Iraq and the dialogue of after the victory

Written by Nasser Kandil,

In a pre-emptive smart initiative, the institute of the Iraqi Dialogue headed by the Sheikh Humam Hamoudi, the member in the body of the Head of Representatives in cooperation with the University of Baghdad, the Iraqi Parliament and, and with a remarkable participation from each of the President of the Republic, the Speaker of the Parliament, the Prime Minister, and the heads and the representatives of the main political components has called for a conference under the title of Iraq and the Dialogue after the victory, and in conjunction with a permanent search in the corridors of the Iraqi politics about the settlement’s  items that affect issues that were a matter of suspicion and fear to debate among the Iraqis for a decade ago. Iraq is a Levantine Arab citadel through its population, area, wealth, minds, and status according to active present history and geography.

Iraq will enter the year 2018, after it has freed from three successive burdens, a regime among it the Iraqis have divided till it fell, knowing that some of them felt of cold after it had fallen, and some of them on the early days of the US occupation felt of some kind of warmth comparing with the frost of the former regime. Despite the fact that the continuation of the division around the occupation did not last, but it led to a division around the new regime that is no less than the former regime, even if the opportunities of expression and the frameworks of change were more and available. But after Iraq and the Iraqis have been liberated relatively from the burden of the occupation, they got a heavier burden that re-imposes some of the occupation and some of the former regime along with some of the divisions around them, in addition to the burden of ISIS. But most importantly is that the majority of the Iraqis have agreed to wage the war of confrontation, salvation, and the search for a dialogue that renews the social coherence among the Iraqis on the basis that the first power of Iraq comes from the degree of the cohesion of its interior not the degree of the cohesion of some of its interior with some of its exterior against some of the other part of its interior with some of the other part of its exterior.

This time, the Iraqi Dialogue is a test of the experience before it is a national test that does not lack any of the Iraqis even if they were different in employing its keys and in determining its taboos, only the experience prevents them from turning the different judgments into new division. The experience here is the ability to get the message; first a unified Iraq where the dispute is ravaging in it is better for the components of Iraq than a secession that leads to the rule of the one vote in more than Iraq. Second, the concessions which allay the concerns and extinguish the fears of the partners are the reaping of tomorrow, while scoring the points of the winning on the partner is a revenge for the past. Third, who is the strongest is the one who is demanded to give but he gives up, the one who abandons a force leads, and the one who sticks to the force rules. The competitive Iraqis on tomorrow and their roles in it have to choose between either to run as candidates to lead Iraq or to rule it, remembering always that whenever one has the opportunity to rule, it will not be as it was at the era of the former regime and the occupation.

Iraq approaches from its victory while the world and region change, but the most change that occurs is that the important players are no longer as they were, and that the thoughts which prevailed and dominated during a quarter of a century ago since the fall of Berlin Wall and the rule of the philosophy of the end of the history, and the savage uni-globalization, which the occupation of Iraq was one of its vocabularies are retreating paving the way for everything national. Now America as a symbol of the era which has passed is preparing for the coming era through its nationalism no matter how crude and exaggerated to the extent of racism it is, and in the time of sticking to the special identities and nationalism it has the sovereignty and the legitimacy as two vocabularies that approached from the level of passing and falling in the past quarter – century. By the force of the legitimacy and the sovereignty the Iraqis will discover the points of strength that they did not consider before. As the geography and the history show present elements in the present-industry by drawing the results of the wars and the options of peace, and away from the partisanships, emotions, the warmth of emotions of the biases which were inherited in the time of division, and with the replacement of all of that with the reflection in the history and geography the Iraqis will be able to draw the road map of their future.

The most important conclusion is that the unified Iraq is a power for the Iraqis, at their forefronts those who imagine that the secession is the way of independence, but the weak independence is a dependency, and in order to turn the unity into power there must be a recognition of the joy of the privacies not a call for their abolition. Iraq and Syria are Levantine Arab and Islamic base for making politics, culture, and the economy for their region, through their separation the Levant falls and the Arabs and the Muslims enter the time of rivalry and non-politics. Together they form their roles as a bridge for a dialogue between all the components of the Arab and the Muslim neighborhood and the bases of alliances for its force as well as a rehabilitation of the concept of the national security which the Kurdish Saladin Al Ayoubi has formulated for the Arabs and the Muslims and which its compass is Jerusalem.

Translated by Lina Shehadeh,