“Is” does not mean “might someday be”. As you yourself posted they ARE NOT a state, which is what this thread is about.
Sore loser.
Good question, why aren’t they in jail for supporting terrorism ? Why is Gaddafi fingered for flogging guns to the IRA but not these guys ? Why are they allowed to be in government, and would they sponsor further Irish Republican trouble if the UK did something like, I don’t know, reject American military bases ?
The thread has substantially been about how it’s not a simple, easy question.
(Some elisions mine. The conclusions that follow these lines don’t necessarily agree with me, or each other.)
We mostly agree that there is no hard formula that confirms a bright-line arrival into the community of states. We mostly acknowledge that recognition by (some) other states is part of the continuum, and that there are physical factors which precede and/or go along with this.
A sticking point is that some still see a bright line going the other way, confirming non-statehood.
But this is not really reconcilable with the ambiguity we recognized above. If we say there’s no bright line in the progress to becoming a state, there can’t be a definitive statement about being close but not quite there, either.
There are things we all recognize as states. There are things we all recognize as not-states. But in the fuzzy, non-binary territory between, as has been said, it’s a debatable definitional exercise, a judgement call. If there is no magic number of other-states recognitions that proves arrival, then there can’t be anything magical about the first one. The would-be state has to have started a process before that, that won’t end for some time after.
In short, it can’t be all about recognition. There has to be something to recognize. There has to be reality under the constructs and behind the labels.
“it’s a debatable definitional exercise, a judgement call”
It’s also a propaganda call. You can send someone to Coventry by refusing to use their name and referring to them as it. Doesn’t mean the person has actually disappeared or functions any differently, aside from not getting any respect from the whoever. In fact isn’t the state recognition bit all about creating a ‘legal person’ on an international level ?
So with that in mind, what I’m saying here is really: the state-like nature of IS is more important than exactly how close you (anyone) thinks they are to a particular definitional threshold. They are on the path. Contra Obama, they are not “a terrorist organization, pure and simple.”
A simplistic view of an enemy makes it harder to defeat them.
There is no problem reconciling those two positions. You might say that a person does not become a felon until he commits a felony, or until he is convicted of a felony. There is ambiguity in the determination of when one becomes a felon. But we can say with absolute conviction that someone who has never committed a felony is not a felon.
Similarly, we might argue about whether an entity which is recognized by one or two or five foreign governments is a state, but we know for damn sure that one which is not recognized by any government is not one. In other words, ISIS isn’t even close.
…
OK so I’m not allowed to reference the Independent because it’s not big enough (!), and Patrick Cockburn is (according personal opinion) too crap a journalist to accept in debate.
Do we have a list of permitted news organisations and journalists to which i may refer ?
Let me know and I’ll just read those, and I’ll then have only thoughts that you like to offer you, and you won’t be so sore.
Have some more from a tiny source
“The foster parents of Isis and the other Sunni jihadi movements in Iraq and Syria are Saudi Arabia, the Gulf monarchies and Turkey. This doesn’t mean the jihadis didn’t have strong indigenous roots, but their rise was crucially supported by outside Sunni powers. The Saudi and Qatari aid was primarily financial, usually through private donations, which Richard Dearlove, the former head of MI6, says were central to the Isis takeover of Sunni provinces in northern Iraq: ‘Such things do not happen spontaneously.’ In a speech in London in July, he said the Saudi policy towards jihadis has two contradictory motives: fear of jihadis operating within Saudi Arabia, and a desire to use them against Shia powers abroad. He said the Saudis are ‘deeply attracted towards any militancy which can effectively challenge Shiadom’. It’s unlikely the Sunni community as a whole in Iraq would have lined up behind Isis without the support Saudi Arabia gave directly or indirectly to many Sunni movements. The same is true of Syria, where Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the former Saudi ambassador to Washington and head of Saudi intelligence from 2012 to February 2014, was doing everything he could to back the jihadi opposition until his dismissal. Fearful of what they’ve helped create, the Saudis are now veering in the other direction, arresting jihadi volunteers rather than turning a blind eye as they go to Syria and Iraq, but it may be too late.”
… that’s Patrick Cockburn. Again. Why don’t you try citing someone other than a journalist? A UN body, another NGO, a government source…
Yeah it’s Patrick Cockburn again, he’s a really good journalist. You’ll have to give me a list of permissible information sources beforehand to make things easier.
Maybe a list of UN bodies, NGOs, government sources that you like?
You didn’t see the name Richard Dearlove anywhere did you ?
Sorry to be sarky if you’re just trying to help.
Well, all this kind of misses the point anyway. Whether or not the Saudi government is secretly aiding ISIS really has no bearing on whether ISIS is a state.
Fair enough.
Isn’t journalistic recognition a little like state recognition - you can function perfectly well but if someone doesn’t like what you say you can lose official recognition ? Fortunately Cockburn has plenty of recognition. If he were a state he’d be something like Russia, or France, or the USA, with splendid embassies and a seat on supranational committees.
Excuse me?
Do you know the difference between necessary and sufficient conditions? And the fallacy involving pennies in a jar? Because I think both of those tools and concepts will help clarify things for you.
There are a whole bunch of attributes of states, but having a lot of them doesn’t mean something is a state. The key component in the statehood question really is recognition. No matter how much area you control, if you aren’t recognized, you aren’t a state. That’s the first matter.
So, how much recognition do you need to be a state? There isn’t a bright line answer to this, but it is sort of common sense. Take a large jar that is full of pennies. We agree that it is full. I take one penny out. Is it still full? I think both of us would say yes. Take another out, and another, and another… at some point we have to agree that the jar goes from full to not-full. But that judgment does not correlate to how many pennies were removed – one cannot say that THIRTEEN is the number of pennies that may be removed from a full jar for it to remain full; for FOURTEEN pennies removed makes it not full! It doesn’t work like that.
To use another analogy, from that great show, “Yes, Minister.” Let’s say one Russian soldier jumped the wall between East and West Berlin. Is this an invasion that calls for total thermonuclear war? No. Well, what about one tank? No. What about a tank and five soldiers? Or a tank, an APC, and a platoon a soldiers? What if the APC is removed and a jet fighter is substituted? It’s absurd to come up with a strict definition of what constitutes a Soviet invasion that calls for total war, but once it starts happening, beyond a certain point it is pretty obvious. Recognition of a state is the same thing, really: it takes more than one and fewer than 200 countries to recognize a state to make it a state. If you are at zero, you are clearly not a state, and calling you “state-like” just confirms that you aren’t a state.
But at the same time, most governments will require basic things to exist before they consider recognition, like borders. ISIL holds ground, but it doesn’t have borders, no more than my personal space constitutes a border.
You accused me of being ignorant of the Middle East because I was unfamiliar with one journalist who works for one newspaper. I can probably name some truly great reporters you haven’t heard of, but that doesn’t make you unqualified to speak on the topics that they cover. Trying to be helpful here, if your argument rests entirely on what one journalist is saying, whether I think he’s awful or he’s the bee’s knees, you probably have a very weak argument.
Why do you suppose he was fired, and do you have any thought on what his cashiering means for the allegation that the Government of Saudi Arabia has a policy to support ISIL?
I don’t think Saudi Arabia is actively backing ISIL, although I would not find it surprising if some of the princes were channeling funds to them. For Saudi Arabia the paramount threat is Iran and its Shi’ite allies and the principle that the enemy of my enemy is my friend would not be lost on the Saudis, although clearly they must tread gingerly where ISIL is concerned because of their ties to the West.
I’m going to use my mum’s phrase here.
I’m not talking to you while you’re using that tone.
Just about all sources I’ve read on this say the Saudi gov initially backed all kinds of Wahhabi terror groups as part of a general cultural engineering strategy, including ISIS, but now they’re thinking maybe it’s gone too far. At least that’s what they say, but if they have rolled back support due to self interest they still can’t stop rich donors. And governments are seldom totally united, the left hand often doesn’t know (or want to know) what the right hand is doing - we see that in our own governments all the time. Plus they’re not the only country supporting Islamic war.
So I suppose initial intent was to create a buffer and counterbalance to Iran, but al-Baghdadi has declared global ambitions and that would include subsuming the Gulf states into the Caliphate too (correct me if I’m wrong), which obviously the frequently mentioned mysterious rich donors must want.
Or is that all wrong ?
So do you think there is any real strategy of winning, or are TPTB content to just let the war ruin the area as a second best to actually gaining control of Syria ? In that case it wouldn’t matter if ISIS were recognised by others as a state or not, they would still fulfill a function causing chaos and toppling Assad. The oil would still keep coming so we would be OK. I’d prefer that we were serious about getting rid of ISIS rather than just bombing them but you would be looking at serious escalation and unknown consequences.
Wonder what it’ll be like in the future when all the oil is gone ?
It’s funny how you are such a fan of a hyper-opinionated journalist, but not such a fan of someone who disagrees with you and wants to debate.