Setting the Record Straight on Federalism in Iraq

Last week, the Senate overwhelmingly approved the Biden-Brownback amendment to the Defense Authorization bill, which says it should be U.S. policy to support a political settlement in Iraq based upon the principles of federalism. The 75-23 bi-partisan vote, including 26 Republicans, marked the first time this year that the Senate has passed an Iraq-related policy measure.

Since then, some political leaders in Iraq have misunderstood the amendment. Instead of working to clear up any misunderstandings about the Senate amendment, the U.S. embassy in Baghdad issued a statement that dangerously mischaracterizes it.

Let's set the record straight:

First, the Biden-Brownback amendment does not call for the partition of Iraq. To the contrary, it calls for keeping Iraq together by bringing to life the federal system enshrined in its Constitution. Partition, or the complete break-up of Iraq, is something wholly different than federalism. A federal Iraq is a united Iraq, but one in which power is devolved to regional governments with a limited central government responsible for protecting Iraq's borders and oil distribution. It leaves the door open for stronger unity if and when passions cool, as we're seeing in the Balkans. Nor does the amendment call for dividing Iraq along sectarian lines. Rather, it calls for helping Iraqis implement their own Constitution, which provides for any of Iraq's 18 provinces to form regions and sets out the extensive powers of those regions and the limited powers of the central government. The result could be three regions, or four or five or more. It will be up to the Iraqi people.

Second, the amendment is not a foreign imposition. Iraqis already have made the decision to decentralize in their Constitution and federalism law. My amendment is about what the United States should do to help promote a political settlement consistent with these Iraqi decisions. Again, it will be up to the Iraqis. But the idea that the United States -- with 160,000 troops in Iraq, 3,804 dead and nearly 28,000 wounded -- does not have a right and responsibility to voice its views and to push for a political settlement is absurd.

Third, the amendment will not produce "bloodshed and suffering" in Iraq. It is hard to imagine more bloodshed and suffering than we've already seen, which has been exacerbated by the failure of Iraq's leaders to stop sectarian violence and produce a durable, widely accepted political settlement. More than 4 million Iraqis have already fled their homes for fear of sectarian violence, at a rate now of 100,000 every month. The whole purpose of my amendment is to end that bloodshed and suffering by promoting a power sharing arrangement that meets the interests of all Iraqis and gives them more local control over their daily lives.

The Bush administration is pursuing a fatally flawed policy in trying to create a strong central government in Iraq. There has been no significant reconciliation at the national level and there is no evidence that it will happen any time soon. Insisting on this failed approach will prolong and deepen Iraq's civil war, lead to a wider regional war, and irresponsibly increase the danger to over 160,000 American troops who are caught in the middle.

A few weeks ago I met top officials in Iraq -- Sunni, Shi'a and Kurdish. All of them expressed to me their support for federalism as called for in the Iraqi Constitution and its federalism law.

I believe my plan offers the best chance for the U.S. to leave Iraq without leaving chaos behind. You can read more about my plan at www.PlanForIraq.com

Comments

[cam]

Senator Biden. Thank you for your clarification. As a critic of partitioning (which is not far removed from apartheid) I appreciate it, and I find it persuasive.

A caveat: Federalism can mean different things to different people - in America the word has positive overtones, in Iraq it seems to mean coercive partitioning. Still, if the structure of a sane society is in place then perhaps it will emerge - provided sectarian conflict doesn't become political warfare.

[rmwarnick]

The boundaries of Iraq were drawn by the WW I allies Britain and France. This is a sore point with Iraqis, whether or not they can agree among themselves what the boundaries ought to be. It's the height of arrogance for the USA to dictate a breakup, federalism, or whatever you want to call it-- let them decide themselves, any solution put forth by Americans is bound to be rejected.

[duboisist]

Thank you for clearing up your position, but I think what you propose is wrong. The United States HAS NO BUSINESS telling the Iraqis what to do. Our government has interfered every step of the way since the invasion and HAVE ONLY MADE THINGS WORSE.
The present Iraqi government is the result of the same “cronyism over competence” policy that lead to the dysfunctioning of our government.

I'm in favor of our government paying for a "reconciliation conference" where their people can decide what form their government, but I'm against our less competent leaders telling them what to do NO MATTER what their incompetent leaders think.

Finally, the fight in Iraq has little, if anything, to due with sectarianism. It is about MONEY and POWER. They are fighting over OUR MONEY and our example of "WINNER TAKE ALL" politics. Every dollar the Congress sends to Iraq leads to more dead Iraqis.
STOP FUNDING THIS ILLEGAL WAR. As long as you keep giving people an incentive to keep fighting, nothing else you do will really matter.

[Rubiconski]

Let Iraqis decide that question. The people who broke Iraq (the USA) are not qualified to fix Iraq or have an opinion about it. The Iraqis well know that dividing Iraq would serve to WEAKEN Iraq and leave its' sovereignty in tatters. They well know that the west, particularly America, would take advantage of those divisions to control their oil. The American Congress had NO RIGHT to make ANY resolution, non-binding or otherwise, regarding Iraq's SOVEREIGN FUTURE. Get America out of the country immediately.

[woodchips]

Thank you Senator. It is about time that we do something to change the situation in Iraq. "Stay the course" is clearly not working.

You mention the 4 million displaced Iraqis. What are we doing to help these people and why has the media, congress and the administration been largely silent on this issue? If Bush and co were really serious about fighting "terra", massive aid to refugees should be the highest priority. This vast sea of people who have been displaced and dispossessed are the pool from which generations of radical terrorists and insurgents will be spawned.

[FogBelter]

Senator Biden, there are positives and negatives in this approach.

Iraq is an artificial state to begin with, having been created during WWI based on the Colonial aspirations of Britian and France. That authoritatian measures have been required over the last nine decades to keep Iraq in a steady state goes to show how allowing Federalism to occur in Iraq may, in essence, be righting a decades old wrong.

However, if this construct in Iraq causes peoples in neighboring countries to rethink their current cultural alignments then the whole of the Middle East may be entering a period of upheaval that could have worldwide implications. The Kurds desire for a Nation State is but one example.

On the face of it, given the current nightmare that the Bush Adminstration has unleashed on the Iraqi people through their myopia, greed, racism, and basic ignorance of the region, your proposal is a humanitarian gift to the Iraqi people in its root fairness.

However, Senator, never forget that no good deed goes unpunished.

[oldpotsmuggler]

"A central government responsible for oil distribution". Good luck!

This is at least vaguely reminiscent of the U.N. "cash/food for oil" situation. A way to sell the resource and benefit the people. Except that corruption menat that it benefited the corrupt bureaucrats. The expectation that it will be any different this time seems unduly naieve.

First take the Kurds. They have their "share" of the oil under their control already, and the means to transport it to market. The odds that they trust the Shiites to take the oil and give back money are likely pretty slim. And they're well armed enough now, and sufficiently autonomus that no one can force them to take that gamble.

Then there are the Shiites, themsleves. You notice any signs of bad feelings between them and Saddams old crowd? Do you invite them to play a game of turn around, and expect them to forget the atrocities? It would take a huge degree of unwarranted optimism to believe that.

Sorry, it looks like a non-starter to me.

[nowaterboardUSA]

I supported this amendment and hope this approach works. It makes complete sense and hopefully it will gain momemtum here and in Iraq and help bring an end to this war. We and the iraqis have suffered enough.

[kwright]

the united states government has no right to decide policy of any kind in another country. when will any of you admit that it is all about the oil? 160,000 american troops, plus only god knows how many private forces, is a foreign imposition. let's set the record straight.

[NoContest]

They will get to this form of government eventually. But shrub will not let it happen under his "rule".

That way, the puny frat-boy freak will be able to blame someone else for each little flaw or hiccup.

~!@

[joebaggadonuts]

You are a good egg Joe. Thanks.

If the MSM does not publish the Administration's Embassy statement, would you? It should be known what they are doing to avoid the substantive features of the amendment. This will be instructive as to their intent, which will make it easier for the voters to know more about the causes of the misadventures they have put us through.

[Curedlib]

Thank you, Senator Biden, for this explanation and for co-signing this strong support of Federalism in Iraq. I agree with your position.

Now, can we you do the same over here? Seems to me our federal government is suffering from obesity, with all the ailments that accompany it.