Federalism, not Disintegration

 

 

Seyyed Sadroddin Qabanchi is Imam-Jum’eh (leader of Friday prayers) of Najaf, founder of theological university of Imam Mahdi in Najaf and and Islamic University run under the supervision of Iraq’s Ministry of Higher Education. He is one of the high-profile political figures of Supreme Council of Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) and undertakes extensive political activities for the cause of this group in Iraq. He is now the unofficial spokesman of SCIRI in Najaf and in charge to pursue the policies of this group in this city. As many other Iraqi politicians –such as Abdul Aziz Hakim-, Qabanchi has spent some years in Iran.

During the second international conference of “Shiite and Sunni Scholars” in Tehran we found an opportunity to discuss Iraq’s current issues with him. Following is what we talked about:

A: We believe the previous meetings were held with specific non-Iraqi intentions and didn’t pursue the cause of the Iraqi nation. None of them were held to support the new Iraq. But now this course has changed and aimed towards its suitable direction. Before this, the conferences held were not to support the new Iraq, but to undermine it. Resistance, occupation, factionism etc. were discussed at those meetings, but nothing was said about the new Iraq and its real problems. The discussions were far from real. For example they talked about the Ba’this and how much it’s necessary to acknowledge their rights. The Iraqi government was ordered to return them to the government and respect their rights. Absolute illusion. In other words, all parties tried to interfere in Iraq’s domestic affairs.

After Iraq’s new political system became fully stable–of course I have to thank the religious leadership especially that in Najaf that unhesitatingly endeavored for establishment of the new system-, we entered a phase in which we had to take care of down-to-earth issues. So the conferences were aimed towards their desirable direction and were actually held to defend the foundations and independence of Iraq.

Fortunately nobody sheds tears for Ba’this and Saddam Hussein in these conferences anymore and all attend it having grasped the new reality, which is a new Iraq. We now even have a realistic Arab approach that moves to maintain the cause of the new Iraq. Now everybody should know that it is the Iraqi people that decide for themselves and the future of their county. Nobody from outside should pass decrees and make decisions for us.

The Iraqi nation is now free to accept something or select something. Others should praise the Iraqi nation and respect their choice and reason, just as Imam Khomeini inspired the Iranian nation to select what they may and others had to respect and support their choice. The Iranian Islamic regime is still stable after 30 years and it’s becoming powerful increasingly.

That’s how we are today. The Iraqi nation’s decision must be respected. We have to make the best from the current atmosphere of liberty. We want the countries attending the conference to seize this opportunity and support the freedom of Iraqi nation.

A: We must speak of two things. First is good-neighborliness. Iran is the biggest neighbor of Iraq and the two countries have a lot to share; intellectually, religiously, historically and economically.

Also during Saddam’s dictatorship Iran stood for the Iraq nation and groups fighting against Saddam’s dictatorship and we highly appreciate that. So we must encourage everything that leads to a boost in Iran-Iraq ties and our friendship. We mustn’t give way to plots that separate Iran and Iraq and we shouldn’t let hostilities, both in Iran and Iraq to increase. We reject such a thing and stand against it. We don’t let any kind of interference, whether political, cultural or social to part us and Iran.

The second point is what the Iraqi nation and government want. At the same time we believe in Iraq’s full independence and we reject any sort of interference, whether political, military or cultural. We are committed to friendship with the neighboring countries and we believe that tensions between Iran and America and obstructions against Iranians’ inalienable right should not affect our relationship. That is another issued that will not lead to interference in Iraq’s internal affairs.

We shouldn’t allow any other country to meddle with our internal affairs. Iraq doesn’t accept any sort of interference whether by Iran or by the US in its internal affairs. Some say that US forces have occupied Iraq and their meddling with Iraq’s affairs, [but] that’s of our own business. It’s related to our own will, we have asked them to come and stay in our country until we attain the desirable peace. That’s of our own business.

A: We all believe that Turkey’s attack on Iraq must be stopped. Meanwhile, everybody agrees that PKK’s activities in northern Iraq against the government of Turkey must be stopped. We hope the problem is solved in the best way possible and the crisis is ended by negotiations between governments of Iraq and Turkey.

A: I think a field research must be done about the withdrawal. The Iraqi government and the political system of the country are competent enough to discuss the issue themselves. Due to current problems in Iraq, American forces should withdraw their forces gradually. The Iraqi government believes that it currently doesn’t possess powerful academic and military institutions in order to stand against threats and until such powers are not obtained and the Iraqi forces haven’t achieved the necessary abilities, the American troops should not pull out of Iraq. However, Iraqi government’s opinion differs from that of experts who study the situation through field research. The government’s opinion may change gradually considering the experts’ ideas. That can occur even in foreign issues.

SCIRI is itself part of the government, so its ideas are in tune with that of the government. We have the same opinion. Of course in general we all believe that occupation must end. There’s a consensus on that. But opinions should be exchanged to determine the priority. Designing a timetable or a political schedule? We believe in a political schedule not a timetable.

Timetable means setting a schedule for the withdrawal of foreign troops in six months, one year, 2 years or so. But when we look at Iraq and its precarious situation, we say that what we need is a political schedule.

Iraq is now like a patient moved to a hospital. The doctor can’t guarantee or prescribe for the patient to leave the hospital in six months, but he decides on that according to the patient’s conditions. We cannot draw up a schedule for the leave of the patient. Maybe he didn’t recover during this period. It’s the doctor who makes the diagnosis and Iraq is the same as this patient. We can’t overlook realities so we believe that a political schedule must be designed. Then, we should decide about American troops’ withdrawal from Iraq.

A: Not at all. A Democrat congressman presented the bill and White House rejected it. Dividing and forming a new Iraq are not true. The whole thing has been blown out of all proportion by the Arab media, like the world is going to change. There’s no problem. The bill was rejected and there’s nothing to worry about.

A: The Federalism Plan approved in Iraq has been stressed in Iraqi constitution and is enforced in many countries around the world. This aim of this plan is to unite Iraq and it has nothing to do with division of Iraq.

We don’t see any relation between this plan and disintegration of the country; on the contrary, we believe that federalism reinforces unity and if regions and states are formed based on the law and agreements, Iraq will move towards unity. Kurds are a good proof. During Saddam’s rule they sought separation because the central government suppressed them and they suffered dictatorship. Mass graves and unparalleled massacres were the cause of Kurds’ demand for separation. But now they don’t want that because Iraq is endeared for them more and life is more beautiful than before.

If a federalism plan is proposed that establishes the rights of all regions and satisfies the demands of all parties, country’s unity will be reinforced. Federalism is in fact an integrated system. But what the American congressman proposed, although emphasizing centrality was based on disintegration of Iraq and had crossed red lines. United Iraq was not intended in that plan and even it had the title of Iraq’s disintegration. That was a full-of-mistake plan presented by the Congress.

Federalism can really help us regarding Arab unity. In that case we can govern the country better. The same system has been enforced in UAE and 70 other countries.