In this
second report on current developments in Iraq, we look at the aspiration for
“confederalism” rather than mere federalism that various members of the
Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) have been giving voice to since the outbreak
of the present troubles. One KRG representative spoke directly to the NCF during
an MESC meeting a couple of days ago and stated, “Kurds participated in the
writing of the Iraqi constitution. Federalism was the chosen political
structure, as stated in the constitution, but it was never implemented. We
cannot go back to the pre-ISIS situation. There must now be a move from
federalism to confederalism.” However there is clear blue water between the
concept of a “federal” Iraq and that of a “confederal” Iraq and the difference
represented by the new Kurdish position should be understood. There are few
truly confederal nations in the world today. Switzerland is a “soft”
confederation as is Belgium. There is a sense in which the Gulf Cooperation
Council states or the European Union are “confederations”. The following short
report by NCF interns is an attempt to clarify the implications of the new
position being advocated by the KRG.
The
feasibility of a confederal Iraq
“The only hope to keep the country together is probably through
three different regions with a confederation” Kirkuk
provincial governor Najm al-Din Karim speaking on 25 June
2014
A confederation is an association of states and groups that
are loosely bound by a treaty. Most importantly these constituent states retain their national sovereignty and
consequently their right to secession.
In some models a constituent state in a confederation will
be able to pursue an independent foreign policy (eg. negotiating treaties with
other countries); whereas under a federal system the central government would
have laws and regulations that supersede those of a constituent
state.
In multi-ethnic Iraq, a confederal Iraq could be
divided into three large states, reminiscent of the way there were once three
distinct Ottoman provinces (Mosul, Baghdad and Basra Vilayets). The new
confederal states envisioned would each have one of the three main ethnic groups
of Iraq as its majority population: A Kurdish majority state with borders
similar to the present borders of Iraqi Kurdistan, a Sunni majority state and a
Shia majority state.
One way of interpreting Iraq’s move to a “confederal” system
would be a transition to the “new” type of confederation pioneered by the
European Union. An EU-style confederation would result in a stark transfer of
powers to the different member states. Regional parliaments would have almost
complete control over their own state and could pursue an independent foreign
policy. There would still be a “national” parliament for the whole of Iraq,
which could direct common economic policies with numerous common laws
facilitating a single economic market within Iraq with open internal borders,
and a common currency along with other key aspects found within the EU
confederal system. However, this national parliament would be largely toothless
in dictating the budget and public finances of the sovereign regions.
The least radical approach would be the Belgian form of
quasi-confederalism. An Iraqi state
modelled on Belgium would not include the right of secession for the various
regional groups but would ensure significant powers were transferred from
Baghdad to the regional capitals. This would be similar to the Iraq that US
Senator Joe Biden called for in 2006, an Iraq where “the Kurdish, Sunni and
Shiite regions would each be responsible for their own domestic laws,
administration and internal security, the central government would control
border defense, foreign affairs and oil revenues.”
Whilst some would welcome a looser Iraq under a
confederal system in the hopes of de-escalating sectarian tensions, others have
warned against it. Iraqi scholar, Sami Ramadani, stated that "those
who claim [Iraq] could only have peace if it is divided into three states do not
appreciate the makeup of Iraqi society; the three regions would quickly fall
under the rule of violent sectarians and chauvinists. Given how ethnically and
religiously varied Iraq's regions are, particularly in Baghdad and central Iraq,
a three-way national breakup would be a recipe for permanent wars in which only
the oil companies, the arms suppliers and the warlords will be the winners".
No comments:
Post a Comment