Thursday, May 22, 2003 | 8:20 a.m.
LITTLE BY LITTLE the problems that Saddam Hussein has left for the United States and Great Britain are being recognized. Long before we invaded that country we knew the people's health and welfare had deteriorated almost beyond belief. We also knew that Saddam's Arabization of northern Kurdish cities had to result in the Kurds attempting to take back their land and homes. There also shouldn't have been any doubt that the suppressed Shiite Muslims would demand a theocracy to replace Saddam.
Also before our attack on Iraq, we had learned that rebuilding institutions and businesses in Afghanistan was a bigger job than anticipated. According to reports coming out of that country, we have destroyed the Taliban but haven't done nearly enough to replace them. So the vacuum is rapidly being filled by tribal leaders who are again collecting taxes, bribes and extorting funds from every possible source.
All of the predictable problems we face in Iraq are now on the front burner and they had better stay there. In fact, we had better have at least three front burners on our stove to also meet the challenges left unmet in Afghanistan and the resurgence of international terrorism. Oh, yes, don't forget a fourth front burner needed for the so-called "road map to peace" in the Middle East.
Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., as the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has warned that it will take at least five years to bring a democratic government to Iraq. Maybe his prediction is finally being given the respect it deserves because today Murphy's Law rules in that country. Everything that could go wrong is going wrong, according to most reports.
It didn't take long for some Americans to recognize the poison contained in Iraq's elementary school books. New books for these schools will not have the Saddam and Baathist Party material used for indoctrination.
The Shiites, stirred up by their clergy, have gone to the streets to demand that the Americans leave now. They, like the tribal leaders in Afghanistan, eagerly lay plans to fill the vacuum with a theocracy similar to Iran's. The U.S. and Great Britain cannot allow this to happen and must finish the job, no matter what the length of time, they set out to accomplish.
This column has in the past expressed concern about any hopes of Iraq becoming just one big happy democratic nation. Because of the extreme differences between the Shiite and Sunni Muslims, Christians, Kurds and Turkmen, it's a necessity to consider a method to share power. The first effort must be directed toward the production of a constitution.
Professors Adeed and Karen Dawisha, writing in the May and June edition of Foreign Affairs magazine, have given serious thought to both a constitution and government structure. In their essay they write: "Iraq's ethnic and sectarian diversity -- the splits between Kurds, Arabs, and Turkmen, and between Shi'ites and Sunnis -- is usually seen as an impediment to building a stable democracy there. The fact is, however, that all this antagonism could serve a constructive purpose: having factions zealously check each others' power could actually promote democracy at the expense of rigid communal particularism. The trick is to work out a constitutional arrangement that makes sense of Iraq's social and cultural mosaic, transforming diversity into an agent for positive change.
"For that reason, democratic Iraq must have a federal system of government. Already, the Kurds -- who have enjoyed freedom from Baghdad's control since the establishment of the northern no-fly zone -- have been adamant in demanding such a system. But all Iraqis would benefit from federalism, as the example of other current federal states -- the United States, Germany, Russia, and now the United Kingdom -- suggests."
The key to success is given by the Dawishas in the following paragraph: "In a federal Iraq, both Baghdad and the regions should be equal guardians of the constitution. Monitoring the rights and arbitrating disputes between these power bases should be the responsibility of a strong federal judiciary. As other federal states have shown, constitutional amendments to change this arrangement should be allowed only with the concurrence of both houses of the legislature, the head of state, and all federal units. Allowing the center to bypass the regions in amending the constitution quickly dilutes local rights and increases regional antipathy to central control ..."
There is seldom a simple solution to any complex problem but, with the Dawisha thinking, continued U.S. and British presence, time, effort, education and security, it's possible Iraq can change.
archive
