THE IRAQ CONSTITUTION
Posted: 06 May 2026, 01:14
THE IRAQ CONSTITUTION
23 August 2005
Watching the Sunni, Shia and Kurd factions arguing about the constitution for the ‘new’ Iraq reinforces once more in my mind the dangers of imposing settlement terms on disparate groups of people. Soviet Russia, Israel, Ireland and the Balkans spring immediately to the fore. It seems to me that any artificial creation of a ‘state’ which ignores religious, ethnic and economic divisions is, in the end, doomed to fail.
Iraq is a case in point. The fault lines that are appearing in the discussions mirror exactly the pre 1919 make up of the three kingdoms that historically comprised Mesopotamia. Shia Basra in the South, Sunni Baghdad in the centre and Kurdistan in the North. The situation is complicated by the fact that Basra and Kurdistan have oil and Baghdad has none. So as far as the Sunnis are concerned, economically, any move towards a federal state would be disastrous and a harbinger of separation.
There is a complication which doesn’t seem to be getting any air-time. Can you remember that when the coalition were first organising the invasion of Iraq a major stumbling block was the fact that Turkey would not allow any over-flying rights or any other facilities for getting forces into the north via their territory. This was all bound up in Turkish ambitions in Kurdistan which they regard as being historically part of their territory. Of course, the key to this is again oil. If Kurdistan succeeds in re-establishing itself as a separate state there will immediately be a tension on the Turkish border.
There is a further problem. The activities of the insurgents are being played down lately but recent reports suggest that there are areas of Iraq which are under insurgent control with Taliban type Sharia law complete with beheadings, amputations, disembowelling and repression of women’s rights and communication.
I’m not in the business of predicting what is going to happen in Iraq, however I think that anyone who has been consistently pointing out the errors both in the attack and in ignoring history is allowed to say that the situation we are in now was predictable and almost inevitable. Iraq under Saddam was a horribly repressive regime but was stable. ‘Shock and Awe’ blew the whole kit and caboodle into the air and now nobody can control where the pieces land and how they will join up. The old ethnic and religious divisions have free reign and I have a terrible premonition that whatever the short term stitch-up produces, at some point in the future there will be a readjustment through some form of civil war and it seems to me that the only two results that seem feasible are either separation into separate states or the rise of another dictator strong enough to impose his will on the country.
What a mess! We can’t change history but what we can and must do is remember the events that brought us to this point and make our voices heard in future. To paraphrase, if you ignore the lessons of history you are condemned to repeat them.
23 August 2005
23 August 2005
Watching the Sunni, Shia and Kurd factions arguing about the constitution for the ‘new’ Iraq reinforces once more in my mind the dangers of imposing settlement terms on disparate groups of people. Soviet Russia, Israel, Ireland and the Balkans spring immediately to the fore. It seems to me that any artificial creation of a ‘state’ which ignores religious, ethnic and economic divisions is, in the end, doomed to fail.
Iraq is a case in point. The fault lines that are appearing in the discussions mirror exactly the pre 1919 make up of the three kingdoms that historically comprised Mesopotamia. Shia Basra in the South, Sunni Baghdad in the centre and Kurdistan in the North. The situation is complicated by the fact that Basra and Kurdistan have oil and Baghdad has none. So as far as the Sunnis are concerned, economically, any move towards a federal state would be disastrous and a harbinger of separation.
There is a complication which doesn’t seem to be getting any air-time. Can you remember that when the coalition were first organising the invasion of Iraq a major stumbling block was the fact that Turkey would not allow any over-flying rights or any other facilities for getting forces into the north via their territory. This was all bound up in Turkish ambitions in Kurdistan which they regard as being historically part of their territory. Of course, the key to this is again oil. If Kurdistan succeeds in re-establishing itself as a separate state there will immediately be a tension on the Turkish border.
There is a further problem. The activities of the insurgents are being played down lately but recent reports suggest that there are areas of Iraq which are under insurgent control with Taliban type Sharia law complete with beheadings, amputations, disembowelling and repression of women’s rights and communication.
I’m not in the business of predicting what is going to happen in Iraq, however I think that anyone who has been consistently pointing out the errors both in the attack and in ignoring history is allowed to say that the situation we are in now was predictable and almost inevitable. Iraq under Saddam was a horribly repressive regime but was stable. ‘Shock and Awe’ blew the whole kit and caboodle into the air and now nobody can control where the pieces land and how they will join up. The old ethnic and religious divisions have free reign and I have a terrible premonition that whatever the short term stitch-up produces, at some point in the future there will be a readjustment through some form of civil war and it seems to me that the only two results that seem feasible are either separation into separate states or the rise of another dictator strong enough to impose his will on the country.
What a mess! We can’t change history but what we can and must do is remember the events that brought us to this point and make our voices heard in future. To paraphrase, if you ignore the lessons of history you are condemned to repeat them.
23 August 2005