The Iraqi Constitution and the Dialogue of the Deaf

In fact, the deliberations of the drafting committee shed new light on the deep and wide contentions between the Shiites, Sunnis, and the Kurds. In the end, the negotiators gave themselves another week despite the US pressures, though no practical sign indicates that this time they may resolve all the problems that prevented them from reaching an agreement during the first key deadline.

The Shiites, who form the majority in the panel and the Parliament, advocate, similarly to the Kurds, federalism that will help them rule in the South and benefit from its oil revenues, just like the Kurds in the North. However, they want to ensure that the Constitution affirms Iraq’s Islamic identity, and that Islam becomes the Constitution’s main source, as required by Ayatollah Ali Sistani.

In parallel, the Kurds, who champion federalism enabling them to enjoy self-autonomy in the North, have threatened to withdraw from the drafting committee should their “major demands” be neglected. These demands, expressed by the leader of Iraqi Kurdistan Massoud Barzani, comprise the rejection of Iraq’s Islamic identity and the allocation of 65% of Kirkuk’s oil revenues to the Kurdish region. Certainly, the issue of Kirkuk itself will not be settled. For the Kurds want the reversal of “Arabization” carried out by Saddam Hussein in the 80s. In this context, the Kurdish leader and panelist Mahmoud Othman calls for the return of the displaced Kurdish families prior to December 15, the date of staging new elections. This means that 5 to 10 thousand Arab families will be deported from the city if the Kurdish families heed his call. The Arabs and the Turkmans, who are strongly supported by Turkey, oppose this step, while the Kurds threaten to withdraw from the drafting committee unless their demands were met.

The 15-Sunni committee members threaten as well to follow the Kurds’ example if the Shiite and Kurdish members imposed their stances. Saleh Moutlak, one of the senior Sunni committee members, said that sticking to federalism and weakening the central authority in Baghdad would perpetuate the current situation, where no security and stability prevail, which would eventually destroy Iraq. The Sunni members have also complained that the Americans exerted pressures on them only to make concessions.

In fact, the Americans pressed all parties. The US ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad eventually voiced his deception, as the negotiations on the constitution were extended, especially that he served as the seventy second or even the first member in the 71-member drafting committee. Since President Bush is living in his own world, he has used this postponement to laud the “heroic efforts” exerted by the committee members and their resolve to settle all the pending issues through negotiations and dialogue.

However, the issues were not resolved, for the dialogue of the deaf continued even after the said extension. Every party stood firm and made the least concessions only. We may hence say that the constitutional negotiations have pushed the three clashing parties to stiffen their positions, each party vying with the other to surpass it. For instance, Barzani’s demands, including 65% of Kirkuk oil revenues, contradict with the declared stands of the President, Jalal Talabani. The latter affirmed that the committee members were about to reach an agreement. Moreover, the intervention of Ayatollah Sistani, who received, on the extension eve, a visit from Premier Ibrahim Jaafari, made the Shiite insist on giving the State an Islamic identity, which is a Shiite identity.

Read More