Iraqi Constitution in Deep Trouble

**Leet Eriksson** · 08-28-2005, 00:05

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** · 08-28-2005, 00:11

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** · 08-28-2005, 04:01

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** · 08-28-2005, 04:16

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** · 08-28-2005, 04:34

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

**Red Harvest** · 08-28-2005, 09:28

Originally Posted by lars573

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** · 08-28-2005, 15:38

Originally Posted by Red Harvest

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.