|
GOOD
NEWS FROM IRAQ
As some of you
know, I am on the Advisory Council of the Foundation for
Reconciliation and Relief in the Middle East. This
organisation has some influence because the chairman is
Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury and
other board members include members of the House of
Lords, ex-ambassadors etc. The President and key person
is a personal friend who used to visit me in Jerusalem,
Canon Andrew White, Vicar of St George's church,
Baghdad.
You will find
the following article by Bud McFarlane who was a
national security advisor for President Ronald Reagan
very encouraging. It describes the conference Andrew
arranged a couple of weeks ago which brought together
very senior Iraqi Muslim leaders to talk about
reconciliation.
Tony Higton - Rector
IRAQ RECONCILIATION - by Bud McFarlane
One reason put forward for why we ought not continue the
fight in Iraq is that the Iraqis themselves aren't doing
their part to unite their country against the
insurgency. It's a potent argument. It's also wrong.
Two weeks ago, I participated in a remarkable three-day
gathering of more than 70 Iraqi clerics. It was held in
Baghdad, was organised by Canon Andrew White, an
Anglican priest in Iraq, and had one aim: give Iraqis
religious leaders a forum to listen to and engage one
another. And it was a phenomenal success.
The conference were encouraging from the outset because
it attracted some of the top clerics in the country.
They included close advisors to Grand Ayatollah Ali
Sistani, the senior Shia prelate in Iraq; Moqtada Al
Sadr, the firebrand leader of the Mahdi militia; and
equivalent Sunni and Kurdish figures. They arrived
clearly interested in fostering reconciliation, and in
the process reducing violence, disarming the militias
and enacting into law a framework for a fair
distribution of political and economic power. Many of
the participants are members of the parliament.
Think about the meaning of what's described in the
preceding paragraph. How often have you asked yourself
over the past four years as violence has unfolded in
Iraq, "Is it possible that the hatred and bitterness on
display every day will ever evolve into reconciliation?"
After attending this conference, I believe the answer is
yes.
First, it is important to note that in Iraq the term
'cleric' carries a different meaning than in the West.
In Islam, one's personal obligation to devote himself to
improving the well-being of his political and economic
setting - a concept known as jihad - acknowledges for
some sects the legitimacy of violence. Indeed, many of
the participants at the conference have a violent
history. So much the better, because it is only through
getting those at the centre of the conflict to engage
with their adversaries that will find the basis for a
Modus Vivendi. And so it turned out at this conference.
The opening salvos from each of the three sects involved
rhetorical statements of grievance - each against the
others. What was remarkable, however, was that the
statements turned out to be pro forma and by the
afternoon of the first day these very powerful figures
began to listen to each other. What transpired was
fascinating. Shia participants acknowledged that their
followers had intermarried with Sunnis for generations -
and vice versa - and while all deplored the brutality of
Saddam's regime, no one counted it as legitimating a
blood feud. The common theme was one of anger at the
violence in Iraq and its primary driver, al Qaeda. But
this rage came tempered by a commitment to put their
country back together. Throughout the conference, they
called it their 'nation'.
By the second day they began to focus on setting
benchmarks to measure each other's commitment to what
was being said. Each of the participants, men and women
of great influence - the elite of Iraq - pledged to
return to their provinces and seek to reduce violence,
attempt to disarm the militias and (for those members of
the parliament) to forge a compromise and pass critical
legislation including the pending oil law - a benchmark
measure of willingness of Shias and Kurds to acknowledge
the centrality of a secure economic future for Sunnis.
It is important to note that this conference was
strongly supported by American Ambassador Ryan Crocker
as well as by General David Petraeus, commander of
coalition forces in Iraq. Neither sought to intervene
nor to drive the conference toward any particular
conclusion. Both clearly understood, however, that
broad-based political reconciliation is the linchpin of
any hope for lasting stability in Iraq.
In Washington,
Mr White's efforts to nurture the process of
reconciliation has been quietly supported by the Defence
Department. Some would dismiss such support as nothing
but self-interest on the part of the Pentagon. But I
believe there is more to it than that. After four very
difficult and counterproductive years in Iraq, we now
have leaders in place in Baghdad who understand the
nature of this conflict. Ambassador Crocker and General
Petraeus intuitively know that a political accommodation
acceptable to all is the only stable foundation for
peace in Iraq. And they also understand that such a
foundation can only be laid by Iraqis.
One the last day
of the conference the delegates pledged to reconvene as
soon as possible. A final settlement will likely take
some time. But current plans call for a second meeting
to be held in
Cairo in August. The irony of this possibly historic
work is that it is operating on a shoestring. Mr White
has organised a non-profit in the U.S. and is now trying
to raise the fairly modest sums needed to keep this
trialogue going.
Bud
McFarlane |
Do
We Believe in 3 Gods?
