I hadn’t noticed this since I was moving, but The Belmont Club linked to my essay, “It all comes down to federalism,” and discussed it with a great deal of historical context. Here’s an excerpt with the conclusion:

Each behind his Mason-Dixon Line. Of course it can hardly stop there. With a Shi’ite state in southern Iraq and an independent Kurdistan, fueled by vast oil reserves, the wrecker ball may keep on rolling. Syria and Turkey, with their large Kurdish minorities would soon have to reckon with the new Kurdish state. Iran may try to dominate southern Iraq, but a new Shi’ite state could just as easily become a rival as a client.

The referendum over the Iraqi constitution is, ironically enough, a long-delayed partial plebescite on the Sykes-Picot agreement, which created Iraq out of the shards of the Ottoman Empire, (follow this link to see historical maps of the region before Iraq was created in 1916 by a secret treaty between French and British diplomats.) and the subsequent partitions of the Middle East among European powers, which eventually involved Italy, Greece, France and Soviet Russia, leaving boundaries which remained unstable even beyond Yalta.

(Speculation alert) In this context it would be a mistake, I think, to judge success or failure of the Iraq constitution by the standard of whether that document prescribes some end condition preferred by the current State Department. The real test must be whether the peoples of Iraq can construct a polity of their choosing and whether it is one that leads to a stable and prosperous region. The fact, as Robert Mayer points out, that the principle issue dividing the proposed Constitution’s proponents is federalism suggests that national identities have survived the Ottomans, the European Mandate System and the Ba’ath more strongly than many would care to admit. Although those who would have preferred to see the status quo ante preserved under Saddam and those who would have liked to see a unitary multiethnic successor state emerge may be disappointed in a devolution, the United States, alone among the great powers that have entered the region, has approached the problem of Mesopotamia by asking the people what they want. It may not be what we want. But that is beside the point.

I believe the implications of an Iraqi break-up would have terrible consequences, however. The game plan is to get the Iraqis to realize that they are citizens before sectarians. Now, how that will happen is impossible to tell, and without some major leadership, it won’t happen naturally. So it was interesting to me when I read that Al-Sistani, who originally endorsed the religious Shiite parties, which allowed them to win so heavily, condemned the form of federalism that those same parties worked out.

Najaf ???????? His Eminence Grand Ayatollah Al Sayyid Ali Al Sestani has issued a statement, which read, “In the name and Blessings of Allah we have found that the federation set in the constitution draft is division among your brothers in the north, center and south, marginalization for your unity, loss of your traditions and remoteness of your religion. The occupant desires to see you weak and desperate.”

The statement confirmed, “The Sunnis are your family. Stay by their side this time so that they stay by your side in the coming times. Consider them as your brothers and sons and do not bear any grudges within you because of the injustice of the past, as both of you were victims.”

Talk about dropping the bomb, er, figuratively. Combining his influence with other disaffected Sunnis and Shiites could possibly garner the necessary vote for a “no” vote on the constitution. However, it seems that the Iraqi people are much more progressive at this point than the nameless leaders that they elected by list and the Sunni negotiators agreed upon in closed door sessions. So chances are, they’ll vote “yes,” elect better leaders next time, and the issues will be worked out in the new parliament. Given that the major issue of federalism has been put off along with a host of other contentions, a “no” vote still scares me in terms of the unity of the country. If the political process can go forward somehow, some way, without the entire country devolving, then it’s fine.

The major concern is that granting the regions complete autonomy in the north and south will lead to the country splitting apart. This was a concern in America at one point too, but not just during the process of drafting the Article of Confederation and the Constitution — as many commentators like to point out. Divisions among the states actually lasted for decades. In fact, people in the northern New England states were known to be covertly aiding the British in Canada during the War of 1812 by giving them food and supplies. It wasn’t until after the war that the era of nationalism swept the United States, bringing them all under a more consensual unity.

What Iraq really needs for achieving this kind of unity, besides new leaders, is a moment of nationalism that brings them all together. It’s hard to convince Iraqis that favor autonomy (or even independence) that it is in their best interest to stay whole, but perhaps an unknown something will come along to make them all feel that they have a stake in this country called Iraq. I surely don’t know what that could be at this point, but taking ownership of their own lives and the functions of their government is surely the first step.