Federalism, Not Partition
A System Devolving Power to the Regions Is the Route to a Viable Iraq
By Mowaffak al-Rubaie
Friday, January 18, 2008; A19

BAGHDAD -- Iraq's government is at a stalemate. As in the United States, there is much discussion here of the need for political reconciliation. What does that mean? That the majority Shiites and the minority Sunnis and Kurds must find a way to govern collectively at the national level. As national security adviser to the head of Iraq's governments since March 2004, I have participated in the development of democracy in my country. I strongly support the government and applaud its achievements. But I understand that the political objectives of Iraq's three main communities are unrealizable within the framework of a unitary, centralized state.

It has been impossible to maintain a political consensus on many important issues. For one thing, the U.S.-dominated coalition, which has its own objectives, must be accommodated. The regional "superpowers" (Iran and Saudi Arabia) meddle in Iraq's affairs, and their own sectarian tensions are reflected in the violence here. The absence of truly national political parties and leadership that reach the Iraqi people exacerbates the problem.

Overall, Shiites see their future based on two fundamental "rights": Power must be exercised by the political majority through control of governmental institutions, and institutional sectarian discrimination must be eliminated. Kurds see their future bound to their "rights" of linguistic, cultural, financial and resource control within Kurdistan. Sunni Arabs are driven by resistance to their loss of power, as well as fear of revenge for past wrongs and the potential for reverse discrimination.

The current political framework is based on a pluralistic democratic vision that, while admirable, is entirely unsuited to resolving this three-way divide. It ignores underlying issues and expects that a consensus will emerge simply by enacting a liberal constitutional legal order.

Pluralistic democracy will not take root unless the national political compact recognizes and accommodates the fears and aspirations of Iraq's communities. Resolution can be achieved only through a system that incorporates regional federalism, with clear, mutually acceptable distributions of power between the regions and the central government. Such a system is in the interest of all Iraqis and is necessary if Iraq is to avoid partition or further civil strife.

Only through a new political compact among Iraq's main communities will a viable state emerge. A key condition for success is that the balance of power should tip decisively to the regions on all matters that do not compromise the integrity of the state. The central institutions must earn their legitimacy from the power that the three main ethnic groups are prepared to give them. Iraq needs a period during which the Shiites and the Kurds achieve political control over their destinies while the Sunni Arab community is secure from the feared tyranny of the majority.

The shape of a reconstructed, federal Iraq could vary, but it should permit the assignment of nearly all domestic powers to the regions, to be funded out of a percentage of oil revenue distributed on the basis of population. The federal government should be responsible only for essential central functions such as foreign policy (including interregional affairs), defense, fiscal and monetary policy, and banking. Regional parliaments and executives would govern their areas. A federal parliament with a new upper house could manage governance at the national level. A regional political structure would allow for the development of religious, cultural and educational policies more suited to areas' populations than a central government could create. A regional framework for economic policy would also fit better with traditional trade patterns and markets.

Iraq's political geography suggests five likely federal units: A "Kurdistan province," including the current Kurdistan and surrounding areas; a "Western province," including Mosul and the upper Tigris and Euphrates valleys; a "Kufa province," built around the Middle Euphrates governorates; a "Basra province," including the lower Tigris and Euphrates valleys; and a "Baghdad province," built around Greater Baghdad, which may include parts of Diyala and Salah ad Din Governorates. The Kurdish region would be given a special constitutional status as a recognized society and culture with a unique identity (similar to the Canadian province of Quebec).

The new, national Iraqi identity will be forged over time as a result of peaceful, respectful participation in governance and growth, not by fear and terror as in our past. Iraq's constitution was ratified before its communities reached agreement on many vital issues, such as provincial powers. Without a process aimed at reaching a broad political consensus on the makeup of the Iraqi state, order and democracy are unlikely. This consensus would form the backdrop to a referendum on a reformed constitution. Each of Iraq's communities has leaders up to the task of creating a new political consensus. It is time for them to begin work.

The writer is Iraq's national security adviser. The views expressed here are his own and do not constitute an official position of the government of Iraq.

Yes, Vlad remains focused on his quest to remind the world that Russia is back and must be part of any great power conversations, to include the projection of power.

Does this constitute a direct threat against Europe? Hmm. That would be the source of much of Russia's energy sector profits, so such threats would seem a bit self-defeating, yes?

But clearly Putin is signaling to be noticed. He's just employing the only routes known to this collection of siloviki raised in the Cold War. On that level, it's sort of pathetic, especially since the initial target is itself the wrong group of states to be engaging on the subject.

But it's what Russia knows and can manage right now, so the signal is sent.

From our angle, we need to ask ourselves what collective use can be made of Russia's resurgence. Not put to productive use in a manner that enhances Russia's global image, it could easily turn into a force for distraction or counterproductive one-up-man-ship during crises.

In short, this sort of capability, like those growing inside India and China, need to be contextualized in something better than just the Shanghai Cooperation Organization.

We need serious SysAdmin-driven strategic alliances among the powers most able and willing to defend globalization's advance in coming decades, not "Fight Club"-like displays of power going nowhere and accomplishing nothing.
==========================================

From Times Online
January 22, 2008
Russian bombers to test-fire missiles in Bay of Biscay

(RAF/MoD Crown Copyright/PA Wire)
A Russian Bear-H bomber
Tmes Online and agencies in Moscow
Russia has sent two long-range bombers to the Bay of Biscay, off the French and Spanish Atlantic coasts, to test-fire missiles in what Moscow billed as its biggest naval exercise in the area since the Soviet era.

Firing missiles off the coastline of two Nato members is the latest in a series of Kremlin moves flexing Moscow’s military muscle on the world stage.

Russian bombers joined aircraft carriers, battleships and submarine hunters from the Northern and Black Sea fleets for the Atlantic exercises, which come as the country enters an election campaign to choose a successor to President Putin.

“The air force is taking a very active part in the exercises of the navy’s strike force in the Atlantic,” the Russian air force said in a statement reported by Reuters. “Today, two strategic Tu-160 bombers departed for exercises in the Bay of Biscay, which ... will carry out a number of missions and will conduct tactical missile launches."

EXPERT VIEW

Rattling sabres in the Bay of Biscay is to express Moscow’s irritation and exasperation
Michael Evans
More
Post a comment
RELATED LINKS
Analysis: Putin is flexing his muscles
British farmers reap rich Russian harvest
Dive bombers
There was no immediate comment from Nato about the exercise.

Mr Putin has used military manoeuvres, including controversial North Sea overflights, to revive domestic and international respect for Russia’s armed forces which were shattered by the chaos of the 1990s.

He has also boosted military spending, renewed long-range bomber missions and approved a plan to upgrade Russia’s nuclear attack forces, which he said was needed after Nato built up its forces close to Russia’s borders.

But some analysts note that while the sabre-rattling is popular at home, Russian military spending in absolute terms is substantially lower than that of China, Britain or France and less than a tenth of that of the United States.

Discipline is also still a major problem for Russia’s armed forces, which rely heavily on conscripts and outdated equipment.

Russia last month said it would begin major navy sorties into the Mediterranean, with 11 ships backed up by 47 aircraft, that would then travel to the Atlantic for exercises.

The navy’s flagship aircraft carrier, the Soviet-made Admiral Kuznetsov, was leading the fleet in the Atlantic where Nato were trying to keep a close eye on Russian movements, Russian media reported.

“This is the biggest exercise of its kind in the area since Soviet times,” a spokesman for Russia’s navy said, adding that more details would be released later. There was no further

information about where in the Bay of Biscay, which lies off the west coast of France and the northern coast of Spain, the missile tests were due to take place.

Russia’s air force said turbo-prop Tupolev Tu-95 strategic bombers, codenamed “Bear” by Nato, would join ATO, would join the exercise on Wednesday “From January 23, the aviation component in the zone where the exercises are going on will be widened and the following planes will take part: Tu-160, Tu-95, Tu-22 M3, Il-78, A-50,”, the air force said

Combined Joint Task Force commander reflects on progress in Horn of Africa
Education, water quality, health among improvements cited

By Zeke Minaya, Stars and Stripes
Mideast edition, Wednesday, January 16, 2008
http://www.stripes.com/articleprint.asp?section=104&article=59134&archive=true

Jamie Train / Courtesy of U.S. Air Force
Rear Adm. James Hart, center right, commander of Combined Joint Task Force-Horn of Africa, will be leaving his post in February after a year in command.

CAMP LEMONIER, Djibouti — Asked about his accomplishments as head of the Combined Joint Task Force — Horn of Africa, Rear Adm. James Hart talks about the village of Assamo.

The small Djiboutian hamlet sits near the border with Somalia. During his year directing CJTF — HOA, the task force has built a medical clinic in the village, as well as constructed improvements to the local school and upgraded water quality.

Those kinds of civic enhancements — targeting education, water quality and health — were spread all throughout Eastern Africa, he said. “We are trying to do that in many different places,” Hart said.

Hart is due to step down from his post in February, when he will be replaced by Rear Adm. Philip Greene, Jr.

Greene is currently the director of policy, resources and strategy at U.S. Naval Forces Europe/Africa at Naples, Italy.

During his tenure, adding the U.S. military’s capability to the existing network of aid organizations and State Department initiatives took some coordination, Hart said.

Previously, the military had problems with continuity and credibility when it came to humanitarian projects in the region, according to leaders of African aid organizations.

Hart made it a priority to improve communication between the military, State Department, non-governmental organizations and the various African governments.

Hart said that he asked himself, “How do we take the great capability that the American country has and work through African organizations?”

Hart placed liaisons with embassy and aid organizations and reached out to African governments. The improvements were quickly evident.

“I’m glad to see the military get smart,” said Kevin A. Rushing, deputy mission director for USAID in Ethiopia.

Hart said he was glad to learn from organizations that had been in Africa longer.

“USAID has a long history and has a strong network,” Hart said. “By developing a relationship we have learned much from USAID.”

In the waning days of his tenure at CJTF-HOA, Hart is hoping to include Rwanda in the task force’s area of responsibility.

He also planned to escort a group of American businessmen through the region, to give them a glimpse of the potential in the area.

Hart said if he had more time he would have liked to spread the message of the task force on a grass-roots level through the radio.

“Everybody here has transistor radios,” he said. “That’s how they get their information here.”

Hart would not reveal what his future plans were, but he said that he has enjoyed his time in Africa.

“It’s been a real pleasure for me to work with people here,” he said.

© 2007 Stars and Stripes. All Rights Reserved.

January 25, 2008
U.S. to Insist Iraq Grant It Wide Mandate in Operations

By THOM SHANKER and STEVEN LEE MYERS
WASHINGTON — With its international mandate in Iraq set to expire in 11 months, the Bush administration will insist that the government in Baghdad give the United States broad authority to conduct combat operations and guarantee civilian contractors specific legal protections from Iraqi law, according to administration and military officials.

This emerging American negotiating position faces a potential buzz saw of opposition from Iraq, with its fragmented Parliament, weak central government and deep sensitivities about being seen as a dependent state, according to these officials.

At the same time, the administration faces opposition from Democrats at home, who warn that the agreements that the White House seeks would bind the next president by locking in Mr. Bush’s policies and a long-term military presence.

The American negotiating position for a formal military-to-military relationship, one that would replace the current United Nations mandate, is laid out in a draft proposal that was described by a range of White House, Pentagon, State Department and military officials on ground rules of anonymity. It also includes less controversial demands that American troops be immune from Iraqi prosecution, and that they maintain the power to detain Iraqi prisoners.

However, the American quest for protections for civilian contractors is expected to be particularly vexing, because in no other country are contractors working with the American military granted protection from local laws. Some American officials want contractors to have full immunity from Iraqi law, while others envision less sweeping protections.These officials said the negotiations with the Iraqis, expected to begin next month, would also determine whether the American authority to conduct combat operations in the future would be unilateral, as it is now, or whether it would require consultation with the Iraqis or even Iraqi approval.

“These are going to be tough negotiations,” said one senior Bush administration official preparing for negotiations with the Iraqis. “They’re not supplicants.”

Democrats in Congress, as well as the party’s two leading presidential contenders, Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, have accused the White House of sponsoring negotiations that will set into law a long-term security relationship with Iraq.

But administration officials said that the American proposal specifically did not set future troop levels in Iraq or ask for permanent American bases there. Nor, they said, did it offer a security guarantee defining Washington’s specific responsibilities should Iraq come under attack.

Including such long-term commitments in the agreement would turn the accord into a bilateral treaty, one that would require Senate approval. The Bush administration faces the political reality that it cannot count on the two-thirds vote that would be required to approve a treaty with Iraq setting out such a military commitment.

Administration officials are describing their draft proposal in terms of a traditional status-of-forces agreement, an accord that has historically been negotiated by the executive branch and signed by the executive branch without a Senate vote.

“I think it’s pretty clear that such an agreement would not talk about force levels,” Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said Thursday. “We have no interest in permanent bases. I think the way to think about the framework agreement is an approach to normalizing the relationship between the United States and Iraq.”

While the United States currently has military agreements with more than 80 countries around the world, including Japan, Germany, South Korea and a number of Iraq’s neighbors, none of those countries are at war. And none has a population outraged over civilian deaths at the hands of armed American security contractors who are not answerable to Iraqi law.

Democratic critics have complained that the initial announcement about the administration’s intention to negotiate an agreement, made Nov. 26, included an American pledge to support Iraq “in defending its democratic system against internal and external threats.”

Representative Bill Delahunt, Democrat of Massachusetts, said that what the administration was negotiating amounted to a treaty and should be subjected to Congressional oversight and ultimately ratification.

“Where have we ever had an agreement to defend a foreign country from external attack and internal attack that was not a treaty?” he said Wednesday at a hearing of a foreign affairs subcommittee held to review the matter. “This could very well implicate our military forces in a full-blown civil war in Iraq. If a commitment of this magnitude does not rise to the level of a treaty, then it is difficult to imagine what could.”

Senator Jim Webb, Democrat of Virginia, who raised concerns in a letter to the White House in December, said the negotiations were an unprecedented step toward making an agreement on status of forces without the overarching security guarantees like those provided in the NATO treaty. He added that the Democratic majority would seek to block any agreements with the Iraqis, unless the administration was clear about its ultimate intentions in Iraq.

“There’s no exit strategy, because the administration doesn’t have one,” Senator Webb said in a telephone interview on Thursday. “By entering this agreement, they avoid a debate and they validate their unspoken strategy.”

Over recent days, administration officials acknowledged that the language of the Nov. 26 announcement went too far. The officials said that they were limiting the scope of the pending negotiations to issues that could be resolved this year, before the Security Council resolution expired.

To that end, administration officials said the draft text was narrowly written to codify what the administration regarded as four essential requirements for the American armed forces to continue the mission in Iraq.

In seeking immunity for contractors, the administration is requesting protections for the 154,000 civilian contractors working for the Defense Department in Iraq; most carry out such duties as driving trucks, preparing meals and the like. The administration says it depends heavily on those contractors, including about 13,000 private security contractors working for the Pentagon.

Under an earlier agreement between the United States and Iraq, those contractors have been exempt from Iraqi law. Justice Department officials have said it is not clear whether any crimes committed by contractors in Iraq, including the role played by Blackwater employees in a September shooting in Baghdad, would be subject to American law, but the administration has taken steps intended to close any loopholes.

In seeking authority to conduct combat operations, the Bush administration is seeking something similar to the current United Nations Security Council resolution, which allows the United States and other coalition forces to operate in Iraq “in support of mutual goals,” one Bush administration official said.

The official said the agreement sought by the United States could allow Iraq to “rescind that authority at a later date as the security environment improves and they take over the mission.”

In contrast to the contractors, the immunity being sought for American military personnel is a standard part of most recent agreements for basing American forces on foreign soil. Such agreements grant exclusive jurisdiction over American forces to American law, specifically the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

In terms of prisoners, the administration and military would like the Iraqis eventually to take control of all battlefield detainees. But they say that the United States still needs the authority to hold those prisoners, because Baghdad does not yet have the capacity — in personnel, facilities or legal structures — to manage the current detainee population of about 26,000.

Senior administration officials say concerns that the agreement will limit the decisions of the next president are not justified.

“More than 90 percent of this will be a pretty standard status-of-forces agreement,” said one senior official involved in drafting the American proposal. “It is not something that will tie the hands of the next president.”

The military-to-military aspect of the relationship is to be negotiated by July 31, well ahead of the Dec. 31 expiration date for the United Nations Security Council Resolution that has been the core legal authority for the American-led military mission in Iraq. Diplomats will also negotiate political and economic relations between the two countries.

The draft American text on military-to-military relations, now under discussion at the White House, Pentagon and State Department, is short, running fewer than 15 pages.

“It’s not ‘War and Peace,’ and it doesn’t have a lot of hard-to-read legal jargon,” said one military officer.

American officials are keenly aware that any agreement must be approved by Iraq’s fractured Council of Representatives, where Sunni and Shiite factions feud and even Shiite blocs loyal to competing leaders cannot agree.

A senior Iraqi Defense Ministry official said his government had been studying every American status-of-forces agreement, or SOFA, to understand what is the norm, and what is not.

“We know the Iraqis will compare it to others in the region and throughout the world,” a military officer involved in the discussions said. “We do not want them to believe they are held to different SOFA standards.”

Gates's voice moderating US policies
Stances on war, torture, Iran mark key shift
By Bryan Bender, Globe Staff | January 16, 2008

WASHINGTON - When Robert M. Gates was sworn in to replace Donald H. Rumsfeld as secretary of defense, President Bush said he was counting on his new Pentagon chief to "forge a new way forward in Iraq."

But in the year since he was hired to reverse US fortunes there - advocating a military "surge" that by most accounts has reaped significant dividends - the unassuming former CIA director and confidant of the president's father, George H.W. Bush, has also been undertaking a much broader mission.

Gates, 64, in an alliance with his former aide, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, has helped to roll back some of the most hawkish stances of the first six years of the Bush presidency - on the use of torture, US-Iranian relations, and the policy of preemptive war that Vice President Dick Cheney, Rumsfeld, and others espoused, according to interviews with current and former administration officials and private analysts.

Gates's influence has brought the president's foreign policy more in line with that of the elder Bush, steering the administration toward a more traditional model of coalition-building and advocating military force as a last resort, they said.

"What you have is a change in the climate around the president," said Brent Scowcroft, who served as national security adviser for the first President Bush, when Gates served as his deputy and Rice oversaw Soviet affairs.

Given his background as a former CIA analyst and president of a major university, Gates has a "different kind of personality and outlook" than his highly ideological predecessor, Scowcroft said. Gates's influence has helped replace the "formidable pressure" exerted on the president by Cheney, Rumsfeld, and their neoconservative allies with "a much more nuanced foreign policy."

For example, top national security officials clashed with Congress and human rights advocates over their refusal to rule out "waterboarding," an interrogation technique that involves simulated drowning and is deemed torture by the Geneva Conventions.

But when the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff equivocated in November when asked whether he considered waterboarding to be torture, Gates cut him off. "No member of the US military is allowed to do it, period," Gates said.

Besides railing against torture as an interrogation tactic in the war on terror, Gates has advocated closing down the Guantanamo Bay detention center in Cuba, which he believes has sullied America's reputation.

He has successfully pushed the administration to engage Iran to help improve security in Iraq, over the objections of Cheney. Breaking with Rumsfeld, Gates also negotiated with Russian officials to assuage their anger over a US plan to erect an antimissile system in Eastern Europe.

Then in late November, Gates surprised the Washington establishment by advocating a major increase in the State Department's budget, saying the United States "must focus our energies beyond the guns and steel of the military."

Scowcroft, a close friend of Gates, said Gates considers the speech at Kansas State University to be among his proudest moments as defense secretary. It was also a break from Rumsfeld and signaled that Gates believes the military should not be the primary tool of American foreign policy.

"There is no more talk about spreading democracy" by force, said Joseph Nye, a former assistant secretary of defense in the Clinton administration who teaches at Harvard University. "Bob is a very practical, sensible person. I think they would have been a lot better off if he had been the defense secretary in 2001."

Nye recalled how Rumsfeld was dismissive of "soft power" - the use of diplomacy and other noncoercive means to influence adversaries. Asked about soft power at a 2003 Army conference, Rumsfeld replied, "I don't know what it means," Nye recalled.

At Kansas State four years later, Gates declared, "I am here to make the case for strengthening our capacity to use soft power" and advocated "a dramatic increase in spending on the civilian instruments of national security" like diplomacy, economic aid, and cultural exchanges.

"What better illustration can you have of the differences" between Gates and Rumsfeld, Nye said.

While Gates is hailed as a breath of fresh air, critics say he is still presiding over a widely unpopular war in Iraq.

Michael O'Hanlon, a defense analyst at the Brookings Institution, believes Gates's heavy focus on Iraq has come at the expense of the war in Afghanistan, where violence is up and insurgents are making gains on coalition forces.

"In Afghanistan, Gates's record is mixed," O'Hanlon said.

Nevertheless, Gates has won high marks from lawmakers in both parties on Capitol Hill.

Most Democrats and Republicans hail his efforts to reach out to both parties and to allies around the world, and to restore the government's credibility.

"He has been very straightforward," said Representative Ike Skelton of Missouri, the Democratic chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. "He gives us periodic briefings on the situation in the Middle East that he pledged he would do. He told us at his confirmation hearing that he would not mislead us and has lived up to it."

In the Bush Cabinet, Gates has found an intellectual soul mate in Rice, a former university administrator, according to those knowledgeable about the administration's internal deliberations.

Gates "allows Condi to expand more in her areas when she couldn't before, when she got slapped down every time she moved," Scowcroft said.

Meanwhile, former secretary of state James A. Baker III, another member of the elder Bush's inner circle, is also considered close to Gates. Baker was one of the key moderate voices that helped the first President Bush build an international coalition in the 1990-91 Persian Gulf war and was among those who warned against invading Iraq in 2003 without United Nations backing.

"There is a sense that the system is working again," said John Hamre, former deputy secretary of defense in the Clinton administration and recently picked by Gates to head the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee.

"The system had broken down rather badly, and there is a feeling that things are back to a regular order," Hamre said.

Gates's stewardship could help salvage the president's foreign affairs legacy.

"Robert Gates is a bipartisan moderate rather than a highly partisan hard-liner," said Loren Thompson, president of the Lexington Institute, a conservative-leaning think tank specializing in defense policy. "He is nobody's idea of a liberal, but he knows how to make a government of divided parties and diverse viewpoints work. Bush has been dragged back to the center by Gates."

Bryan Bender can be reached at bender@globe.com.