President Bush, as well as numerous American commentators, had hailed the Oct. 15 referendum on Iraq's constitution as a historic step on the new road to Iraqi freedom and democracy. How historic it really was can be judged by the fact that within two days it had disappeared from the media as a significant news item from Iraq, its place taken by the trial of Saddam Hussein.

		Salim Lone served as the director of communications for the U.N. mission in Iraq immediately after the 2003 war (salimlone@ msn.com).

That trial had been cleverly scheduled to start right after the referendum, to shift attention away from the bloody insurgency and terrorist attacks that were bound to continue whatever the outcome of the vote.

At the time of writing, the outcome of the referendum is still not known, the delay a result of a U.N. request for an investigation into suspicions expressed by a senior Iraqi electoral official of the possibility of stuffed ballots. But the constitution, which was billed as a major step in uniting the country against violence, was clearly going to drive an even deeper wedge between even the moderate Arab Sunnis and the majority Shiites and Kurds if it was passed.

The proposed constitution makes Iraq the state with the weakest central government in modern history, further disenfranchises the Sunnis and will most likely lead to the country's disintegration. Many had feared that that would be the inescapable result of the Anglo-American war and occupation. Others had actually planned for such an outcome. Particularly since the collapse of the Soviet Union 15 years ago and Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait, structural partition had been seen by U.S. hardliners and some others as the surest way of weakening the most powerful Arab state not in the American camp.

One can judge that intention from the fact that it was just 36 hours before voting began Saturday that Parliament finally added a clause to the U.S.-backed constitution indicating that the new charter would be "a guarantee for the unity of Iraq."

Normally, such a clause is emphatically embedded at the constitution's core. Indeed, just a week earlier, the Shiite and Kurd-dominated Parliament had passed a patently undemocratic law which made it impossible for Sunnis to reject the constitution. That's how little the two communities cared about reaching out to Sunnis. But U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan's quick and public intervention led to that law being repealed within days.

This constitution provided a fresh opportunity to address the central issue in Iraq, the raging insurgency and the accompanying terrorism triggered by the occupation, by making a serious effort to reach out to Sunnis as a first step toward finding a political solution to the violence bleeding Iraq.

But by ceding almost complete territorial and financial control to each of the three principal communities' regions, the opposite would be accomplished: Arab Sunnis would be further disenfranchised since almost all the oil is produced in Shiite and Kurdish regions. The constitution also prevents former members of the Ba'ath party, to which most Sunnis belonged, from holding public office.

Most Iraqis have in fact continued to resist categorization into sectarian groups. It is a remarkable tribute to Iraqis that they have withstood the enormously destructive terrorist attacks by Sunni extremists, and other, generally unreported, killings of Sunnis by Shiites and Kurdish militias, without descending to all-out civil war.

It is fascinating to see American and British occupation officials regularly raising alarm about the spectre of full-blown civil war in Iraq, without even a hint of recognition that religious extremism and terrorism were spawned by the war, the consciously sectarian occupation policies and the punitive marginalizing of Sunnis.

Iraq is now the world's breeding ground for terrorists. At the same time, Iran, which the neocons and Bush loathe, has a major foothold in Iraq since many of the new Shiite leaders have close links with their fellow religionists to the East. Long-term, strategic U.S. interests are being severely undermined through gross miscalculation or concern for only the short-term, and Iraq is being destroyed, but the Bush administration refuses to change course.

From the beginning of the occupation, the United States has consistently portrayed each new milestone toward Iraqi "sovereignty" as being vital for undercutting the insurgency and terrorism. In practice, the opposite has always occurred, as each attempt to provide Iraqi legitimacy for occupation institutions enrages more Iraqis and the level of violence exceeds all previous levels.

No effort to curb the insurgency and terrorism can succeed without the support of Arab Sunnis. In addition, the exclusive reliance on the use of massive force as the means of crushing the insurgency has failed spectacularly. Violence continues to grow by leaps and bounds. What is needed now is a negotiated political settlement with the Sunni-led insurgency.

Indeed, only an end to the universally unpopular American occupation will provide hope for ending the nightmare that Iraq has been for nearly three years now.

It is a severe indictment of the United Nations Security Council member states, as well of other powers and Muslim countries, that they are making no efforts to propose to the United States alternative strategies which might succeed in curbing this ruinous, globally destabilizing war and occupation.