|
The Daily Star, Lebanon
August 8,
2003
Summary: The author, a former
Jordanian ambassador, believes that the Iraqi governing council
should be based on full representation (proportional representation)
rather than a rigidly divisive system based on ethnic and religious
groupings.
Iraq’Äôs governing council: foul or
fair?
Daily Star, Lebanon
By Adnan Abu Odeh
August 8, 2003 Opinions
differ concerning the Iraqi governing council formed three weeks ago
by US Civil Administrator Paul Bremer. Much of the debate has
centered on two issues: the degree of freedom the council enjoys in
making its own decisions and the sectarian nature of its
composition. On the first issue, there are those who are uneasy
with the council because they see it as a first step toward
consolidating the Anglo-American occupation given the body’Äôs
lack of independent decision-making powers. There are also those who
support it precisely because they view it as a first step toward
ending the occupation. Both sides agree that the occupation must
end, but they are divided over their understanding of political
events. Those in the first group seem to be getting ahead of
themselves by betting on American goodwill, out of a mistaken belief
or desire to believe that the invasion of Iraq was aimed
at liberating the country from a wicked dictatorship. Now that
liberation has been achieved, they argue that Iraqis should exercise
their right to self-government as promised, and that the governing
council is at the core of this prerogative. Those in the second
group appear more pragmatic. They realize that the American invasion
of Iraq, which resulted in a de facto internationally recognized
occupation thanks to UN Security Council Resolution 1483, not only
was conducted with the intention of removing a dictatorship, but
also of securing America’Äôs strategic interests through an Iraqi
administration installed specifically for that end. To the
Americans, therefore, the governing council is the nucleus of a new
national administration that in time will grow, prosper and deal
with them based on mutual and shared interests. They also hope that
once the situation in Iraq stabilizes, the new administration will
negotiate the withdrawal of US forces and the country will, in due
course, take its rightful place among America’Äôs Arab allies. This
scenario conjures up images of the ’Äúgive and take’Äù relationship that
was common in the political parlance of colonized countries in the
first half of the 20th century for example in Egypt, Tunisia
and elsewhere, where a local ’Äúnational’Äù administration cohabited
with the occupying power until independence. A similar arrangement
could have been possible in Iraq if organized resistance had not
replaced political action and violence had not replaced political
dialogue. It would have also been possible had the resistance
movement struck a deal with Iraq’Äôs current political leadership to
generate pressure in order to strengthen the latter’Äôs hand in its
peaceful interaction with the occupying power. The second object of
debate, the sectarian nature of the governing council, is more
important and dangerous. The council in its present form is designed
to reflect the sectarian and ethnic composition of Iraq. The fear is
that if such a pattern is accepted as is, it will become a road map
for future Iraqi systems of government after the occupation, drawing
strict lines between the various sectarian and ethnic groups in the
country. These lines could eventually become walls of separation
between Iraqis. The way to dissolve these divisions, however, is
not through a system that apportions power according to ethnic and
religious considerations or through a national resistance movement
that cuts across ethnic and religious lines, but rather through the
development of a new constitution that devises an election law based
on proportional representation. Regrettably, however, signs of
sectarian and ethnic divisions had already begun to surface before
the ink dried on the edict calling for the formation of the
governing council. It seems most Shiites are now satisfied with the
council’Äôs composition, while most Sunnis regard the body with
disappointment and fear. To remedy this, it might be wise for the
council to adopt a rotation system giving each of its component
groups a turn at leadership, instead of electing a president. By
doing so, the council would be able to stave off further problems
until a new constitution is drawn up. In contrast, the election of a
president could give rise to speculation that the Americans favor
one group over the others, or are purposely seeking to highlight
ethnic differences. Furthermore, the present composition of the
council leaves the door open to foreign interference in Iraq’Äôs
domestic affairs. A case in point has been the Turkish government’Äôs
expression of dissatisfaction with seeing only one seat allotted to
the Turkmen minority. In doing this, Turkey implicitly signaled that
the ethnic and religious makeup of the council was acceptable for as
long as it was fair, bringing to mind its military invasion of
Cyprus that divided the island across religious lines. Although
Turkey more than any other country opposes Iraq’Äôs division, it is
willing to utilize the issue of the Turkmens to achieve its own
tactical ends. The Iraqi governing council is a good idea if a free
and united Iraq is what we seek. But the way it was conceived and
its subsequent actions gave rise to legitimate suspicion as to its
intended aims. Adnan Abu Odeh, a former Jordanian ambassador,
information minister and chief of the Royal Court is a regular
contributor to THE DAILY STAR |
