Iraqi Constitution in Deep Trouble

[Hurin_Rules]

Is this the end of the line for the Iraqi constitution? Things are looking pretty grim, and it seems the Sunnis have now decided to oppose it. The Sunni negotiator just appeared on Al Jazeera to urge Sunnis to vote against it:

Sunni Says No Deal Reached on Constitution
AP - 9 minutes ago

BAGHDAD, Iraq - A top Sunni Arab negotiator said Saturday that no agreement has been reached on the draft constitution and called on Iraqis to reject it in an Oct. 15 referendum. A government spokesman indicated talks were hopelessly deadlocked and said "this is the end of the road. The Sunni negotiator, Saleh al-Mutlaq, made the statement on Al-Jazeera television after Sunnis studied compromise proposals offered by the Shiites on federalism and purges of former members of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party.

http://news.yahoo.com/fc/world/iraq

See also:

Iraq constitution talks deadlocked
Sunni negotiator calls on Iraqis to reject document in Oct. 15 referendum

Updated: 5:01 p.m. ET Aug. 26, 2005

BAGHDAD - A top Sunni Arab negotiator said Saturday that no agreement has been reached on the draft constitution and called on Iraqis to reject it in an Oct. 15 referendum. A government spokesman indicated talks were hopelessly deadlocked and said “this is the end of the road.”

The Sunni negotiator, Saleh al-Mutlaq, made the statement on Al-Jazeera television after Sunnis studied compromise proposals offered by the Shiites on federalism and purges of former members of Saddam Hussein’s Baath Party.
Story continues below ↓ advertisement

“The issue of division through federalism is on the table,” al-Mutlaq said. “The Iraqi people have to give their word now and reject the constitution because this constitution is the beginning of the division of the country and the beginning of creating disturbance in the country.”

Asked about Shiite offers, he replied: “We are still far from what we need and what the people need.”

A Shiite negotiator, Khaled al-Attiyah, said a “consensus” had been reached on the charter and an amended version would be sent to parliament Saturday. Asked about that, al-Mutlaq said simply: “Let them.”

That suggested the Shiites and their Kurdish allies might be prepared to send the document to the assembly without Sunni concurrence.

“This is the end of the road,” Government spokesman Laith Kubba told Al-Arabiya television. “In the end, we will put this constitution to the people to decide.”

About 5,000 Sunnis, some carrying Saddam's picture, marched in the central city of Baqouba to protest the draft constitution.

The Shiites submitted the compromise proposal after the personal intervention of President Bush, who face rising criticism from the U.S. public and his own party about the conduct of the Iraq war.

Little help from Bush
Bush's overture, made in a telephone call to a top Shiite leader, did little to calm the increasingly strident rhetoric. A process designed to bring Iraq's disparate communities together appeared to be tearing them apart.

Parliament speaker Hajim al-Hassani canceled a planned news conference expected before midnight Friday as meetings with Sunni Arab negotiators were under way. Muhannad Jabbar, spokesman for the speaker, instructed a television crew to shut down for the night.

Shiite negotiator Jawad al-Maliki reported progress in talks Friday with the Sunni Arabs and Kurds on federalism but problems on the Shiite proposal about the fate of Baath party members. Shiites had been complaining privately that the Sunnis were stalling.

"We will not be easy with this point at all," al-Maliki said Friday. He said the Sunnis were being tough in defending the rights of former Baath party members and "it is regrettable to us that the Sunnis and the Baath are in the same pot."

Strong divide
Another Sunni representative complained the Shiites were ignoring them.

"They are sending us letters as if we are living in two different countries," Saleh al-Mutlaq said.

Iraq's Sunni Arab Vice President Ghazi al-Yawer said the draft, submitted to parliament last Monday over Sunni objections, was written by Shiites and Kurds but that the country needs a constitution "that keeps the unity of Iraqi soil and gives rights to all Iraqis."

The United States hoped the constitution would curb the Sunni-dominated insurgency, and along with a better-trained and equipped Iraqi security force, enable the Americans and their international partners to begin bringing home their troops next year.

With more than 1,800 U.S. deaths since the war began in 2003 and falling poll numbers, the White House wanted to show something positive from Iraq to counter the depressing litany of car bombings, assassinations and American battle deaths.

As the haggling continued in Baghdad, U.S. warjets launched multiple airstrikes Friday against a suspected "terrorist safe house" in the western Anbar province, destroying the building where up to 50 militants were believed to be hiding, the U.S. military said.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9084376/

[PanzerJaeger]

Is this the end of the line for the Iraqi constitution?

It depends on the ratification process. If its only required to have a majority of Iraqis support it, then no. The Shia themselves could pass it.

However if it is being done like in the US, where every state(region) has to ratify it, then the sunni majority areas can block it.. then we have a problem.

Im not worried though, money solves a lot of problems, especially political ones.

[Steppe Merc]

If the Sunnis won't support a fair constitution, then the Kurds and the Shiites need to go through with it without them.
But that would be a very bad thing for peace...

[Hurin_Rules]

It depends on the ratification process. If its only required to have a majority of Iraqis support it, then no. The Shia themselves could pass it.

However if it is being done like in the US, where every state(region) has to ratify it, then the sunni majority areas can block it.. then we have a problem.

Im not worried though, money solves a lot of problems, especially political ones.

If the majority of the voters reject it in at least three provinces, the constition must be discarded and the whole process of elections and drafting must begin anew.

The Sunnis are the majority in four provinces.

[Steppe Merc]

I still don't understand why the make seperate states... Hello Kurdland, Shiite land and Sunni land...

[Aenlic]

I recall something about if 3 provinces decline to pass it then it is not passed; but I can't locate the reference and don't remember where I heard it. Anyone have any specifics on how the ratification process itself was designed?

I do know that the Sunnis have majority control in at least 3 provinces; which is why I'm concerned with the details.

[Shahed]

More than 100,000 Shias marched in Iraq today protesting AGAINST the constitution.

[Leet Eriksson]

Thats what you get for villlianizing the most secular group in iraq, as far as i know, kurds are far more "sunni" than sunnis.

Let the iraqis wallow on Shia Sharia, and women are counted as half a vote.

Even in the UAE, which is not a true democracy(or not a democracy at all), domestic, municipal and whatever elections are held, 1 woman are counted as one full vote.

[Proletariat]

Oh, nevermind.

[sharrukin]

I have never heard this about Kurdish people. Every time I've ever seen footage of Kurdish women they are wearing very Western clothes. (Short sleeves, plunging necklines)

What do you mean by Kurds being very 'Sunni'?


http://www.adnki.com/index_2Level.ph...99446056&par=0

As I understand it, the Sunni's of Iraq are more secular than the Shia who tend towards the theological side.

[Aenlic]

The Sunnis are generally less traditional than the Shiites, regarding such things. Although, this isn't always the case, with examples of radical Sunni sects like the Wahhabi, from Saudi Arabia, and the Taliban whose viewpoint is a radical off-shoot of the Deobandi sect of Sunni from India, and some other. Characterizing the Sunni as more moderate than Shia is generally accurate though.

[Proletariat]

Eh, nevermind. I knew that. I misread faisal's post. Somehow thought he was saying the opposite.



My most sincere apologies.

[Red Harvest]

I think the Iraqi constitution is in big trouble. This is not a good sign for stability on the current roadmap.

I've never bought into the concept of an "unpartitioned" Iraq, going back to the first Gulf War. It seems an artificial construct, and it doesn't seem to me that the Iraqi's consider themselves a single nation. Might be time to rethink the whole thing since they can't agree. What matters is what works long term for them, not what we (the rest of the world) necessarily want. The one thing that must be stipulated is that sharia law is not gonna be acceptable. That is a path to destruction, and it wont' work long term.

[Ironside]

I still don't understand why the make seperate states... Hello Kurdland, Shiite land and Sunni land...

Let me rename them for you:
Kurdland becomes "the state that must be destroyed before our own Kurds gets ideas" on Turkish.
Shiite land becomes "Extended Iran".
And Sunni land becomes "we have no idea what will happen but they will lose the oil money and former previledges and will probably be pissed off about it".

But yes in the internal politics it would be best to divide them up in three states.

[Shahed]

It would be best to divide them. Divide and CONQUER

Dividing Iraq could mean a catastrophe for the region, civil war in Iraq a la Bosnia but WITH American troops on the ground as a plus. Turkey would most certainly oppose this vehemently read "Turkish armor masses in Turkish Kurdistan." The Turk woudl never cede Kurdistan, not without very major political, and economic gain. "Greater Iran" would gain strength so considerably in this deal that "co-opting" into alliance rather than threatened with war may become a feasible route for any superpower.

Every educated and highly intelligent neo-imperialist would glow with glee at the prospect of dividing Iraq. By dividing Iraq you divide the region and further you increase the divide between "with us or against us" possibly drawing much more moderates into the extreme right on both sides.

[Kagemusha]

It would be best to divide them. Divide and CONQUER

Dividing Iraq could mean a catastrophe for the region, civil war in Iraq a la Bosnia but WITH American troops on the ground as a plus. Turkey would most certainly oppose this vehemently read "Turkish armor masses in Turkish Kurdistan." The Turk woudl never cede Kurdistan, not without very major political, and economic gain. "Greater Iran" would gain strength so considerably in this deal that "co-opting" into alliance rather than threatened with war may become a feasible route for any superpower.

Every educated and highly intelligent neo-imperialist would glow with glee at the prospect of dividing Iraq. By dividing Iraq you divide the region and further you increase the divide between "with us or against us" possibly drawing much more moderates into the extreme right on both sides.

I disagree with you on this one.I think that Iraq should be divided in two states Iraq and Kurdistan.The Shiias dont wont to be part of Iran they are from same ethnic group with Sunnis both are Iraqi people and they dont want be part of Iran that is mainly Persian.Other hand the Kurds are a Nation without a country and in order to spare that area from civil war They should have their own state.If that would be achieved The Syrians who are natural enemies of Turks would ally with them in order to avoid Turkish power growth in the area.

[Steppe Merc]

So what exactly is it that the Shiites are angry about? If they are more secular, what are their objections about?

And I didn't realize how messed up everything would become by the division of the states. What sort of sect do the Kurds belong to?

[JimBob]

The Shias and Kurds could push the new constitution through if they choose. But to do that would anger the Sunnis, and the insurgency has its roots in the Sunni areas. The likelyhood of a civil war would skyrocket.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4190620.stm
Has a link to a PDF of the draft constitution.

[lars573]

So what exactly is it that the Shiites are angry about? If they are more secular, what are their objections about?

And I didn't realize how messed up everything would become by the division of the states. What sort of sect do the Kurds belong to?

The Kurds are Sunnis I think. But they hate the Sunni Arabs. A lot of non-Arabic Islamic peoples have no love for the Arabs. Also Shiites and Sunni hate each other. In the Catholic-Protestant style of the 17th century. You put Sunni and Shiites together in a nation and there will either be violence or one will dominate the other. That is why there is the insergency and why Saddam's regime was the way it was. Now the US is trying to impose equality on 3 groups that all hate each other. The Sunnis protest at every turn because they believe that the Kurd-Shiite alliance will step on them hard as soon as the US is gone. And you know what, there right.

[Hurin_Rules]

Turkey will absolutely not countenance an independent Kurdish state. If one appears, there will be a wider Middle Eastern war, and no one knows how that might turn out, or who might become involved: Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, possiby Israel. That is a nightmare scenario. You think things are bad with an insurgency, imagine a four-way international war between Iranian-backed Shiites, Syrian-backed Sunnis, Kurds and Turks. It would be chaos.

To bring all of that home to you: You think gas prices are high now? Imagine paying $10 a gallon.

[Kagemusha]

It sounds terrible but maybe they have to go similar things like Europe in WWI and II in order to create helthy states from those colonial ghosts that are their current states.

[Steppe Merc]

lars573, thanks for helping clear it up for me. In that case do the Iranians hate the Sunni Iraqis, and other Muslim nations?

[sharrukin]

The Sunnis protest at every turn because they believe that the Kurd-Shiite alliance will step in them hard as soon as the US is gone. And you know what, there right.

Maybe sooner than that.

"There is increasing evidence that the Iraqi police forces, now under Shi’ite control, are carrying out systematic revenge killings against Sunnis in Baghdad. The bodies now showing up at the morgue have obvious signs of handcuffing and blindfolding and evidence of being tortured before death. U.S. sources indicate that the suspicious killings have reached the rate of almost 700 per month. The police are supervised by the Shi’ite-run Ministry of Interior, which claims that the killings are being carried out by insurgents wearing stolen police uniforms. But American intelligence sources disagree, noting that many of the killers appear to be actual policemen carrying the expensive standard-issue Glock automatics and driving official Toyota Land Cruisers."

lars573, thanks for helping clear it up for me. In that case do the Iranians hate the Sunni Iraqis, and other Muslim nations?

In many cases yes, they do. The Kuwaiti's, Saudi's and other Sunni gulf states supported Iraq in the war against Iran as did the US.

The Iranians have on occasion cooperated with Sunni states but mostly having to do with Isreal or the US.

Hizbollah which is based in Lebanon is a Shia Arab group which Iran supports. So the Iranians can get along with Arabs as long as they are Shia. This doesn't mean they cannot ally with Sunni Arabs but generally they don't.

The religious divide Shia-Sunni means more than the Arab-Persian divide but Persians in general are not to friendly to Arabs.

[Leet Eriksson]

Iran does not hate all arab states, although relations soured after the seizing of 3 UAE owned islands, Iran still has good relations with Bahrain, Oman, Qatar and the UAE. They even allied with Oman in solving the Dhofar crisis in the 1970's.

[Aenlic]

OK, this is apparently how the whole process shakes out.

If they can't reach a compromise with the Sunnis, then the Kurds and Shiites will have to send the constitution for a vote anyway in October to the interim National Assembly. If 3 or more provinces (and the Sunnis won the elections in 3 provinces, even with their boycott) reject the new constitution then it fails and the interim National Assembly is dissolved. They then go right back to square one, holding elections for a new interim National Assembly and beginning new negotiations for a new constitution, which odds indicate will end up right back where we are now. This is not a good thing.

[Steppe Merc]

What is it that the Sunnis don't like about the constitution? If they are more secular, wouldn't they support a constitution that is more secular? Or is it to try and stop the Shiites?

[Aenlic]

From what I can gather, the main problem is federalism. They're afraid that they won't have enough autonomy in their own mostly Sunni provinces. But at the same time, they are also concerned that the entire wealth of the country is mostly in the oil fields of the southern Shiite provinces and the northern Kurdish provinces and that they'll be left out in the cold.

[lars573]

Which is of course one of the main draw backs of federalism. The nation is divided into have and have-not provinces.

[Red Harvest]

Which is of course one of the main draw backs of federalism. The nation is divided into have and have-not provinces.

Care to explain that, because you lost me. Federalism should serve to weaken the powers of the individual states. So wouldn't that have the opposite effect? It should share the wealth.

[lars573]

Care to explain that, because you lost me. Federalism should serve to weaken the powers of the individual states. So wouldn't that have the opposite effect? It should share the wealth.

It doesn't trust me. Even with a federal government forcing rich provinces to share the wealth it still leads to poor areas and rich areas. I know I live in a have not province and the have provinces of Canada resent having to support the have nots with transfer paymentsm, some less than other ofcourse. The US has have and have not areas too. Like California new York and Texas (have). With New Mexico Georgia and tennese being have not.