Kevin Collins: Learning new lessons on Iraq from Canada

Last weekend, I was in Montreal for a Model U.N. conference, and I have to say, it's like a whole other country. Seriously, I've been to Canada before, and while Toronto seemed like just a cleaner version of Chicago, the differences between the States and Quebec are striking. While Montreal is a charmingly frosty city (at least in mid-January), its culture -- not to mention language -- is not that of the Canada I had known. So clearly, my visit to Montreal makes me think of Iraq.

"Uhh, come again?" you may well now be saying. Admittedly, Canada and Iraq share little -- their languages, cultures, geography and climates are not soon slated to be confused for one another, and while I can't say for certain, I'm guessing that Baghdad is not spotted with Montreal's same abundance of cute French bistros. They do share, however, colonial legacies of overlapping-yet-not-readily-compatible cultures.

Canada, of course, has long recognized the cultural heritage of both of the European powers -- France and Britain -- that occupied its land, although to its credit, it just recently created a provincial homeland for its native First Canadians. While you can probably also blame the British for the ethnic turmoil in Iraq, that situation is somewhat more complex.

The French and the Brits each took charge of territories carved from the Ottoman Empire in the post-WWI division of the Ottomans' holdings. One of these was modern Iraq, and despite all the talk about national self-determination for Europeans, the Versailles mapmakers managed to smush together three very different ethnic groups inside Iraq's borders: the majority Shi'ite Arabs in the south, Sunni Arabs in the middle and the Kurds in the North. These groups, to put it mildly, aren't necessarily on the best of terms.

So while the fact that Iraq is overwhelmingly Muslim is enough evidence for some writers to consider its citizens one society or one civilization, they by no means are one people. The future constitution of Iraq must reflect that reality, and this is where our neighbors to the north enter the picture.

Ever since post-communist nationalism bloodied European soil, ethnic nationalism has been much maligned. However, in some countries, an ethnic conception of national identity has been critical in creating a stable, functioning society. Some blame new tides of nationalism for the Quebecois independence movement. However, Canada's constitutional recognition of its split Anglo-Franco personality -- that it is in fact a multinational country -- and its according devolution of some authority is what kept separatists from winning in secession referendums, and why in fact such efforts would be carried out by democratic rather than military means to begin with.

Canada, like America, is founded on principles of federalism, with representation divided by region. However, it also incorporates some principles of consociation: constitutional recognition and representation of ethno-national groups. If the Iraqis are to found a functioning, democratic state, they must, too.

The lessons for President Bush are twofold. First, in rebuilding Iraq we must not blindly impose a carbon copy of our own government. We in America not only like to ignore any flaws in our particular federal system of governance, but also tend to believe that we can export it to any country we, or more accurately our Armed Forces, happen to visit. After all, We the Multicultural People all get along in one big happy civic nation, so why can't everyone else?

To be blunt, Americans have not always "gotten along." Honest students of history will recognize our federal structure has not always provided ethnic harmony. Our first 90 years or so of independence were marred by slavery, and 100 years after that, Americans were marching on Washington to demand the full inclusion in our civic nation that people of color were still denied -- and many would argue that such ethnic harmony is a myth even today. With Iraq's competing ethnic divisions, an American winner-take-all democratic model would only serve to tear the country apart.

The second word of caution for Bush -- and this goes also for Democrats whose foreign policy is founded more on irrational isolationist ideology than open eyes and common sense -- is to not act in haste. While no doubt Bush would like to schedule the creation of an Iraqi constitution and the nominal transfer of power in time to give himself a pre-November bump in the polls, the value of getting it done right far outweighs that of getting it done quickly.

The possibility of an Iraqi state failing is simply unacceptable. The disorder of an Iraqi ethnic civil war would open the door for al Qaeda to create a new base of operations after America's military worked so hard to eliminate the terrorist nest in Afghanistan. Building a governmental structure to avoid such dangers requires looking beyond the American model and is of the utmost importance.

Thus, those planning the new Iraq dearly need to visit Quebec and take notes. They must give Iraq some sort of consociational representation and a constitutional recognition of its multinational character. And while they're at it, a few bistros would also be nice.

Kevin Collins is a sophomore political science major from Milwaukee, Wis. ...And Justice For All appears on Mondays.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.