Exclusive: Post-Saddam roadmap envisions federal state

A group of 32 expatriate Iraqis representing opposition political trends in their country, have been meeting in London to finalise a 79-page document which intends to shape the future of post-Saddam Hussain Iraq.

The document, titled The Transition to Democracy in Iraq' and still in its draft form a copy of which has been obtained by Gulf News, is the work of the group calling itself "the Democratic Principles Workshop."

The workshop is part of an initiative of the U.S. State Department entitled 'the Future of Iraq' project, which came into being following the joint meeting between Iraqi opposition parties and senior U.S. officials on August 9.

It was agreed at that meeting that the Iraqi opposition would hold a large conference, preceding any American or United Nations action, "to adopt a detailed programme for the transition from dictatorship to democracy in Iraq," according to the draft.

The draft report deals with all aspects of life in Iraq and call for "democratic and federally structured Iraq based on the principle of separation of powers, and principle of protection of individual human rights and group rights."

The report is not rigid by any means and it provides room to manoeuvre through the variable alternatives it provides, within the common framework of a democratic system of government, for the collective opposition to choose from.

From the outset, the draft report makes certain assumptions for its ideas to become feasible, and these include:

* That the U.S. administration actually proceeds with its stated policy of democratic change in Iraq.

* Unseating of Saddam's regime does not take place at the cost of largescale civilian casualties which could introduce considerable volatility and unpredictability into the political situation.

* Actual approval of the report by a genuinely representative conference of the Iraqi opposition.

* U.S. government, as the partner of the Iraqi people in liberating the country, itself agrees to support the guiding framework of this report following its adoption by the opposition.

* The international community, including the U.S. government, through a treaty with a duly constituted Iraqi government, undertakes to guarantee the territorial integrity of the nation.

In what is considered to be a "new constitution for a new Iraq" if, and when the U.S. keeps its word and translates its promises into actions, the draft report deals with four main areas: transitional issues, human rights and rule of law, civil society and democratisation and federalism as the basis of a new Iraqi polity.

The trickiest section of the draft report which still meets critical differences, is that which deals with the vision of the Iraqi constitutional state.

Many questions have yet to be answered: can a future state in Iraq be democratic if it is not at the same time federal in structure? What does federalism mean for Iraq's Arab identity? Does federalism mean a federal system controlled by the largest minority in the country (the Kurds) and its Arab majority? In this case, what about the smaller minorities, Assyrian and Turkmen? And what is the implication of separating religion from state?

The draft report rightly argues the driving force behind the new idea, federalism, has been the Kurdish experience in northern Iraq. "For the Kurdish political parties," the report says, "federalism has become the sine-qua-non for staying inside a new Iraq, and trying to secede from it."

"Without a federal system of government, in which real power is divided, in a constitutionally prescribed and non-negotiable way, the currently autonomous northern region which is populated largely by Kurds will still yearn, and perhaps even one day opt, for separation."

The draft report foresees the difficulties ahead whether Iraq chooses the federation system based on two large nationalities, or the multiple national and ethnic groups-based federation.

The alternative to nationality, the draft suggests "territoriality" as a base for the new federal system, in which "each separate region receives its share of national resources (including oil revenues) according to the relative size of its population."

"The future all-Iraqi federation should not be one of competing nationalities but one of different geographically defined territories within which different national groups may form a majority. The point is not to diminish or dilute the Kurdishness of a Kurd, or the Arabness of an Arab; it is to put a premium on the quality of citizenship for all."

The report warns that the fight over oil-rich Kirkuk "is already going on with Arab, Kurdish and Turkmen competing with one another." The suggested territorially-based federal system would not allow such a fight.

The logical corollary of territoriality as a basis for federalism, is to consider what effect this has on the nature of the new Iraqi state which hitherto has been thought of as an Arab state, led by the Arab Ba'th party and part of the League of Arab States.

Probably the most important question arises from this case: Can the new federal state of Iraq be an Arab state in the same sense in which Iraq has been thought of as being an Arab state in the past?

More questions: Do the people of Iraq want such a formula? Is the future federal state going to be one in which a Kurd or an Assyrian or a Turkmen or an Armenian, can all in principle be elected to the highest office of the land?

"If the answer to this is yes," the draft says, "it means that even though the Arabs form a majority in the country, and that Arab culture and Muslim history will always be cherished in Iraq, the majority status of the Arabs should not put them in a position to exclude any non-Arab Iraqi from positions of power and influence, as has been the case in the past."

"A future democratic Iraq," the report concludes, "has to be an Iraq that elevates the Iraqi character of the state above all considerations of race, ethnicity and religion."

The draft report is scheduled to be ratified by an overall congress of thess Iraqi opposition planned for mid-December.

But many observers, including some opposition figures, believe the success or failure of such an ambitious project, mainly depends on the real intention of the U.S. administration.