There's been a lot of media spin and unthinking objections to the visit of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to the US. He was called the "modern Hitler", for example. This strikes me as both unthinking and dangerous. Ahmadinejad is his own kind of threat and problem, and comparisons to past dangerous individuals don't resolve or enlighten anything. As Time Magazine clearly noted, he has no power over the things that he is being demonised for, and is incompetent and hated internally for the things he does.
But it seems to me there is a wider issue here than the internecine politics of an Islamist state.
We want to see democratic, or at least more liberal, societies in the middle east, something that has been very hard to do when so much of it is tribal, and ethnic divisions were not respected by the victorious powers of the Treaty of Versailles after the first world war. How can we achieve this? Well, for a start, it is not by demonising local leaders, and nor is it by the use of military force. This will inevitably harden attitudes, and set back the local liberalising movements by decades, if not centuries.
Iraq is an obvious case in point - it has three major ethnic groups and a number of smaller ones like the Marsh Arabs and various Christian and Zoroastrian communities. But let's look at the three major ones. The Kurds are a disenfranchised ethnic group that have existed as a unity for over a thousand years, but have never had a country of their own or political self-determination. They live in the north, and their ethnic group continues either direction into Iran and Turkey. Even the Baathists had trouble ruling that region.
/>
On the east, we get the Arab Shiites, on the west the Sunnis, and in the middle, in a strip that runs from the Gulf to the Kurdish territories, a mixture. So, how do we resolve this conflict, which goes back itself over a thousand years, while at the same time trying to make the surrounding nations liberaliseable? Here's a suggestion: make them police and rebuild their ethnic cousins' provinces. Make Iran administer the south east (and maybe the part of the Kurds' territory that is more closely related to its own population of Kurds than to the other western region). Make Syria and Saudi Arabia administer the non-Arab Shiites. And the remaining Kurdish territory could be reunited with the Turkish Kurds (which might increase the political influence of Kurds in Turkey).
If Iran or Syria or Saudia Arabia had to ensure good order, under a UN mandate and with UN-mediated funding, in each of their third of Iraq, they would be forced to behave like responsible states just to keep their own populace happy. Liberalisation in those countries would tend to flourish, or at least advance, if there were no foreign interlopers involved in this. Of course, we'd need UN observers and a threat that if any of these nations tried to invade outside their zone of control, the UN would immediately meet that with force, but if they didn't, they'd be left to improve this.
After say 20 years, hold a plebiscite in those regions seeking to find out if those regions wanted to become permanently part of their regional protectors' nations, run by the UN. That would give these nations motivation for doing a good job - if they screwed up, they'd lose potential territory they might have gotten without military action, and they might end up losing their own sovereignty under occupation. So they'd behave better out of self-interest.
Iraq is a basket case now, and is going to be a failed state no matter what happens hereafter, but this might end up a model for how national boundaries in a region can change without conflict to offer a more "natural" division of ethnic groups. The central region could remain under a UN police force until things resolve. It won't solve everything, but it could resolve the worst excesses of ethnic rivalries in that region.
This is not like the "New MIddle East" maps first floated in the Armed Forces Journal by Maj. Ralph Peters a while back (see article here, with map). That involves the imposition of ethnic boundaries on many states that are unlikely to like having their territories rearranged by external powers once again - sovereign borders generate their own power structures and interests. It is a way to let the region determine, without war and minimising terrorism, their own futures.
Of course, if this is all about oil, then the Coalition might not, in this case, be willing. But it can't be that now, can it.
My apologies for imposing my own political ruminations upon you all. Science and philosophy are coming, I promise.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
And the remaining Kurdish territory could be reunited with the Turkish Kurds (which might increase the political influence of Kurds in Turkey).
Which is exactly why Turkey would never consent to this, surely?
So who's going to be making them do anything, and how?
Of course, the other problem with this idea is that the overwhelming majority of Iraqis are opposed to partition. [See Q13 of this 2007 BBC poll - PDF]
So, here's a counter-suggestion: how about we stop trying to reshape other people's countries against their will? Just stop. Unthinkable, I know...
"Science and philosophy are coming, I promise."
We never doubted you!
Biggest problem with that idea isn't that Turkey hardly wants the Kurds to have any power, nor that Iran and Syria are high on our hate list (given their anti-Israel stands).
It's the oil. And It's the water.
Your division leaves the Sunni's with a lot of land, but it's a lot of useless desert. It continues to provide oil-rich Iran with even more oil AND with most of the Tigris and Euphrates' prime real estate.
In short, you're begging for the next war to happen by continuing to create an economic and power imbalance between the two sides.
Even if the Sunni's get much of the top of the rivers, then there's political wrangling going on as they can then threaten to dam it up and sell it to the Shia side for much of that oil money that's down in the south - and then we have economic standstill: they're best resources and money are wasted internally, corrupt leaders get richer, and the country loses any semblance of democracy to be replaced by the same types of dictators we went in there to get rid of.
So far, the UN has been unwilling to pick up the pieces of this USA-created mess.
As was already pointed out, this would be completely unacceptable for Turkey -but also for the Kurds. Kurds haven't been treated particularly respectfully anywhere, so you would have a hard time to convince them to have themselves administrated by either Turkey OR Syria. It's askings hens to agree to being administrated by foxes...
The problem is North America can not asume the position of guardian or police of world peace an liberty.When Sha rules Iran USA no say nothing or worry about liberties of iranian people.The danger is using military power to make politics is the same used by Hitler in 1939 to conquer Europe an establish a milenium Empire thar laste five years con 30.million death people.
This is true, but since nobody is going to agree with a Kurdish homeland (which I think would be far preferable) and since Turkey is a NATO country, I'm sure they could be convinced to act nicely.
And there already is a power imbalance, and since we know this war isn't about oil... well OK, that's farce, but I'm sure that if Iraq is maintained by a central administration of some kind, there could be arrangements in place for the distribution of oil and water revenues, etc. Whatever happens, it can't be as bad as what they now have.
The UN has a responsibility to act here. The US will never be able to do it. Even if the Democrats win the next presidential race and have a majority in both houses.
But the other comments about Syria and Iran being on your hate list is actually the whole point. There would be no reason for that if they could be encouraged to liberalise this way (and anyway, that hate list is one largely of our own making (and I include my nation in that).
Highly original and innoviative ideas here, but I think I have to make a few remarks. I have to excuse in advance that it will be a little long, but the middle east is such an complex place that every comment tends to develop (or degenerate) into a rant.
> of the Treaty of Versailles
The treaty that divided up the ottoman empire and created iraq was actually the treaty of Sevres, not the treaty of Versailles.
Dividing Iraq might be an solution (if the various sects and ethnic groups really don't want to live in one country), but dividing it up between the neighbouring states clearly isn't.
> Make Iran administer the south east
They can't even administer themselves (the Iranian military and paramilitary forces have about 3000 casualties each year fighting heroin dealers alone), so how could they administer Iraq - a country that neither the US - the greatest military power on the planet - nor the old baathist regime - for all its unlimited dictatorial powers - could prevent from slipping into civil war every ten years or so?
Beside this, the Iranians and the Shia Arabs may share their Shi'ite denomination, but they are not ethnic cousins.
The Iranian army is dominated by turco-mongol Azeris, the paramilitary forces by indoeuropean Persians. Arabs, Persians and Turcomans have been in conflict for 1500 years or so, and as a result, they don't like each other very much.
> and maybe the part of the Kurds' territory
> that is more closely related to its own population
> of Kurds than to the other western region)
Iraqi Kurdistan is the only place in Iraq that has a functional goverment and some degree of law and order, so why divide it up and call in foreign powers to administer the pieces in the first place?
> Make Syria and Saudi Arabia administer the non-Arab Shiites.
Are there any non-Arab Shiites in Iraq? Or do you mean non-Shiite Arabs - in other words, Sunni Arabs? If the latter is the case, Syria will stay away from them at any cost. The Alevite Syrian goverment has already to cope with a huge Sunni majority at home. The last thing they need are more Sunnis and one - or several - new Hamas. The last Sunni uprising in the Syrian city of Hama was only defeated with massive Soviet and Cuban help, wich are no longer available. And the Alevite 'victory' involved razing the city to the ground and killing everybody and his dog there.
> Liberalisation in those countries would tend to
> flourish, or at least advance,
Highly unlikely; the need for a massive military effort by the countries involved will probably mean the grip of the goverments has to be become even tighter.
To cut a long story short: Bring in the UN, yes. Have a plebiscite, over the question of an united Iraq vs. Kurdish, Shi'ite or Sunni independence, yes. But don't bring in neighbouring countries that have their own dogs in the fight. Bring in a UN force of muslim troops from a country that is as far away from the middle east as possible, let's say from south east Asia.
�In this regard and with my heart filled with sadness, I have to say that it is my belief that there is no Iraqi people inside Iraq. There are only diverse groups with no national sentiments. They are filled with superstitions and false religious traditions with no common grounds between them. They easily accept rumors and are prone to chaos, prepared always to revolt against any government. It is our responsibility to form out of this mass one people that we would then guide, train and educate. Any person who is aware of the difficult circumstances of this country should appreciate the efforts that have to be exerted to achieve these objectives.�
- Faisal I, King of Iraq, 1932
�In this regard and with my heart filled with sadness, I have to say that it is my belief that there is no Iraqi people inside Iraq. There are only diverse groups with no national sentiments. They are filled with superstitions and false religious traditions with no common grounds between them. They easily accept rumors and are prone to chaos, prepared always to revolt against any government. It is our responsibility to form out of this mass one people that we would then guide, train and educate. Any person who is aware of the difficult circumstances of this country should appreciate the efforts that have to be exerted to achieve these objectives.�
- Faisal I, King of Iraq, 1932
Rightly or wrongly, Great Powers have always run by the basic principle: "the enemy of our enemy is our friend". The West in general, and the US in particular, ignored the Shah's cruelty because he was a staunch anti-Communist ally sitting on lots of oil. Iran was a key part of the US's strategy against the Soviets from WWII onward, it's geographical position just about as important as it could get.
I'm not defending the backing of the Shah, because clearly doing so lead to the half-crazed theocracy we see now. Such policies have also lead to the Castro regime in Cuba and to the disenchantment of the Latin American states with the US, despite the fact that there was a time during the 19th century when the US was looked upon as the friendly big brother in their struggles against their European overlords.
As for Iran now, I tend to agree with the commentators that are suggesting containment. We're not going to stop them from achieving nuclear weapons. The Russians are bound and determined to make sure no meaningful sanctions are ever placed over Iran, and I can guarantee you that for all the talk from the White House and the new and US-friendly government in France, that no one is going to be bombing Iran. In the first place, it likely wouldn't do any good as the Iranians have dug their facilities pretty deep in the ground (they've been expecting a US invasion since, well, 1979). In the second place, both China and Russia would not appreciate this kind of a war in their back yard, and however we like to pretend different, we need both those countries to remain, if not friendly, then at least communicative and responsible.
It's pretty clear that the Iranian public can't stand Ahmadinejad, that the Parliament can't stand him, and that even the Guardian Council doesn't seem in lockstep with him. He's an irresponsible, inept demagogue who has yet to keep any of the promises to fix the Iranian economy (they actually have to import gasoline, for goodness sake). I say let this guy burn out. It's pretty doubtful he's going to win again, and, as John points out, it's not as if he's some all-powerful head of state. The Guardian Council is where the real power lies, and if your watching Ahmadinejad, you're watching the wrong ball.
My feeling is that Iranian society is turning away from the Islamist Fundementalism that the Ayatollahs represent. It's a slow process, and not an easy one, but as the new generation, which never knew the Shah, and thus has nothing to directly link their anti-Americanism with, begins to rise in influence, I think we'll see a liberalization. It may be more like the Chinese liberalization, and take a couple of generations, but that is surely better than the Russian style of rapid reforms which left the country a corrupt, broken mess and is now leading to the rise of the Putinocracy we see today.
I can understand the sentiments of many who were abusive to Ahmadinejad. He's a bad guy, a rabid anti-Semite. But I'm not sure that allowing him to speak, or at least so publicly abusing him was such a good idea. That's what he wanted. He can't deliver Iranians any solid social, political or economic changes, so he wants to be able to deliver them juiced-up anti-American prejudices. He can go back to Iran, talk about how a bunch of Imperialistic spoiled Columbia students and teachers mocked him, and by extension, Iran.
Make Iran administer the south east (and maybe the part of the Kurds' territory that is more closely related to its own population of Kurds than to the other western region). Make Syria and Saudi Arabia administer the non-Arab Shiites. And the remaining Kurdish territory could be reunited with the Turkish Kurds (which might increase the political influence of Kurds in Turkey).
This is completely naive and mad. What do you think is causing the problems today? The attempt of these same countries to gain influence in Iraq and advocate aggressively their ideologico-religious positions and find new recruits for their causes and especially the attemp by Iran and Syria to make Iraq a failed case so that the US won't repeat the same mistake with them. It will definitely make things worse.
Why would the Kurds want to be part of Turkey? They've fought for years to win their independence, and they're not going to give it up to Turkey--or Iraq, for that matter.
Okay, then, make the Kurdish provinces self-administering and leave a UN force to protect that territory. It's not where the major action is now anyway. The Kurds might prefer to have their people united, or they may not. But note that over half the Kurds are now in Iran or in Turkey anyway.
Turkey is publicly and categorically on record that they would invade and destroy any form of independent Kurdish area within Irak.
'How to fix Iraq, and not invade Iran'
Your ('interesting') title implies that 'fixing' Iraq somehow requires invading Iran. I tried to find some explanation of this implicit theory within first few paragraphs, but have failed.
Later my eye got caught onto '... Iran or Syria or Saudia Arabia ... in each of their third of Iraq..' and I thought to myself: 'I came here to read something rational and scientific, and all I find are these fantasies'.
I think my reading of this blog will stop here.
Thony C. wrote:
They would certainly react strongly to an independent Kurdish state, but if Iraq could be made into some of weak federated group of states, with the Kurdish north an autonomous enclave (like Catalonia) or maybe a bit weaker (like Scotland); responsible by and large for internal affairs, then I don't think Turkey would have that much of a problem (let's be blunt, Turkey has a problem with Kurds in general).
The problem with this scenario is what has happened in Kosovo, that once you create an autonomous enclave, there's a chance (likely quite high in the case of the Kurds) that they'll play the fiction until the i's are dotted and the t's crossed, and then will just declare independence, and that most certainly would lead to an invasion by Turkey.
That was until the late 1840s, at which time the USA decided to invade Mexico with the purpose of not only keeping Texas but also stealing one third of Mexican territory, which included California, Nevada, Arizona and New Mexico. So much for brotherhood...
As for Ahmadinejad, I've seen a better spelling of his name: "´Am-mad-in-´e-head"...
iran is a good down with to usa