|
Kurdish demands trigger fears of civil war in Iraq
By Justin Huggler in Baghdad
01 March 2004
The United States-appointed Governing Council in Iraq remained deadlocked
yesterday over the role of Islam in Iraq and Kurdish demands for federalism,
after failing to meet a deadline for agreeing an interim constitution for the
country.
Urgent talks continued after the council failed to meet the deadline of midnight
on Saturday, underlining the increasingly dangerous divisions in Iraqi society.
The main sticking point is the role of Islam, amid concerns that many on the
council want to institute sharia law. Iraqi women's groups are warning that
women may lose freedoms they enjoyed even under Saddam Hussein's regime.
Despite council members' attempts to downplay their divisions, it appeared they
had failed to agree on any of the most contentious issues facing Iraq as the US
handover date looms.
There was believed to be no agreement on Kurdish demands to protect their
autonomy in the north of Iraq, and no agreement on a mechanism for sharing power
between the three main sectors of Iraqi society: the Shia Arab majority, the
Sunni Arabs, and the Kurds.
The protracted wrangling over these issues will only increase fears of a civil
war.
For many Iraqis, the constitutional wrangling has served to highlight the lack
of democracy in the Americans' planned hand-over of sovereignty. Iraq's new
constitution is being drawn up by an unelected council that was hand-picked by
the Americans and has very little support among ordinary Iraqis. So loathed are
some of the council members that many say they could not walk down a street in
Baghdad without being killed.
Yet the council is refusing to stick to the American script. Many of its members
openly back the introduction of sharia - which would be embarrassing for the
Americans. The key battle is over a move to make divorce and inheritance rights
subject to Islamic law. Under Saddam, women had equal divorce and inheritance
rights to men. The new law would take away those rights.
The council voted the new measures into law, but after a concerted effort led by
Iraqi women, it was overturned in a new vote. Several Shia council members
stormed out in protest at the reversal of the decision. Discussions reportedly
only resumed after Paul Bremer, the American chief administrator in Iraq, joined
the council.
Mr Bremer has, in effect, threatened to veto any law that includes the
inheritance and divorce provisions. All council decisions have to be signed by
him before they are recognised as laws, and he has said he will not sign any law
that includes them. One Shia leader, the cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, has made vague
threats of armed resistance if Mr Bremer vetoes the law.
Discussions are reportedly deadlocked on how to share the presidency. The
original proposal was for the presidency to rotate between the Shia, Sunni and
Kurds, but the Shia are demanding a greater share to reflect the size of their
population.
Shia and Sunni oppose the Kurds' demands for autonomy in the north. More
contentious still are Kurdish demands to include the city of Kirkuk in their
area, which contains Iraq's richest oil reserves.
--
"Naturally, the common people don't want war;
neither in Russia nor in England nor in America,
nor for that matter in Germany.
That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders
of the country who determine the policy and
it is always a simple matter to drag the people
along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist
dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist
dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can
always be brought to the bidding of the leaders.
That is easy. All you have to do is tell them
they are being attacked and denounce the
pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing
the country to danger. It works the same way
in any country."
- Hermann Goering, Nazi Reichsmarshall
|
| |
| |
|
