Since the Iraqi Vice President Tarek al-Hashimi was received in Doha, and perhaps in other capitals later on, this means that his dispute with the Iraqi Prime Minister, Nouri al-Maliki, has taken a new turn, one that is much more difficult than the judiciary path that Al-Maliki had wanted. After today, there will be a new kind of relations between Iraq and its Arab surroundings. This will be added to the developing relations between its three constituents: the Shi'is, the Sunnis, and the Kurds; and to the fact that Al-Maliki has found himself in the position of accusing an “ally” in the supposed alliance rule of violating the constitution and “hosting a fugitive.” The accusation directed against Al-Hashimi – of nurturing some elements who were carrying terrorist acts such as plotting assassinations and carrying out bombings in the Iraqi capital – had sectarian and vindictive dimensions from the start. This was not a judiciary and criminal case that can be solved in a legal manner. It was rather a very biased political case as it exposed Al-Maliki's tendency to absolute dominance and monopolization of the decision making process. The accusation against Al-Hashimi fell in the context of the biased dealings that Al-Maliki had expressed vis-à-vis the Al-Iraqiya bloc and its President, Ayad Allawi, prior to and following the latest elections. Al-Hashimi is a member of that list, which has a high statute since it represents the Sunnis of Iraq. Thus, the “terrorist” accusation against Al-Hashimi seemed fake and fabricated to the extent that those who “fabricated” it failed to believe their own “fabrication.” Then, the Iraqi vice president had to take refuge in the Kurdish region, thus revealing the extent of the deterioration in the relationships and the lack of trust between the Iraqi groups, which are supposed to share one government. This was further highlighted when Al-Hashimi asserted that he is ready to appear in court in the Kurdistan territory because he questioned the integrity of the judiciary in Baghdad since it is controlled by the Nouri al-Maliki government. The Al-Hashimi case, along with what he represents for Iraq and the outside, reveals the extent of the Arab seclusion that the Iraqi rule has reached despite its exaggerated welcoming of the last Arab summit of its lands. Two thirds of the Arab rulers failed to attend this summit, including the leaders of the main Arab countries. Some of them even asserted that their absence aimed at sending a clear message to the Baghdad government for its biased dealings with the constituents of the Iraqi society, and also for shoving Iraq into a regional axis that opposes the Arab consensus. One of the signs of the excessive arrogance that now characterizes the some Arab politicians' positions consists of the fact that Nouri al-Maliki – who inherited a regime that is only paralleled in the Arab world by the Syrian regime – was not embarrassed to defend this regime. He stressed that “the Syrian regime did not and will not fall; and why would it fall?” The slogan of “de-Baathification” that Al-Maliki had used as a basis to access power in Iraq only works, according to him, for the Iraqi case where the fall of Saddam Hussein provided Al-Maliki and his aides with sectarian and political benefits. As for the Syrian case, defending the Baath rule is the only suitable way for the Syrian people to step away from their ordeal as per the Iraqi prime minister!
