PUBLICATIONS - COMMISSIONERS IN THE NEWS

PRINCE HASSAN BIN TALAL
Amman, Jordan
July 18, 2003

Faisal I, who became the first king of Iraq in 1921, was a man of wisdom and foresight. He achieved what few, if any, leaders of the Muslim and Arab world of the last century could have done: he brought together all of his country's disparate communities in a spirit of genuine friendship and reconciliation despite the constraints of the largest hegemonic power of that time, Britain.

One of the most remarkable results of the unity that King Faisal created was the Constitution of 1925, which not only incorporated points on human rights but also promoted the notion of a separation of powers. It is not hard to find parallels between the concepts expressed in this Constitution and those of the Charter of Medina, instituted at the time of the Prophet Muhammad - nor indeed between both these documents and the American Constitution.

Iraq under Faisal I was a country whose citizens participated in building the nation, no matter one's denomination or affiliation, whether Shiite or Sunni, Chaldean or Sabaean, Arab or Kurd, Circassian or Turkman. Little wonder, then, that Iraq was the first Arab country to join the League of Nations, and became a model for other emerging nation-states in Middle East and beyond.

Today, despite the painful reality of a postconflict Iraq - whose orphans roam streets littered with unexploded weapons, where food and water is scarce and sanitation is almost nonexistent - we see hopeful similarities to that fledgling state. As in the king's day, there is a sense of optimism, of a shared burden, and of a chance for freedom after a long period of absolute rule.

Unfortunately, Iraq today, as in the king's time, is under occupation, and gripped by uncertainty as to whether this is a transitional phase toward a new beginning or something more sinister and unwelcome. Again, many Iraqis feel like unwilling recipients of a foreign interventionism whose slogan is "we know what is best."

The occupying coalition talks of transitional justice. But how can it explain the absence of an Iraqi court to deal with the affairs of its citizens? Other than a new, relatively powerless governing council, why are Iraq's people - inheritors of the cradle of human civilization itself and arguably some of the most sophisticated and advanced in the Arab world - having to watch while others impose their will and their plans on the country?

The people now in charge of Iraq, be they in Baghdad or Washington, seem to lack the cultural sensitivity and proper knowledge of Iraq and its neighbors, and to have little regard for the religious and spiritual values of the Iraqi people, lacking even an appreciation of Iraq's ecumenical and cosmopolitan past. Nor has the de facto authority shown any intention to put to use the intellectual and technical potential of the Iraqi people, causing even greater frustration, confusion and anger.

Iraq could once again be the model for the developing nation-state if it is able to humanize economics and politics, putting its citizens' well-being at the center of policymaking. True leadership in the Islamic sense ought to be about respecting sincerely held individual and communal beliefs; citizenship in its most pluralistic sense; and the peaceful management of diversity.

Of course, change in Iraq has to be peaceful and has to be desired by the people as a whole. That is not pandering to populism, but is the essence of strategic diplomacy. It is the historical legacy of King Faisal I, who enabled Iraqis to be stakeholders in their political future. The development - not imposition - of democracy in Iraq is vital.

Yet the current situation, with an increasingly nervous American and British military force, is a classic example of bad governance. Not only is it being interpreted in Iraq and abroad as a blatant and unnecessary form of neocolonialism, it also threatens to reap a bitter harvest of anti-Americanism. It will further destabilize an already volatile region.

Iraqis are rightly cautious of accepting solutions imposed on them by third parties that have their own economic or regional interests. They do not wish to find themselves, purposely or by default, having to ally with one or another interventionist force. Some steps to ensure a feeling (and reality) of Iraqi self determination can be taken quickly. For example, Iraqi courts could be created to prosecute those convicted of serious felonies like murder, torture and rape. This would not only be the realization of justice in its most practical sense, but it would give Iraqi people some real power over their civil society.

The arrogance of power must not lead us to abandon wisdom. Wisdom is to listen to the voice of the people. Wisdom is to humanize rather than demonize the "other." Wisdom is to have hope and to consider the alternative options constantly. My friend Shimon Shamir, the Israeli scholar and former ambassador to Jordan, has wisely urged us to "turn our attention from the threat projected by the extremists to the promise implied by the moderates." Those of us who truly wish to help Iraq must now focus our efforts on realizing that promise.

Prince Hassan bin Talal of Jordan is moderator of the World Conference on Religion and Peace and president of the Club of Rome.

HOME | BACK