Posted on 09/26/2007 3:20:13 PM PDT by tobyhill
Senators proposing a plan to separate Iraq into three semi-autonomous regions received surprisingly overwhelming bipartisan support Wednesday in a vote seeming to signify deep bipartisan concerns about the administration's direction in Iraq.
The nonbinding, so-called Sense of the Senate resolution calls upon the Bush administration to pursue three federalist, semi-autonomous regions in Iraq -- Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish entities -- with a modest federal government located in Baghdad.
This would be instead of the strong central government the White House currently backs. Indeed, President Bush has decried the federalist plan as one that would increase sectarian violence.
The bill, which passed by a vote of 75 to 23, was pushed by two second-tier presidential candidates from extreme opposite sides of the political spectrum: Sens. Joe Biden, D-Del., the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and Sam Brownback, R-Kan.
Their White House prospects notwithstanding, Biden and Brownback succeeded where the Democratic leadership failed -- repeatedly -- and cobbled together a bipartisan coalition for an amendment that runs counter to the president's Iraq policy.
The Biden-Brownback amendment also calls for the launch of a major international diplomatic push in the Middle East by the White House.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
The nonbinding, so-called (NON-)Sense of the Senate resolution calls upon the Bush administration to pursue three federalist, semi-autonomous regions in Iraq -- Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish entities -- with a modest federal government located in Baghdad.
End of report by D1.
The US Senate is the wrong place for this, the wrong people to be “demanding it” and sends the wrong political signal to the people in Iraq, at this time - you have a government you should not trust.
That said, “federalism” would not be a bad idea for Iraq, but the Senators idea feeds into the sectarian divide and does not help it.
First, the idea of more local autonomy (schools, local police, local business regs, etc) should be at the provincial level (like our states), not merely three large regions and it should include an “upper” body in the legislature with equal representation for each province.
That would have provided some provinces where either Sunni or Shia are overwhelming majorities and some where Sunni and Shia are more mixed; but the local “autonomy” and upper house federal representation of those provincial units will be less dominated by purely sectarian issues.
I wonder if anyone tried to make these arguments to the Iraqi leaders, when they were considering their constitution. That was the true time for them. At this point who can blame the Iraqi people or leaders for calling the Senators interlopers and meddlers.
I hear ya! Good call.
The Kurds already have what amounts to statehood and the natural separation of Shiite and Sunnis are already occurring without violence because there is no civil war.
This will be the Death Knell for Brownback’s compaign. It will be a cold day in hell when I vote for this twit.
great, now these jerks think they have the right to tell another country how to govern itself. Maybe we should spam the Dems in the House and Senate and demand they split themselves from the areas controlled by Republicans. If it’s good enough for Iraq, it should be good enough for here.
I say the entire US Senate should go to Iraq and run that country for awhile. They should also be forced to drive up and down the roads around Bahgdad and try out our new “mine-proof” vehicles.
Federalism and provincial authority is already included in the Iraqi Constititution. I guess the senators have not read it.
Look, I have no ax to grind with our current course, at all.
However, to say: “the natural separation of Shiite and Sunnis are already occurring without violence because there is no civil war” is less than a half truth.
It is half truthful only in the sense that what’s going on is not a civil war. It is more than half untrue in that the “separation” of Sunni and Shia is NOT occurring WITHOUT violence as one of the factors in that separation.
It matters not that most Iraqis want to be done with the violence. The militia and insurgent groups create situations where “separation” is the only means of escaping the violence sometimes, for far too many Iraqis. The militia groups need and create “separation” as much as they can, as one of the means of proclaiming their “leadership” locally. They are like any other bunch of mobsters and the people do what they can - stay or go - to survive. Without the armed terrorism of the militias, most Sunni and Shia neighborhoods, in central Iraq, would not have seen as drastic changes in their demography since 2003. To say that violence has nothing to do with that separation is simply false.
“Federalism and provincial authority is already included in the Iraqi Constititution. I guess the senators have not read it.”
Well, yes and no. Did you actually read it?
1. “Governorates”, what I call provinces, are not sovereign entities, they are creations of or “authorities” organized by the “federal” government with some local organizing decisions that include a “council” with no specification of how representative that council is, or how it is created.
2. A level in between the provinces and the Federal level is permitted, but is not required, constitutionally, and only in the case of the Kurdish area has that level, a region, been recognized; so far. That level can be created a number of ways and those ways include local and federal representative participation. The results, in non-sectarian terms in a U.S. example would be as if the states were more controlled by the federal government, unless they got together and organized, with federal agreement, into regions, like “New England”, “Pacific”, “Southwest”; etc. Only at that level (for now in the Kurdish area) does an area in Iraq have a constitution, established by the people in that area, for government administration and authority of its own (as long as its not contrary to federal law or authority).
3. Although there is a second representative body mentioned at the federal level (besides the main parliamentary body - Council of Representatives), which is said to include representatives of the governorates (provinces) and/or regions, it appears to be a creature of the authority of the existing Council of Representatives, as it is law passed by it that will specify anything more than the shell (name) that has been given to it (Council of the Federation).
At present, in all but the Kurish area, local government will be affectively organized by and controlled by the “federal government”; not just subject to federal law.
“The violence was occurring long before we even got there”
Well, no in fact it wasn’t actually. That is not to say we caused that violence, because we did not. But the security lapse between the end of Saddam’s reign and reformation of new security measures was used as an opportunity for mobs/militias to exploit the security situation for their own ends, and some of the corrupt politicians have also been part of that.
It is not a fiction that Saddam built the bulk of his political machine with Sunnis or that that machine was particularly harsh on the Shia majority. (Of course it is also true that long before the Iran-Iraq war and even before the rise of Khomeini, his group was trying to organize inside Iraq) It is fiction that the majority of average everyday apolitical Iraqis, Sunni and Shia, hated each other as much as they both hated Saddam.
“Culturally” there is little difference between them, besides some different tenants of Islam that each places priorities on over others. Long before Saddam was ever in power, the Sunni and Shia shared Iraq. From time to time their religious differences have been exploited by those seeking the mantle of leadership. In the daily life of most Iraqis, until very recently, those differences did not challenge their living among each other.
But the Kurds are a different people altogether. They have existed as a distinct people in Mesopotemia since long before Islam and genetically (ethnically) they are distinct from “Arabs” or Persians, or Syrians or anyone else. They are the largest body of non-Turks in Turkey and make sizable minorities in Iran and Syria. The Sunnis and the Shia in Iraq have some religious differences, but outside of those differences they are more one people, by ancestry and common history and culture than not. The Shia in Iraq are Arab, like the Sunnis, not Persian as in Iran.
We want three separate countries - Mexico, the US and Canada. US politicians want us to have one but suggesting three for Iraq. Am I confused?
1. “Governorates”, what I call provinces, are not sovereign entities, they are creations of or “authorities” organized by the “federal” government with some local organizing decisions that include a “council” with no specification of how representative that council is, or how it is created.
Article 107 describes the exclusive powers of the federal government. It describes what the federal government is responsible for:
Article 111 states: "All powers not stipulated in the exclusive authorities of the federal government shall be the powers of the regions and governorates that are not organized in a region. The priority goes to the regional law in case of conflict between other powers shared between the federal government and regional governments." NB: Sounds like our 10th amendment.
Article 112: "The federal system in the Republic of Iraq is made up of a decentralized capital, regions and governorates, and local administrations." It is up to the regions and governorates to determine their own structures of government just as it is with our states. It is not up to the federal government to dictate how these governments will be structured or run any more than our constitution does.
Article 116: "The region shall adopt a constitution that defines the structure of the regional government, its authorities and the mechanisms of exercising these authorities provided that it does not contradict with this Constitution."
Article 117 stipulates the powers of the regional powers. They have the right to amend national legislation within that region. <
This non-binding resolution has the same power as my cat has regarding Iraq. It is really pathetic indeed.
“Article 111 states: “All powers not stipulated in the exclusive authorities of the federal government shall be the powers of the regions and governorates that are not organized in a region.”
What your missing is that the “federal” authority is the creator and organizer of the governorates. The constitution says it grants them “powers”, in the negative sense of powers not stipulated as “federal”, but the control of the exercise of those powers will clearly be the creator and organizer of governorates - the federal government.
“Article 112: “The federal system in the Republic of Iraq is made up of a decentralized capital, regions and governorates, and local administrations.”
Again, what you’re missing is who establishes a governorate - the federal government. How is the governorate organized, locally. It says in Article 118 that the governor of a governorate is “elected” by a “Governorate Council” and goes on to acknowledge that it is as yet undetermined who or how anyone is chosen or placed on the Governorate Council - yet to be determined by, a “federal law”.
And their appears to be a totally and singular Federal Judiciary for which it is left to the vagaries of laws - yet to be enacted (and can be changed by simply writing a new federal law) as to how judges are selected and who selects them.
“Article 116: “The region shall adopt a constitution that defines the structure of the regional government, its authorities and the mechanisms of exercising these authorities provided that it does not contradict with this Constitution.”
Yes, as I said, a “region” (a collection of provinces) has these powers (a constitution), but not a governorate (province) and, as I noted above the articles involving the judiciary define it as a federal power and do not subrogate it to any other authority, other than to say that federal “law” (not the federal constitution) will establish the various courts and their jurisdictions.
Thus, for “governorates” outside of a declared “region” there is little “guarantee” in the Constitution that federal law and federal lawmakers will NOT hold sway over their organization and their “independent” authority.
It is a fractured “federal system” that is federal more in name than in guaranteed definition of clear divisions of powers and responsibilities. Much of it is written like legislation, not foundational government definition. In that it “guarantees” how a lot of mundane things are supposed to work (various “commisions” and “institutions” and the “regions” and governorates participation or representation in them [well actually only that they will have it, but not how]), yet cannot even delineate the clear means of “governorates” being formed and how local representation in them is founded. Much less, the fact that “governorates” have no constitution of their own and appear to be in line to becoming vassals of the federal legislature. With that it is now more understandable why the mid-level of authority, the “region” was established; the Kurds could not get the authority where in belonged, in their provinces and everyone else’s provinces. They were not going to allow their provinces to be left like the Shia and Sunni provinces as vassals of the government in Baghdad.
The governates have already been established. They are essentially the 18 provinces that predated the Constitution. Governorates of Iraq
Yes, as I said, a “region” (a collection of provinces) has these powers (a constitution), but not a governorate (province) and, as I noted above the articles involving the judiciary define it as a federal power and do not subrogate it to any other authority, other than to say that federal “law” (not the federal constitution) will establish the various courts and their jurisdictions
Below the 18 governorates, Iraq is divided into 111 districts (qadaa). There is currently only one region in existence - the Iraqi Kurdistan Region which was recognized as a region under article 113 of the constitution.
Under Iraq's Federalism law, new regions can be created from April 2008. Regions may be formed by one or more governorates. A request can be submitted by either two-thirds of the Governorate Council members or one tenth of the registered voters. Under Article 115, the request to become a region must be approved by majority vote in a governorate referendum. It is unlikely that requests to form regions will be submitted until the Iraqi Council of Representatives fulfills its obligation under Article 114 to define the executive procedures to form regions; which under Article 114 was to have been completed within six months of its first session on March 16, 2006.
Federalism Law
Article 114 of the constitution of Iraq provided that no new region may be created before the Iraqi National Assembly has passed a law which provides the procedures for forming the region. This law was passed in October 2006 after an agreement was reached with the Iraqi Accord Front to form the constitutional review committee and to defer implementation of the law for 18 months. Legislators from the Iraqi Accord Front, Sadrist Movement and Islamic Virtue Party all opposed the bill.
Under the Federalism Law a region can be created out of one or more existing governorates or two or more existing regions. A governorate can also join an existing region to create a new region. There is no limit to the number of governorates that can form a region, unlike the Transitional Administrative Law of the Iraqi Interim Government which limited it to three.
A new region can be proposed by one third or more of the council members in each affected governorate plus 500 voters or by one tenth or more voters in each affected governorate. A referendum must then be held within three months, which requires a simple majority in favour to pass.
In the event of competing proposals, the multiple proposals are put to a ballot and the proposal with the most supporters is put to the referendum.
In the event of an affirmative referendum a Transitional Legislative Assembly is elected for one year, which has the task of writing a constitution for the Region, which is then put to a referendum requiring a simple majority to pass.
The President, Prime Minister and Ministers of the region are elected by simple majority, in contrast to the Iraqi National Assembly which requires two thirds support.
Although this may seem like a top down approach, it is worth remembering that when the Constitution was offered to the voters, if three provinces had had no votes greater than two-thrds, the Constitution would have been vetoed. My point is that Iraq already has "federalism" and just needs to flesh it out. What Biden, et. al. are suggesting can be achieved under the current Constitution and the Federalism Law.
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.