Posted on 05/22/2005 12:05:05 PM PDT by GulliverSwift
On 16 March the Iraqi parliament met to convene its first official session as representatives of the so-called new Iraq.
The new government had faced many obvious problems such as seating ministers, selecting a presidential council and, of course, agreeing on the premiership.
Yet the session was plagued by a subtle yet more troubling shortcoming; namely it failed to address the status of the foreign occupation of Iraq.
While the occupation remains to be the most blatant and destructive force in the country today, the national assembly had instead focused on dividing Iraq into a federal state.
Three major structural and ideological features of a federated Iraq seem to have been lost on the assembly: a) the participants fail to understand the nature of federalism, b) if the make up of Iraq should be reconsidered, then why not the Arab world as a whole? And c) a federated Iraq perpetuates the occupation.
Preference for a federal Iraq has stemmed from claims that the Kurds cannot and should not be ruled by the majority Arabs of the country. Immediately the first problem of this analysis confronts us; despite claims that Iraq remains united, the country is being divided along ethnic lines.
Yet ethnic division is not the basis of federalism. Federalism is a political doctrine that allows people to rule themselves locally. Indeed the United States, the ideological midwife of the so-called new Iraq is a federal state, yet the US is not divided along ethnic or religious lines.
Imagine the outcry if outsiders suggested that the US should be reconfigured to accommodate the large Hispanic population in the southwest or Jewish population on the east coast.
While George Bush encourages Iraqis to think along ethnic and sectarian lines, in the United States he promotes a civil and political culture that dissolves such differences.
The basis of federalism is economic and martial cooperation. The states that form the US came together to form an economic and military bloc that was more powerful in unity than division.
In Iraq, the National Assembly is proceeding to do the reverse - breaking down the country into ethnic economic claims and militias, making a once strong country and one of the most advanced in the region, a weak and fragile conglomeration.
If the logic of an ethnic federalism is allowed to take root in Iraq, then why do we not pursue that logic to its conclusion? If ethnicity and language is the basis of political unity, and not state borders and civil infrastructures, then what is the basis for dividing the Arab people of Arabia, the Levant countries, North Africa and Iraq?
The reconfiguration of Iraq is not being accompanied by a broader reformation in the region. Past attempts by both nationalists and Islamists to consolidate the resources and talents of the Arab people have always been decried as extreme and reactionary.
Clearly the unification of the Arabs is not on the agenda of any regime in the region. My point here is only to point to the inconsistencies of political priorities and understandings.
To divide the peoples of the Muslim world along ethnic lines is considered politically important to certain powers, while uniting those peoples along similar lines is consistently denounced.
The Europeans, Latin Americans and East Asians have all pursued economic (and even martial) consolidation to be more powerful entities in a world of large economic blocs, meanwhile the Arab world has been encouraged to do otherwise.
This same inconsistency is at work when the Syrians in Lebanon have been described as a foreign occupation force and non-Iraqi Arab-Muslim resistance fighters in Iraq have been described as foreign terrorists - in spite of a shared Arab-Muslim identity.
Once again I am not suggesting that the division of Iraq is acceptable if it is accompanied by the unity of the Arabs, I am only suggesting that the doctrine of federalism is clearly being used inconsistently.
It should be mentioned that if true stability is to permeate the region, then the Arab world should be rigorously pursuing economic and martial consolidation. If the debate in Iraq continues as it is, however, the outcome is certain - Iraq will no longer be a part of this discussion, but rather a sensitive entity that is constrained by a political framework that has been used selectively.
Lastly, the disposition of federalism is actually perpetuating the illegal occupation of the country. The rationale behind maintaining a Kurdish militia in the north is that the Kurds will then have an autonomous military entity that can “protect” them from the Arabs.
The maintenance of ethnic militias is not an expression of political freedom and pluralism in a new Iraq, but rather a testimony to the suspicion and hostility that has been stirred between factions of Iraqi people.
Amid the mistrust created in this atmosphere, the United States has claimed to be a force for arbitration. The US has constantly invoked the threat of civil war as the basis of their continued occupation of the country.
It remains unclear why Iraq - a well integrated society in which intermarriage between Arab Sunni, Arab Shia and Kurd has always been high - would descend into civil war; none the less a mythical civil war has been considered a greater threat than the actual illegal occupation of the country.
For us as observers the greatest irony, however, is while Iraq is being divided along linguistic lines on behalf of freedom and stability, none of the major politicians in Iraq have adequately addressed the foreign Anglo-American occupation.
Considering the route that the new Iraqi parliament is taking, one would wonder whether the occupation will ever be addressed or whether the new federal constitution will create a sense of foreignness amongst Iraqis themselves.
Laith Saud is an Iraqi academic researcher and lecturer in the United States.
Maybe the Jews would like their own state here. Then in December they can ban all Christmas trees from people's homes and all lights on their houses.
'While the occupation remains to be the most blatant and destructive force in the country today'
The title of "most destructive force in Iraq today" is held by this fag's friends, the insurgents.
I heard a story about a Phillipino (I think) boy in America who was told to bring the food of his homeland to school. He wasn't sure what to bring, and thought that since he was an American, he should bring a hamburger. Of course, he was lectured by PC teacher about how that was incorrect.
Reading more into the article it becomes obvious this guy is ignorant of federalism and American history. America was originally carved up based on ideological and ethnic reasons. Each state was founded primarily by ethnic or ideological groups who immigrated and took control of the region. There's a reason why Boston is heavily Irish-Catholic and Utah is heavily Mormon. Only as time passes does the ethnic founding get watered down.
They are not concentrated in any single area in the country. I'm surprised it says this guy lives in America, because his knowledge of the country is poor.
I think for a Muslim to write about federalism in the first place is unheard of. He probably is merely taking pride in the fact that he knows what it is and all his muslim brothers don't.
That stuck out at me as well. There is no large jewish population centers anywhere in Amrica. One could more easily find a solely muslim or solely black community before one finds a jewish community.
"There are benefits and penalties to culturally heterogenous democratic nations."
I think often some people in the US (I'm not talking directly to you by the way, I'm generalising) miss the point that one of the reasons the US is the most successful society on the planet by just about all measures is down to the old 'culteral' melting pot. I know there are many on FR who would love to live in a Christian Theocracy - but by and large the US tolerance of anyone prepared to work hard and give it a go regardless of their religious beliefs has stood your nation magnificently well.
Whenever religious bigotry of any ilk is allowed to become an accepted part of society you invite trouble. We British allowed it to happen in Northern Ireland (and that was between christians!) and we still haven't cleaned that mess up.
Iraq has no real history as a nation (it is a post WW1 invention) and keeping it from 'doing a Balkans' is going to be a real challenge. We can't go back now. We have to finish the job.
Find the power behind Al Jazeera and we will find our enemy.
Emphasis upon free association is only a start. Putting enforcement of the equal protection clause and income tax regulations in their proper relationship with property rights and States' rights is also critically important, and not just to religious freedom.
There are, however, limits to free association. There is one major religion operating within this country with a written doctrine that advocates complete overthrow of the Constitution and replacement of our entire body of laws: Islam. When free association is used for purposes of sedition and bigotry we must make exception concerning free exercise. It is a test of our ability as a nation to make distinctions upon individual behavior that may do more to transform an ancient religion for the better than all the soldiers in the Middle East.
This article is exactly backwards to the reality of what is happening in Iraq. Until Saddam's fall from power, a bathist sunni minority was the controlling political/ social force in Iraq- as an extention of Saddam. The huge majority Shiite's had little or no say, and the Kurds absolutely none. This Laith Saud is an apologist provocatuer, to say the least.
Your unrestrained anti-semitism is repugnant. Jews have a State called Israel, and desire no other.
"The title of "most destructive force in Iraq today" is held by this fag's friends, the insurgents."
Whoa, hold it right there, Mister. I think you need to back off that 'fag' stuff.
Most Islamists prefer sheep--when they can get `em young enough.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.