Where I Stand — Mike O’Callaghan: Iraq takes first step

Friday, March 5, 2004 | 8:55 a.m.

THE IRAQI GOVERNING COUNCIL has agreed on the draft of an interim constitution that has promise for a new system of government. Some people eagerly point out the importance of this first step toward a freely elected government. They have reason to be happy and have hope for the future. Others quickly point to many problems the proposed constitution has avoided to answer or have ignored. They also have a firm basis for their criticism.

What has been approved are the bare bones of an instrument that now must be built around during coming months. Amir Taheri, writing in the New York Post, finds it hard to agree with the following parts of the draft:

"Having both an executive president and a prime minister is a recipe for perpetual fights at the summit of the state. Things could become even more complicated: The draft envisages the appointment of two vice presidents, presumably to represent ethnic and religious minorities, thus encouraging communalism at the highest level.

"The new constitution cannot emphasize both the concept of 'Iraqiness' (Uruqa) and encourage ethnic and/or religious sectarianism.

"The decision to impose quotas for women -- 25 percent in the parliament and 40 percent in government departments -- is not helpful. Added to the quotas for religious and ethnic minorities, these 'reserved places for women' could complicate the task of forming an efficient administration with the help of the most qualified Iraqis."

Tom Squitieri, writing in USA Today, sees other problems which include what he believes are the toughest questions deferred. Among them are: "How much autonomy will be given to Iraq's Kurdish minority, how to form the next government, how to make sure the rights in the interim document are maintained and what the new flag will look like."

The Kurdish representatives, agreeing to the draft interim constitution that denies their people regional autonomy, helped the several factions to unite. How long this unification will last will be determined only when the final document is written and approved.

The Governing Council did allow the Kurds to keep their own army of peshmerga as a defense force. Also, it didn't interfere with the present governing of the two large political parties of the Kurds. What should be interesting is the final document that will, or will not, direct all decisions to come from Baghdad. The Kurds have done very well running their own government and economy for more than 12 years. They proved to me in 1992 that they fully understand the democratic process of a free election. Despite the real threats of Saddam Hussein, they held an open election where people lined up for hours to cast their ballots. After observing other elections in other foreign countries, I found the democratic approach and the professionalism of the Kurds to be refreshing.

So when all is said and done, just how much of the success the Kurds have experienced are they willing to give up? What will be the distribution of oil money taken from land that Saddam made the Kurds leave? These are but two of the questions that will only be answered after the final document is approved and there is an election. I'm not sure that the majority of Kurds will sit quietly if they see the loss of those democratic values they have earned and enjoy.

There is a proven friendship that exists between the Kurds and the United States. They opened their arms and welcomed the arrival of our military forces last year. This relationship certainly demands special consideration from the Americans overseeing the development of any Iraqi government put together during the coming year. We encouraged the Kurds to revolt against Saddam in 1991. They did, and they were slaughtered because we didn't come to their aid and allowed Saddam's army to retreat from Kuwait and go north to put down the uprising. The Kurds deserve better treatment this time because they have earned their way into the world of free men and women.