for us.
It'll be interesting to see how this works. The Sunnis boycotted the elections in January, and failed to pick up enough seats to have a strong say in the conduct of Iraqi politics. The Shi'is and Kurds welcomed them when they decided they wanted to play ball, and now they're trying to filibuster. They don't represent the majority view of the Iraqi populace, but they want their demands to be met in the course of the political process.
That's right, folks. The Sunnis are becoming Iraqi democrats.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home