Sir, Whilst much of current planning in Iraq seems to place great store on the result of the elections scheduled for the end of January, one can easily envisage the elections having to be postponed, or their results, should they go ahead on time, being anything but helpful.

It is hard to imagine what assurances the Shia (majority) community can give to the Sunnis to ensure their active participation in the democratic process. Should the Sunnis boycott the elections it will be impossible to claim the results as meaningful.

Bearing in mind that Iraq has no experience of being governed as a single, democratic country, and that most Iraqis’ loyalties are to their tribal, ethnic and religious leaders, would it not be better to prepare now for alternatives should the result of the elections prove unhelpful?

The most obvious solution is a federation. With autonomy granted to the Kurds, Sunnis and Shias within a federal structure, many of the current rivalries and insecurities would be lessened. A federal Iraq is less likely to be a danger to its neighbours and, with a constitution guaranteeing minority rights backed by the United Nations, there would be a reasonable chance of an end to the current violence. This in turn would hasten the date for the withdrawal of coalition forces, to everyone’s advantage.

Obviously, there would be many difficulties to overcome on the ground, such as ownership of the oil fields. (Although paying 80 per cent of oil royalties to an independent Iraq development board, as practised in pre-1958 days, could be a solution.) A federation would, surely, be a great improvement on the all-too-likely result of pursuing current policies.

I remain, Sir,
Yours faithfully,
DAVID LLEWELLYN,
2 Claremont Court,
Grundys Lane, Malvern Wells,
Worcestershire WR14 4HS.
January 12.

Explore Letters

• Feedback