The anxiety about partitioning existing states along sectarian or ethnic lines is inspired by the contradiction between such fragmentation and the very essence of Arab nationalism that inspired the Arab peoples before and after World War II.
Arabs have always suspected that Israel, with the United States behind it, would like nothing better than to create a more divided Arab nation. This suspicion has acquired a more pronounced conspiratorial connotation ever since the idea of turning Iraq into a federal state was broached. But conspiracies aside, Arab fears are justified when it is understood that some Arab countries have indeed sizable minorities within their borders. Some Arab countries include other ethnic groups, or "peoples," as indeed is the case in Iraq.
The rule of thumb under international human rights norms, especially as stipulated in the two principal international covenants on civil and political rights on the one hand and on economic, social and cultural rights on the other, is that "peoples" have a right to self-determination. When the right to self-determination is taken to its logical conclusion, it means peoples may secede from the existing political order in any given country by the exercise of this inalienable right. Minorities, however, do not have the same right.
By consensus, a sizable group of people that is socially, culturally and-or linguistically distinct and with historical roots in a certain part of a country or region constitutes a people for the purposes of the right to self-determination. Accordingly, the Kurds of Iraq (and Turkey, Iran and Syria) are indeed a people by all recognized standards and are therefore eligible to exercise their right of self-determination.
Minorities, on the other hand, are normally smaller groups of people usually scattered in many parts of any given country, and have no right of self-determination. Under Article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, minorities have only linguistic, religious and cultural rights. Of course they may have additional rights that the country in which they happen to live may allow them to exercise.
The political implications of federalism in Iraq could thus be widespread, but not necessarily in the direction of fragmentation. Are the Christian Arabs in Lebanon a distinct people entitled to exercise a right of self-determination? The rule of thumb does not make a people synonymous with a religion. If the Christians of Lebanon are viewed as Arab, then they cannot be regarded as a distinct people. The same goes for the Shiites and Sunnis in Iraq. Since both communities are considered Arab, the religious differences between them are not a sufficient basis for viewing them as different peoples.
But what about the Arabs in Israel? There is no doubt that Israeli Arabs can be recognized as a people entitled to exercise a right of self-determination. They are large in numbers, culturally and socially distinct and live in and trace their roots to a distinct part of Israel: the Galilee. For Israel to maintain its unity it may have to opt for a federal form of government in the long haul.
Another aspect of any federal project in Iraq is that it may also serve as a model for other unions in the region. Take, for instance, the future of Jordanian-Palestinian relations. For all intents and purposes, the international community now accepts and regards the Palestinians as a separate Arab people entitled to their right of self-determination. The option remains open for the Jordanians and Palestinians to exercise the right of self-determination vis-a-vis each other, but to decide on a federation between them in due course. This idea was floated a long time ago during the reign of the late King Hussein. The idea then was to establish a united kingdom comprising the two peoples. Perhaps it was a slip of the tongue, but King Abdullah II did make a reference to this on August 17, when, addressing former Jordanian prime ministers and parliamentarians. He spoke of "We in Jordan on both sides of the River Jordan," perhaps suggesting that Jordanians and Palestinian were one people.
But such a scheme is fraught with untold dangers. With the Palestinian house not yet in order and the extremist elements in the Palestinian territories vying for power with the Palestinian Authority, it would be reckless to open that door yet. Unrehearsed and unprepared unity between the peoples of the two banks of the River Jordan is a prescription for the destabilization of the Hashemite monarchy, where a majority is viewed as having mixed loyalties. The necessary conclusion is that geopolitical conditions in the region are not suitable for any more attempts at federalism for the time being.
Indeed, the countries and peoples of the Middle East may have to watch and see how Iraqi federalism works before jumping to conclusions about their own particular situations.


Waleed Sadi is a former Jordanian ambassador to Turkey and to the UN in Geneva. He is currently a columnist for The Jordan Times and Al-Rai newspapers. This commentary first appeared at bitterlemons-international.org, an online newsletter.