BAGHDAD (AP) — The Bush administration said Sunday a Senate resolution that could lead to a division of the country into sectarian or ethnic territories "would produce extraordinary suffering and bloodshed."
The unusual U.S. Embassy statement came just hours after representatives of Iraq's major political parties denounced the U.S. Senate proposal calling for a limited centralized government with the bulk of the power given to the country's Shiite, Sunni or Kurdish regions, saying it would seriously hamper Iraq's future stability.
"Our goal in Iraq remains the same: a united, democratic, federal Iraq that can govern, defend, and sustain itself," the statement said. "Iraq's leaders must and will take the lead in determining how to achieve these national aspirations. ... attempts to partition or divide Iraq by intimidation, force or other means into three separate states would produce extraordinary suffering and bloodshed."
The non-binding Senate resolution adopted last week calls for Iraq to be divided into federal regions under control of Kurds, Shiites and Sunnis in a power-sharing agreement similar to the one that ended the 1990s war in Bosnia. Sen. Joseph Biden, D-Del., was a prime sponsor of the measure.
The Kurds in three northern Iraqi provinces are running a virtually independent country within Iraq, while nominally maintaining relations with Baghdad. They support a formal division, but both Sunni and Shiite Muslims have denounced the proposal.
moreOn edit: The Senate Resolution doesn't call for anything. The Bush admin will now misrepresent the Senate resolution with the help of the media.
Via
Juan Cole (who is against partitioning),
Iraq expert Reidar Vissar dissects the Senate vote:
This is one area where Biden's ideas clearly violate the Iraqi constitution: any attempt on the part of the US to identify “major factions” would be a top–down, externally imposed solution on a matter in which the Iraqis themselves have already designed bottom–up mechanisms. Biden does not seem to appreciate the fact that federalist pioneers among the Iraqis have always warned against federalism based on ethnicities: in their opinion, federalism based on geographical, non-sectarian criteria could conceivably serve as national “glue”; conversely, and with the exception of the Kurds and the Shiite faction that happens to be closest to Iran, Iraqi supporters of federalism have always condemned ethno-sectarian variants of federalism as a giant leap towards partition. Biden should be challenged to spell out very explicitly the modalities by which he expects the constitutional right to form small-scale non-sectarian regions to simply disappear, and how he thinks the holy number “three” is to be arrived at. Perhaps he might then better understand how his actions are tantamount to abetting civil strife in today’s Iraq and represent a real step towards full partition? Has he even heard about the small-scale non-sectarian federal schemes that have been circulating in Basra in the far south since late 2003?
Interestingly, in the final version of the Biden amendment the "major factions" language was eliminated, which also meant that the "Biden plan" in many ways was back to square one, with no explicit language on ethnicity, but also with fewer claims to originality. However, a remaining major problem in the amendment is that it severely distorts the Iraqi constitution’s provisions for federalism. Biden does not understand, or does not want to understand, that there is no imperative in the Iraqi constitution for every part of the country to seek a federal status.
Federalism is but one of two options: governorates may also elect to retain their current status. This is a feature of the 2005 constitution that is consonant with Iraqi political history. The drafters realised that the country has a long unitary tradition with widespread scepticism towards federalism among the population; appreciating these political tensions they abandoned any idea of imposing federalism “from above”. In fact, leading Iraqi politicians who drafted the 2006 law on implementing federalism have suggested that possibly no more than one or two governorates (like for instance Basra in the far south) will seek a status similar to Kurdistan when the federalism option formally becomes available in April 2008.
linkHe acknowledges that Biden's plan was amended to take out specifics. Also, while he criticizes Biden's understanding of the Iraqi's desire for federalism, he admits that it's one of two option outlined in the Iraq constitution. Text of the revised Biden amendment (which was still being revised during the vote):
SA 2997. Mr. BIDEN (for himself, Mr. BROWNBACK, Mrs. BOXER, Mr. SPECTER, Mr. KERRY, Mr. SMITH, Mr. NELSON of Florida, Mrs. HUTCHISON, Mr. SCHUMER, Ms. MIKULSKI, and Mrs. LINCOLN) submitted an amendment intended to be proposed by him to the bill H.R. 1585, to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2008 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel strengths for such fiscal year, and for other purposes; which was ordered to lie on the table; as follows:
At the end of subtitle C of title XV, add the following:
SEC. 1535. SENSE OF CONGRESS ON FEDERALISM IN IRAQ.
(a) Findings.--Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Iraq continues to experience a self-sustaining cycle of sectarian violence.
(2) The ongoing sectarian violence presents a threat to regional and world peace, and the long-term security interests of the United States are best served by an Iraq that is stable, not a haven for terrorists, and not a threat to its neighbors.
(3) Iraqis must reach a comprehensive and sustainable political settlement in order to achieve stability, and the failure of the Iraqis to reach such a settlement is a primary cause of increasing violence in Iraq.
(4) The Key Judgments of the January 2007 National Intelligence Estimate entitled ``Prospects for Iraq's Stability: A Challenging Road Ahead'' state, ``A number of identifiable developments could help to reverse the negative trends driving Iraq's current trajectory. They include: Broader Sunni acceptance of the current political structure and federalism to begin to reduce one of the major sources of Iraq's instability . . . Significant concessions by Shia and Kurds to create space for Sunni acceptance of federalism''.
(5) Article One of the Constitution of Iraq declares Iraq to be a ``single, independent federal state''.
(6) Section Five of the Constitution of Iraq declares that the ``federal system in the Republic of Iraq is made up of a decentralized capital, regions, and governorates, and local administrations'' and enumerates the expansive powers of regions and the limited powers of the central government and establishes the mechanisms for the creation of new federal regions.
(7) The federal system created by the Constitution of Iraq would give Iraqis local control over their police and certain laws, including those related to employment, education, religion, and marriage.
(8) The Constitution of Iraq recognizes the administrative role of the Kurdistan Regional Government in 3 northern Iraqi provinces, known also as the Kurdistan Region.
(9) The Kurdistan region, recognized by the Constitution of Iraq, is largely stable and peaceful.
(10) The Iraqi Parliament approved a federalism law on October 11th, 2006, which establishes procedures for the creation of new federal regions and will go into effect 18 months after approval.
(11) Iraqis recognize Baghdad as the capital of Iraq, and the Constitution of Iraq stipulates that Baghdad may not merge with any federal region.
(12) Despite their differences, Iraq's sectarian and ethnic groups support the unity and territorial integrity of Iraq.
(13) Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki stated on November 27, 2006, ``The crisis is political, and the ones who can stop the cycle of aggravation and bloodletting of innocents are the politicians''.
(b) Sense of Congress.--It is the sense of Congress that--
(1) the United States should actively support a political settlement among Iraq's major factions based upon the provisions of the Constitution of Iraq that create a federal system of government and allow for the creation of federal regions;
(2) the active support referred to in paragraph (1) should include--
A) calling on the international community, including countries with troops in Iraq, the permanent 5 members of the United Nations Security Council, members of the Gulf Cooperation Council, and Iraq's neighbors--
(i) to support an Iraqi political settlement based on federalism;
(ii) to acknowledge the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq; and
(iii) to fulfill commitments for the urgent delivery of significant assistance and debt relief to Iraq, especially those made by the member states of the Gulf Cooperation Council;
(B) further calling on Iraq's neighbors to pledge not to intervene in or destabilize Iraq and to agree to related verification mechanisms; and
(C) convening a conference for Iraqis to reach an agreement on a comprehensive political settlement based on the creation of federal regions within a united Iraq;
(3) the United States should urge the Government of Iraq to quickly agree upon and implement a law providing for the equitable distribution of oil revenues, which is a critical component of a comprehensive political settlement based upon federalism; and
(4) the steps described in paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) could lead to an Iraq that is stable, not a haven for terrorists, and not a threat to its neighbors.
It's a sense of the Senate bill that supports the federalism provision in the Iraq Constitution, but ultimately recognizes that the solution is up to the Iraqis.
Bush has no interest in the Senate resolution because once the reconciliation process begins, the Democrats have even more leverage to call for a firm deadline for withdrawal. Reconciliation means there is no need for American troops to be on the ground in Iraq. Maybe that's why Bush cronies are over there meddling and
impeding the process. The Bush admin is intent on slowing reconciliation in Iraq.
On further edit:
Maliki calls the shots so why isn't he demanding an end to U.S. interference and calling for all U.S. forces to be removed from Iraq? He continues to spout BS about why the U.S. troops should remain in Iraq, but wants to shun U.S. support for a political solution.
All Maliki cares about is Shia power. He isn't lifting a finger toward reconciliation. He is in fact supporting Bush's stay the course, keep U.S. troops in Iraq for decades failed policy.
A sense of the Senate bill is not a law and support for the Iraq Constitution, which the Iraqis have a right to revised is support. The Iraqis have to determine the solution, then the U.S. will offer whatever support it can, and that the Iraqis will accept.
What the U.S. can control, and needs to, is withdrawing U.S. troops from the middle of Iraq's civil war. That's a determination for the U.S., not the Maliki government.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
