Iraq on the Path to a Shiite Dictatorship
By Guido Steinberg
Der Spiegel
Baghdad's new Kurdish-Shiite coalition may end efforts at national reconciliation with the Sunnis. But a government pursuing common interests is Iraq's only hope. Even stability brought about by a Shiite-dominated regime would be better than the chaos that currently reigns.
The violence in Iraq continues to dominate the headlines. Last week's front-page news was a particularly spectacular attack by Islamist terrorists, who had targeted the small Yazidi minority in northern Iraq. Hundreds of people died in the attacks west of Mosul.
Unfortunately, the gruesome events overshadowed an important political development in Baghdad, where the core of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's national unity government agreed to the formation of a new coalition. This is good news, because only a smaller government of partners capable of effective cooperation offers hope of long-term stabilization for Iraq. Indeed, it is political steps like the one Maliki took last week that will shape the future of Iraq, not the violent acts of terrorist groups.
The members of the new coalition include, for the time being, the two Kurdish parties, the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) and the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP), as well as two Shiite groups, the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council and Maliki's Daawa Party. These are exactly the four parties that have favored transforming Iraq into a federalist state since the drafting of the constitution in 2005. These "federalists" are the only forces in Iraqi politics that can be expected to make any headway when it comes to stabilizing the country. This does nothing to change the observation that they are less interested in a functioning federal system than autonomy motivated by the desire for political power.
For the two Kurdish parties, the federalism project is a compromise solution between the long-entertained wish for an independent Kurdish state and the realization that neighboring countries would be too opposed to its establishment. They have attempted to expand their autonomous zone, set up in 1991, by annexing neighboring territory. In light of the situation in central Iraq, the Kurdish parties want to be sufficiently strong and independent of Baghdad so that they could secede quickly and easily if the conflict escalates. The Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council is driven by similar motives. As the strongest Shiite group in Iraq, the council is calling for the establishment of a federal region consisting of the nine majority Shiite provinces south of Baghdad. The Daawa Party is merely its junior partner. It too wants to secure a stable power base in case the civil war in central Iraq spins out of control. As the US's key allies in the new Iraq, the Kurdish parties and the Supreme Council have been able to move forward with their plan largely unopposed since 2005.
(Continued here.)
Der Spiegel
Baghdad's new Kurdish-Shiite coalition may end efforts at national reconciliation with the Sunnis. But a government pursuing common interests is Iraq's only hope. Even stability brought about by a Shiite-dominated regime would be better than the chaos that currently reigns.
The violence in Iraq continues to dominate the headlines. Last week's front-page news was a particularly spectacular attack by Islamist terrorists, who had targeted the small Yazidi minority in northern Iraq. Hundreds of people died in the attacks west of Mosul.
Unfortunately, the gruesome events overshadowed an important political development in Baghdad, where the core of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's national unity government agreed to the formation of a new coalition. This is good news, because only a smaller government of partners capable of effective cooperation offers hope of long-term stabilization for Iraq. Indeed, it is political steps like the one Maliki took last week that will shape the future of Iraq, not the violent acts of terrorist groups.
The members of the new coalition include, for the time being, the two Kurdish parties, the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) and the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP), as well as two Shiite groups, the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council and Maliki's Daawa Party. These are exactly the four parties that have favored transforming Iraq into a federalist state since the drafting of the constitution in 2005. These "federalists" are the only forces in Iraqi politics that can be expected to make any headway when it comes to stabilizing the country. This does nothing to change the observation that they are less interested in a functioning federal system than autonomy motivated by the desire for political power.
For the two Kurdish parties, the federalism project is a compromise solution between the long-entertained wish for an independent Kurdish state and the realization that neighboring countries would be too opposed to its establishment. They have attempted to expand their autonomous zone, set up in 1991, by annexing neighboring territory. In light of the situation in central Iraq, the Kurdish parties want to be sufficiently strong and independent of Baghdad so that they could secede quickly and easily if the conflict escalates. The Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council is driven by similar motives. As the strongest Shiite group in Iraq, the council is calling for the establishment of a federal region consisting of the nine majority Shiite provinces south of Baghdad. The Daawa Party is merely its junior partner. It too wants to secure a stable power base in case the civil war in central Iraq spins out of control. As the US's key allies in the new Iraq, the Kurdish parties and the Supreme Council have been able to move forward with their plan largely unopposed since 2005.
(Continued here.)
Powered by Blogger
1 Comments:
Guido Steinberg writes : The civil war would continue, but at least there would be an end in sight.
That is an outlandish statement ... or to use the politically correct term -- naive.
How would a Shiite dominated government (especially if there is a federal region consisting of the nine majority Shiite provinces south of Baghdad and a Kurdish region in the North) satisfy the Baathists and Sunnis ? The civil war will escalate ... plus the Sadr-loyalists disagree with the SIIC-loyalists.
If Steinberg's theory was correct, there would not be any violence in Basra ... which is predominantly Shiite. 500 dead in one attack last week would not have been any different if this new coalition had been in charge since day one ... it's a civil war with deep religious tones.
But I will accept it as Steinberg wrote it ... it's an Opinion piece ... heck, Cheney has an opinion that the WMD is there, we just haven't found it yet ... I just don't agree with Steinberg's opinion.
QUERY : Why did Bush state today that if the people do not want the al-Maliki government then they should be replaced ? Is it because al-Maliki has reconfigured his coalition and is isolating the Sunnis ? Or is it because al-Maliki is getting to close to Iran ?
Remember that Iran was the protectorate for al-Maliki's Daawa Party and the SIIC.
Post a Comment
<< Home