I have not written on the political situation in Iraq for many months because I believe it to be futile as Iraq has no short or medium term political future that merits some contribution unless a major war breaks out in the area which could transform matters. The reason for such a bleak forecast, which I reached neither lightly nor out of spite, is not because Iraq had been invaded and needs time to recover from the invasion as had happened to Germany and Japan in WWII. There is a major difference between what happened in invading Japan and Germany and invading Iraq. The purpose of invading Germany and Japan was to defeat those countries militarily and economically and dominate them without a major political change. The purpose of invading Iraq has always been ‘regime change’ so that the outcome would be to create a political system more in line with International Zionism’s plan for the Arab World. In 2003 and after 12 years of genocidal blockade Iraq was no threat to its neighbours let alone to the US/UK!
I do not intend to write about what International Zionism did in Iraq in order to transform it from an Arab semi-socialist state to a Zionist semi-capitalist state because I have already co-authored two books on this and no single or even a few articles would do justice to such an important era of Iraq’s history. However, what I intend to write about are two things: who are the Iraqis who took part in the invasion, and what are the facts which the invasion created that are almost impossible to reverse?
All the Iraqis who called on the US to invade Iraq; took part in it; supported it; or took part in the political system installed as a result of the invasion are either servants of International Zionism, its allies or its appeasers, whom I shall refer to herein as the ‘Invasion Proponents’. The reason why I have not written about the disputes within the ‘Invasion Proponents’ is because they are all about protecting personal interest in power as there are no real political or ideological differences among the group.
As the ‘one’ cannot federate with itself and only more than ‘one’ can, then it is clear that the Occupier established in the 2005 Constitution that Iraq has become a federation of more than one independent authority
It is not a secret that the Kurdish leadership among the ‘Invasion Proponents’ have always been aligned with Israel; be that secretly for a long time and openly since the battle of ‘Hindereen’ when in 1996 the Kurds wiped an Iraqi army 4th brigade with open support from Iran, Israel and a bunch of Iraqi communists. The Arabs among the ‘Invasion Proponents’, on the other hand, had aspirations extending from setting up an Islamic Sunni State or an Islamic Shi’a State, both of which is a fantasy that could not materialize. However, they all agreed on the end of the Arab identity of future Iraq. Alongside these political Arab and Kurdish groups among the ‘Invasion Proponents’ there were a few independent Iraqis who had no political ambition beyond having a share in power and its reward. That explains why not a single member of the so-called Governing Council, which never governed, asked Paul Bremer, Iraq ruler par excellence, what the occupation was planning for Iraq. They asked, according to Bremer, only about the remuneration for their services.
Towards the objective of ‘regime change’ the occupying US/UK powers issued more than 100 laws which irreparably changed Iraq politically, economically, socially and militarily. Not a single member of the ‘Invasion Proponents’ had an opinion, a say or objection to any of them. When the objective of ‘change’ was achieved, it became imperative for the Occupiers to extricate themselves publicly from the occupation of Iraq. Although, this has not occurred in reality because Iraq in practical and even legal terms is still occupied, it was important to declare the withdrawing from Iraq and handing it to its people. Such a measure was vital to limit the potential of legal labilities not towards the people of Iraq but rather towards citizens of the US/UK in case any of them suffers some injury or loss as a consequence of Occupation. Thus a need arose to draft a constitution for the new state replacing the Arab Nationalist state.
And that is how the Iraqi Constitution of 2005 was born. I am confident that not one single Iraqi took part in its drafting. I am almost as confident to assert that those who voted for it neither read it before voting for it nor since. Those Iraqis who claim today to have been members of the constitution committee, have only themselves to blame for the shortcomings and failures of the constitution and should be held responsible.
Whoever wants to know the true Zionist project for Iraq should read its 2005 Constitution before preaching about the constitutionality or otherwise of any measure. Reading the Constitution will further expose the political hypocrisy of some members of the ‘Invasion Proponents’; one of whom is reported a few days ago to have said that the establishment of an independent Kurdisatn in northern Iraq will be a ‘second Israel’ implying that he, or any of the ‘Invasion Proponents’, has had a problem with Israel. If that was the case then International Zionism would have been either a charitable organization or stupid in having invaded Iraq only to hand it over. I doubt if Zionism is either. However, none of my fellow Iraqi citizens said to him that had it not been for Israel you would not have assumed power in Baghdad. You would still have been hanging around cafes in Zaineb district of Damascus.
What does the Constitution of 2005 bring to occupied Iraq?
Despite the numerous reservations I have, I will limit them here to issues relevant to the Referendum on the independence of Kurdisatn.
I shall attempt to show how the Constitution was carefully drafted to expand the concept of ‘Creative Chaos’ intended by International Zionism to ensure a fragmented and weak Arab world so that Israel remains dominant and powerful in the otherwise sectarian world around it.
The first thing that hits you in the face is the poor language in which the Constitution was drafted. The reason for that is clear. The Constitution was originally drafted by the Occupier in his language just as was the case with the 1925 Constitution which was drafted by the British: English. Furthermore, English is the language that determines the authenticity of any law or document as Paul Bremer decreed in Regulation (1) on 16 May 2003. So when the Constitution was translated the Kurds got their version of which I have no knowledge. The Arabs among the ‘Invasion Proponents’ had no interest in what the Constitution contained assuming that many among them had even read it. And even if they did care what could they have done? They, i.e. the Arabs ‘Invasion Proponents’ fall into three categories who all came from outside Iraq after March 2003. The group of Al Hakim who came from Iran knew better Persian than Arabic. The group of ‘Solagh’ who came from Damascus were led by someone who claimed that he used to read the police crime series of the French ‘Arsene Lupin’ and the novel of the Count of Monte Cristo’. Bahr El-Uloom group which came from the UK were led by the garrulous doctor who is known for using words in meaningless sentences!
Let us start with Article (1) of the Constitution because of its relevance in language and content. It states:
“The Republic of Iraq is a single federal, independent and fully sovereign state in which the system of government is republican, representative, parliamentary, and democratic, and this Constitution is a guarantor of the unity of Iraq.”
A reader of this Article for the first time may raise the question: what is wrong with it? The problem is not in the English text but in the Arabic translation. Firstly, it uses the two English words ‘parliamentary, and democratic’ in that form and not uses Arabic words for them. The Constitution of any state is drafted in its official language. If the translators of the Iraqi Constitution 2005 did not know Arabic words to represent the English original then maybe the Constitution is not meant for Iraq. The composition of the translation is so poor that it would be rejected linguistically if submitted by a primary school pupil. Another example of the poor translation is that the term ‘fully sovereign’ in the English text was translated into Arabic to read ‘with full sovereignty’ as if there are states that have less than ‘full sovereignty’ incorporated in their constitutions.
The true intention of the Occupier appears in choosing the phrase:
“a single federal, independent and fully sovereign state…..”, to distinguish it from the ‘Unitary’ state which was Iraq up to 2003. As the ‘one’ cannot federate with itself and only more than ‘one’ can, then it is clear that the Occupier established in the 2005 Constitution that Iraq has become a federation of more than one independent authority.
Someone may argue that the reason for the Occupier to change the political structure of Iraq was to release the Kurds from the oppression they had suffered in the past. But even if we were to accept the Ba’athist oppression for the Kurds because of their ethnicity and the Shi’a because of their sect, then that was irreversibly changed after the De-Ba’athification of the Iraqi Society in May 2003. Democratic Iraq post 2003 ought to have become free and safe and no need to make it ‘federal’ to avoid oppression!
But the Transitional Administrative Law does not exist legally which makes a reference to any Article in it questionable to say the least. The Transitional Administrative Law suddenly appeared on the CPA website but there is no Regulation or Order through which it was promulgated. Legally it had not been adopted even by the legal order of the occupying power which makes it void.
But the reality that is known to all who have been watching the Middle East is that the Kurds have been nurturing a desire for self-independence, which I find indeed justified. How else could I demand a right fort the Palestinians in their homeland and not that of the Kurds? Establishing such a right leading to a Kurdish state, which I believe is inevitable, may mean that I support the birth of a new enemy as the new state is an ally of Israel. However, despite this realization I am not able to oppose the birth of a Kurdish state, if they so genuinely want, in hope that new generations of Kurds may realize the value of good relationship with their Arab neighbours with whom they had peacefully coexisted for centuries.
The Arabs among the ‘Invasion Proponents’ are fully aware of the Kurdish designs for an independent state. The question was repeatedly discussed and agree by all the parties during the period that preceded the 2003 invasion. It is difficult and hypocritical of them to make all this noise about the current Referendum by the Kurds. Had they really objected to the Kurdish demand they ought to have demanded that the new Iraq was not a ‘federal’ state.
International Zionism has found in the Kurdish aspiration for a nationhood another arrow to add to its arsenal to ensure a divided unstable Middle East and has decided to use it not out of charity for the Kurds but of spite for the Arabs. Thus the Iraqi Constitution was born. If the Zionists wanted a unitary state in Iraq they could have easily pointed out to the both the Kurds and Arabs among the ‘Invasion Proponents’ that the State of California in the USA has similar population to that of Iraq; has more diverse society ethnically and religiously but still a unitary state and not federal. Had Zionism decided that, no one would have been able to oppose.
Article 7 of the Constitution reveals the true purpose of ‘regime change’ in eradicating the Arab Nationalist ideology in Iraq, on which all parties in the ‘Invasion Proponents’ agree, states as follows:
“Any entity or program that adopts, incites, facilitates, glorifies, promotes, or justifies racism or terrorism or accusations of being an infidel (takfir) or ethnic cleansing, especially the Saddamist Ba’ath in Iraq and its symbols, under any name whatsoever, shall be prohibited. Such entities may not be part of political pluralism in Iraq. This shall be regulated by law.”
This Article which attempted, unconvincingly, to identify the charges of racism or terrorism with the Ba’ath ideology, in fact implies something more sinister. It sets out as clearly stated in the phrase ‘under any name whatsoever’ to ban the setting up of any political movement that embodies Arab Nationalism ideology by claiming it to be Ba’athist. By this the main objective of the invasion of Iraq, namely eradication of Arab Nationalism, which meets the approval of Kurdish political ambitions and that of political Islamist Arab leaders both Sunni and Shi’a, has been fulfilled.
Thus not one single political group has spoken about Arab Iraq since 2003. While the Kurds have been talking proudly about their Kurdish nationalism, talk about the Arab identity of Iraq has become a shame!
Those who drafted the Constitution and those who read it have ignored that Article 7 is in direct breach of other Articles in the Constitution, such as Articles 14, 39 and 42, set out to present a democratic and free Iraq. When have Constitutions setting up states refer to banning or approving specific parties identified by their names? Constitutions are documents of principles meant to apply for all times to come after their adoption.
Article 24 goes on to reveal the true admission of a divided Iraq when it states that:
“The State shall guarantee freedom of movement of Iraqi manpower, goods, and capital between regions and governorates, and this shall be regulated by law.”
Why would a ‘single’ state need to have an Article in its constitution stating the obvious, namely that people and capital can move free within its borders? Even the EU, which is a very loose union, has full freedom of people and capita without it having to be specified in the individual states’ constitutions.
However, the true objective of the Constitution in dividing Iraq is manifested in Section Three: Federal Powers. Despite the fact that Articles 49 to 64 deal with the Council of Representatives, we find that Article 65 under the heading “The Federation Council” states that:
“A legislative council shall be established named the “Federation Council,” to include representatives from the regions and the governorates that are not organized in a region. A law, enacted by a two-thirds majority of the members of the Council of Representatives, shall regulate the formation of the Federation Council, its membership conditions, its competencies, and all that is connected with it.”
Despite the wide difference between the English and Arabic texts and despite our inability to decide which is relevant as different parties may rely on different text, there are still major questions that arise out of Article 65. Why would a single state, which has a fully and democratically elected Council of Representatives, need another legislator in the form of a ‘Federation Council’ in which representatives of governorates take part? Is this not intended as an excuse for potential future dispute?
Article 105 emphasises this reality of intended division in stating that:
“A public commission shall be established to guarantee the rights of the regions and governorates that are not organized in a region to ensure their fair participation in managing the various state federal institutions, missions, fellowships, delegations, and regional and international conferences. The commission shall be comprised of representatives of the federal government and representatives of the regions and governorates that are not organized in a region, and shall be regulated by a law.”
What is the state of Iraq if regions and governorates need to guarantee their rights within it?
Article 116 seems an attempt to respond to the above question created by Article 105 which states that:
“The federal system in the Republic of Iraq is made up of a decentralized capital, regions, and governorates, as well as local administrations.”
This Article seems to add more confusion than answers. What does it mean to have a decentralized capital, regions, governorates and local administrations constituting a state? This federal system which seems like an amalgamation of all these constituents is a recipe for division and disaster should any member of it decides to move away from the federation.
Following Articles add more to the bizarre state of affairs and make the Iraqi State post 2005 unique and inviting to ridicule. I shall summarize some of them to support such a description.
Article 119 enabled any on more governorates to set up their own region. Thus by its constitution Iraq could end up with 18 regions. In fact this Article was used by some in southern Iraq calling for their own region similar to that of Kurdistan in the North.
Article 120 allowed each region to have its own constitution which according to Article 121 entitles each region to practice its own independent executive, legislative and judicial authorities. An important sub-article in 121 tells us that:
“Offices for the regions and governorates shall be established in embassies and diplomatic missions, in order to follow cultural, social, and developmental affairs.”
Thus if Iraq became constituted of 7 regions then its Embassy in Somalia, for example, could by the Constitution have seven so-called Offices representing these different regions. It is surprising that neither the US nor the UK have such a constitutional requirements for their states or regions.
There are three more Articles worthy of citing for the purpose of this argument. These are Articles 126, 140 and 141.
Paragraph 2 of Article 140 states that:
“The responsibility placed upon the executive branch of the Iraqi Transitional Government stipulated in Article 58 of the Transitional Administrative Law shall extend and continue to the executive authority elected in accordance with this Constitution, provided that it accomplishes completely (normalization and census and concludes with a referendum in Kirkuk and other disputed territories to determine the will of their citizens), by a date not to exceed the 31st of December 2007.”
This paragraph raises more than one question relative to the decision to divide Iraq and deserves careful consideration.
Firstly, it refers to Article 58 of the Transitional Administrative Law. But the Transitional Administrative Law does not exist legally which makes a reference to any Article in it questionable to say the least. The Transitional Administrative Law suddenly appeared on the CPA website but there is no Regulation or Order through which it was promulgated. Legally it had not been adopted even by the legal order of the occupying power which makes it void. As the Transitional Administrative Law is null and void, any reference in it has no legal value and subsequently so does Article 140 of the Constitution.
But if we assume that Article 140 stands then that raises another question. Why would a single state need to have a referendum to decide the borders of disputed territories within it?
Article 141 sheds more light on the bizarre state of affairs.
“Legislation enacted in the region of Kurdistan since 1992 shall remain in force, and decisions issued by the government of the region of Kurdistan, including court decisions and contracts, shall be considered valid unless they are amended or annulled pursuant to the laws of the region of Kurdistan by the competent entity in the region, provided that they do not contradict with the Constitution.”
Thus if Kurdisatn has enacted a law prior to 1992 calling for a referendum then an argument that it is unconstitutional for it to do so today is unacceptable not least because there is no such provision in the constitution banning the holding of a referendum. In fact the opposite is supported by the constitution as it is in the nature of a union to be capable of becoming disunited.
Paragraph 4 of Article 126 lends support to such argument as it states:
“Articles of the Constitution may not be amended if such amendment takes away from the powers of the regions that are not within the exclusive powers of the federal authorities, except by the approval of the legislative authority of the concerned region and the approval of the majority of its citizens in a general referendum.”
Which confirms two principles: firstly, that the authority of the region is higher than the Constitution and secondly, that a referendum is the proper mechanism when dealing with the limits of the authority of the region which seems to indicate that it would be right for a region to hold a referendum on a fundamental issue so long as the Constitution does not bar it.
What I have argued in the preceding paragraphs is meant neither to be a justification for the referendum nor to advance a political argument. It is not my intention either to indulge in the wave of emotional talk propagated by so many among the ‘Invasion Proponents’ these days. I write to establish that the objective of invading Iraq has always been to divide it. All the ‘Invasion Proponents’ know that; agreed to it and took part to implement it.
Redefining the Sykes-Picot Agreement begins with the main element of its make-up – Iraq. That is how it was when International Zionism realized the failure of its project to control the Arab World through the setting up of the national state post WWI.
It is time all those in the ‘Invasion Proponents’ stop their hypocrisy about the dangers of the Referendum.
28 September 2017