Boston.com chat with Padraig O'Malley, UMass specialist on divided societies, about Iraq strife

Padraig_O_Malley: Hello, this is Padraig O'Malley, and I'll be chatting about the recent efforts to further the peace process in Iraq by using the chief negotiators from Northern Ireland and South Africa as facilitators, sharing with key Iraqi leaders how they were able to bring their own countries out of violence into stable and peaceful democracies.

dubious__Guest_: Thanks for chatting...How do you build a sense of commonality among these various factions in Iraq? Don't they themselves envision some sort of split-up land politically, with each side wanting as much oil as they can get? In the States, you get the sense that this is one big house of cards that will fall down, Vietnam-style, the minute US forces leave. What do you think?

Padraig_O_Malley: We concentrated on their souls!

dubious__Guest_: What has been your biggest sign of hope for cooperation between Iraqi factions so far?

Padraig_O_Malley: The fact that they would come together in Helsinki, some 36 leaders from across all regions of Iraq and including most political parties for the purpose of absorbing the lessons of peace from the Northern Ireland and South African participants, and translating these lessons into a set of principles that will determine the framework within which they will conduct future negotiations and outlining mechanisms that will monitor every party's compliance with these principles.

Padraig_O_Malley: To get back to the previous question: Among the principles agreed was the territorial integrity of Iraq. The Kurds in particular went out of their way to reassure their Arab colleagues that they, too, were Iraqis committed to one sovereign Iraqi state. The reality is that Kurdistan is for all intents and purposes an independent state.

It has its own army, police force, functioning security institutions, functioning government institutions, a keen sense of national identity. You see no American presence there, you see no presence of the Iraqi security forces there. As a foreigner, you are free to move around without fear. However, the Kurds are not stupid, and indeed, as the recent incursions by the Turkish army into northern Iraq showed, they called on the foreign minister of Iraq to respond through diplomatic channels, rather than through their own foreign relations department. They understand that if ever they were to contemplate or declare independence, that that would constitute a situation unacceptable to both Turkey and Iran, both of which have sizeable Kurdish minorities.

leigh__Guest_: I understand from media reports that the Northern Irish amd South African facilitators have been invited to Baghdad for a third round of discussions. Is this likely to happen and what do you think come from it?

Padraig_O_Malley: I think the invitation to the facilitators to come to Baghdad is not only a great symbolic significance, but embodies in it a number of implicit political considerations. First, the Iraqis are, to a large extent, always being invited to conferences about peace and reconciliation that take place outside of their country. They want ownership of these processes, and the best way to demonstrate that ownership is to declare that discussions about how to bring about reconciliation in Iraq should took place in Iraq, rather than in some exotic location.

Second, they want the people who conduct these discussions to come to Iraq in order to see conditions there firsthand, and be in a better position to make informed judgements, than to make misinformed judgements from beautiful conference sites far removed from the reality of day-to-day life in Iraq. It is important that those who wish to help Iraq go there to absorb the smells of this, to hear ordinary people talk about the lives they live from one day to the next, to hear the thump of mortar shells in the Green Zone, to see the massive fortifications that are the hallmark of the Green Zone, where you have absurdities like outsourced security forces protecting armies, police stations, and other facilities of both the U.S. and Iraqi governments.

vent__Guest_: Some people have said that at least with Saddam there was no inner fighting because it wasn't allowed. To what extent do you think they need a strong central force to keep them all under control?

Padraig_O_Malley: Like what happened in the former Yugoslavia, once the lid of repression is lifted, the tensions that had accumulated in a society, either historical in root or during the years of repression itself, break out and are expressed in all forms of demands for redress of these grievances. This is not an unusual pattern of transition from dictatorial authoritarianism to democracy.

What matters is how these tensions now running wild in the new political space are managed. Obviously in Iraq these tensions were managed disastrously. You will not find an Iraq who will tell you that the edicts of Paul Bremer to liquidate, as it were, the Iraqi army was a good decision. Indeed, it ranks as one of the worst decisions ever taken in Iraq, providing a political space for the insurgency to emerge, which to many Iraqis is not an insurgency but resistance to foreign occupation. Indeed, the Iraqi participants in Helsinki invariably referred to the U.S. presence there as an occupation, and that term was used by all parties from all regions of the country.

nick__Guest_: Are you saying that the Kurds in Turkey and Iran would not consider independence, or is it the majority government saying no to independence? Doesn't the recent independence of Kosovo have implications?

Padraig_O_Malley: Under no circumstances would the Turkish government or the government of Iran find an independent Kurdistan acceptable. This would encourage the sizeable Kurdish minorities in both countries, but especially in Turkey, to escalate their own demands for greater forms of autonomy, with the eventual aim of becoming part of the independent Kurdish state.

If you look back, you will find that the Kurds were promised an independent state in 1920. To them, that agreement is still a living memory. As for Kosovo, my personal belief is that the decision to give independence to Kosovo without the imprimatur of the United Nations sets an incredibly dangerous precedent that will come back to haunt the major powers who agreed to it, especially for the British with regard to Northern Ireland in about 25 years.

dubious__Guest_: What are the unique cultural touchstones you have to follow to keep all sides together? No exposure of the soles of your shoes, for example?

Padraig_O_Malley: There are no doubts that an awareness of cultural touchstones is important for any non-Iraqi involved in their efforts to achieve reconciliation to be fully aware of, accept them for what they are, and never violate them. On the other hand, the Helsinki process is about identifying commonalities through the sharing of experiences of conflict.

Its conceptual paradigm is that people from divided societies are in the best position to help people in other divided societies. In this regard, in 1997 the government of Nelson Mandela invited all the political parties in Northern Ireland to come to South Africa to meet with the chief negotiators from all of the political parties in South Africa who had made their historic settlement in 1994 possible. Here, you might have had a clash of cultural mores, but in the process of sharing their experiences of negotiation, the Northern Irish were able to establish points with which they fully identified with, and it was through this process of identifying commonalities that emerged out of situations that are different but not entirely dissimilar, that a way forward to dialogue among them emerged.

The Northern Irish regard that trip to South Africa as a seminal experience that allowed them to overcome obstacles they heretofore had believed were immutable, and now you have these same people, Northern Irish negotiators and South African negotiators sharing their experiences, indicating to the Iraqis ways and means that they might overcome obstacles that presently seem, to them, to be immutable.

SEAN-O__Guest_: How does your experience in Northern Ireland prepare you for working in Irag? I would think that is like comparing apples to oranges? If you had worked in Vietnam, I could understand the similarity.

Padraig_O_Malley: You are doing the one thing we who are involved in this process do not do: We stress that we do not compare conflicts. Instead, we allow the Iraqis to find points articulated by the Northern Irish and South Africans with which they identify. Identification of similarities of experience in conflict, not comparison of conflict itself. Moreover, Iraq with both its sectarian divide and collision of different identities fits into the classification of a divided society in much the same way that both Northern Ireland and South Africa did.

leigh__Guest_: Why Finland of all places?

Padraig_O_Malley: First, because it was the first country which was responsive to the idea of hosting a conference there. Second, former president Marti Ahtisaari was incredibly supportive of the idea. Ahtisaari, along with Cyril Ramaphosa, the former chief negotiator for the African National Congress during its period of leadership under Nelson Mandela, were the first decommissioning inspectors appointed under the Good Friday agreement that effectively brought the conflict in Northern Ireland to a close. Ramaphosa, along with Martin McGuinness, the former chief of staff of the IRA, and now Northern Ireland's deputy first minister, are co-chairs of the facilitating process. Thus, you can see the interlinkages that led us to Finland.

SEAN-O__Guest_: So this is more of a "and how does that make you feel" approach. I think the bigger issue for Iraq is not the battle between the Sunni's and the Shiites, but the fact that this is an occupied nation. You are representing the occupier of that nation. I see that as you belonging to the problem, not the solution.

Padraig_O_Malley: Your logic, Sean-O, seems a little convoluted. First, I did not say this was a conflict between Shias and Sunnis. Second, there was no American involvement in the process. I am an Irish citizen. I believe that the facilitators from Northern Ireland and South Africa do not regard themselves as American, nor do I believe the Finns regard themselves as American. Third, this process was designed by the Iraqis themselves.

From the beginning, we insisted that they take ownership of the process, and that involved everything from them setting the time of breakfast and lunch, when there would be plenaries, when there would be breakout sessions, when there would be time for smoking, and what would be on the agenda at any time. It is the very fact that the Iraqis were able to make all decisions themselves that empowered them to feel free of the presence of an occupying power speaking on their behalf, or otherwise directing discussions in directions that the occupying power might consider more fruitful for its own purposes. Fourth, I should add that all present want to end the occupation as soon as possible, but coupled with that is their understanding that the occupation has created a nexus of internal conflicts that would result in a civil war if there were a precipitous withdrawal of the occupying power.

The occupation, you might say, as an unintended consequence, created the circumstances that justify a continued occupation, at least in the short run. But let there be no doubt about it-- the Iraqis themselves want an end to this occupation as soon as they believe Iraq is stable enough to withstand the withdrawal of all foreign forces. What is interesting to me is that while you have presidential candidates promising withdrawal within 18 months or in some orderly fashion, whatever that means, or who want to maintain an indefinite presence in Iraq, not a single one of them has ever raised the question: What do the Iraqis want? You would think that having inflicted so much damage and death on Iraq, they would at least have the good manners to ask the people they have crucified, in one form or another, "How do you determine our responsibilities to you, now that we have made such a mess of things?"

leigh__Guest_: what next?

Padraig_O_Malley: The Iraqis have invited us, that is the facilitators from Northern Ireland and South Africa, to conplete the work that was near completion when we literally ran out of time. We had reached a point where there was almost unanimous on 17 principles that would provide the framework for a negotiating process in Iraq, and 15 mechanisms that would monitor the degree to which these principles were adhered to by the parties that had agreed to them.

I will go to Baghdad within the next three weeks to consult with the Iraqis as to when this conference will be convened, and where it will be held. When these principles and mechanisms are agreed to by all parties, they will be put before the Iraqi parliament and receive its endorsement, thus paving the way for the writing of a national charter of reconciliation binding on all political parties with mechanisms to monitor performance. At that point, I hope we are out of business, and can get on with our lives, like going to a movie, having a drink [culture], and leaving matters to the Iraqis. In the end, only the Iraqis can resolve the conflicts they face.

Jeff__Guest_: How are you working to bring Iraqi factions and tribal leaders to the table? What steps have you taken/will you take?

Padraig_O_Malley: I go to Iraq and I seek them out and I talk to each one individually, first to establish my own bona fides, then to explain to them how they might benefit from hearing others from very divided societies share their experiences, how they might benefit, and possibly how they might turn the lessons they learn into practical steps in Iraq. The most important thing is to gain their trust, and that can only be done looking in their eyes, and they looking into my eyes. You have no idea how much they appreciate somebody coming to them in person to invite them to something rather than receiving it via the American embassy, or the U.N., E.U., or other NGO's who work in Iraq in fortified compounds that bespeak their fear of ever walking the streets of Baghdad. I hope that helps you.

Jeff__Guest_: thanks...i applaud your efforts and hope to hear some good news on the Iraqi front in the near future!

Padraig_O_Malley: The good news, Jeff, is that the Iraqis are slowly taking matters into their own hands. There is no doubt, at least in my mind, that they long for the day that there will be no longer a foreign presence in their country-- and that includes an American presence. Indeed, one of the priciples agreed on by all 36 Iraqi participants from all shades of political, religious, and national opinion, called for an end to the interference of foreign powers into the internal affairs of Iraq.

nick__Guest_: Slowly taking matters into their own hands? What does it take to get a move on?

Padraig_O_Malley: Good, strong hands that are always held out to "the other," in the hope that "the other" will reach out with his hand, too. This, in the end, is the essence of reconciliation, which realistically will be decades in the making. That's just the way it is. That's the way human beings are.

Padraig_O_Malley: Thanks to all of you for your questions, and I'll look forward to speaking with you again soon.