By ILAN PELEG
October 26, 2007
The recent U.S. Senate resolution urging the Iraqis to decentralize their government and to transfer more power to the ethnic regions of the country might be a sign that finally there is a return to realistic foreign policy in Washington. Passed by a solid majority of 75 senators, this resolution, despite being non-binding and facing White House opposition, might even indicate that a measure of bipartisan consensus could be formed in the pursuit of stability in Iraq.
The vocal protests by both Sunni and Shiite Muslims, including Prime Minister al-Maliki, should not be read as a final and negative verdict on this plan. On the contrary: This is the only plan that, in the long run, could lead to an end of the Iraq War and allow the United States to bring all or most of its forces home.
In theory, there are three alternative solutions for Iraq. The first is to work toward a unitary, centralized government in Baghdad. There is, however, overwhelming evidence that this goal is politically unachievable, certainly by democratic means.
Saddam Hussein held Iraq as a unified country by running one of the most cruel and oppressive regimes in the modern era. The 2003 invasion has generated a civil war, accompanied by ethnic cleansing; unity among Iraqis is as low today as it has ever been. Moreover, there is no reason to believe that the prominent Shiite forces in Iraq desire anything but a Shiite-dominated country. It is time to give up the dream of a unified Iraq.
A second possible solution is the partition of Iraq. While the level of sectarian violence and mistrust in Iraq might convince us that partition is eventually inevitable, partition is not in the interest of most Iraqis, regional stability, or the outside world (including the United States). Complete partition of Iraq will strengthen the hands of Iran in the Shiite South, will induce the Sunni Arab states to be even more involved in the Anbar province, and might convince Turkey to intervene in the Kurdish North, practically independent and relatively calm today. Partition might become an invitation to an all-out regional war.
The third solution, is the preferred one — a decentralized, federalized Iraq, with at least some of the components endorsed by the Senate but with significantly more international support and legitimacy and a firmer legal basis than the one envisioned by that body. Such a solution would require several components: a) the recognition of three largely autonomous regions — Shiite, Sunni and Kurdish — in control of practically all of their internal affairs (the management of the educational system, religious institutions, transportation, police and internal security); b) protection of minorities that will stay behind within ”foreign” regions — such as Sunni enclaves in Baghdad’s large Shiite neighborhoods; c) the central government in Baghdad will be left with three main functions — foreign policy, the security of Iraq’s borders, and the creation of stable economy via monetary unity of one currency and the equitable distribution of oil revenue.
It will be critical to full engage the international community to implement such a comprehensive plan. While the Senate resolution, proposed by Senator Joseph Biden, calls on the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council to convene a conference to assist the Iraqis, it is essential that the final resolution of the Iraq War be endorsed by a formal vote by the Council and that all five permanent members commit themselves to the successful implementation of whatever plan is finally adopted.
It seems that despite the complexities of the issues and the diverse attitudes toward the Iraq war, all five could be brought to ‘’sing from the same page.” Russia is worried about an unstable, Islamized Middle East to its immediate south. China is greatly interested in the uninterrupted flow of oil from the region. The Western powers are increasingly concerned with the emerging Iranian challenge. The Great Powers all share an interest in a stable Iraq. The United States will have to give up its attempt to dictate a settlement unilaterally.
While one can develop a reasonable model for solving the Iraqi dilemma and even get an international consensus around it, its adoption and implementation will depend, in the final analysis, on the Iraqis and their leaders. The experience of other deeply divided societies, such as Spain and Northern Ireland, proves that courageous leaders can on occasion overcome the past and move forward toward resolution of historical cleavages.
Ilan Peleg is the Charles A. Dana Professor of Social Science at Lafayette College in Easton, and author of the recently published ”Democratizing the Hegemonic State: Political Transformation in the Age of Identity,” (Cambridge University Press, 2007).
Source: the Morning Call
