It is not simply a matter of cartographical convenience. It’s a matter of bloodshed.
Open up the borders question and you will have a regional war. No doubt about that. Turkey, Iran, Syria, Kuwait, Saudiyah, Jordan, all the borders are questionable.
Falls under the more harm than good can be anticipated category.
Gee, I’m sure glad Collounsbury has sworn off the ad hominem attacks in his GD posts. :rolleyes:
It’s really a shame that someone with so much valuable insight in this area can’t resist belittling anyone who disagrees with him.
Collounsbury is being an ass, there is no doubt about it. He seems to have some knowledge but to resent those who have less expressing themselves. Doesn’t seem to understand the function of discussion at all.
And I may be a tad cynical here, but I suspect that the manifold complexities and dangers of Iraq would be rendered a lot less manifold if we get the economy functioning on behalf of everybody, not just the rich and the well-connected as seems to be the case in a lot of Islamic states (and to be fair, non-Islamic states). That will require undoing a lot of hierarchical thinking, however.
Here’s a tasty little note to add to the discussion. Ass Collounsbury had mentioned that the U.S. had a history of interventions in South and Central American countries. Many of those interventions not coincidentally furthered the fortunes of the United Fruit Company. On its board of directors was one Prescott Bush who also served in various government positions, including Cabinet posts where he made recommendations about those interventions. A forebear of Dubya’s. So Dubya isn’t doing something entirely new. He’s just doing it in a new place.
Collounsbury:
“Perhaps rather than simply throwing out the observation, let’s look at this a trifle analytically”
I read your post twice and didn’t see one example of a UN success in nation building. I’m as aware as you are that Japan and Germany are different from Iraq.
As I said earlier, I’m not giving ANYONE good odds at success in putting together a new Iraq. But I’d rather bet on someone who at least has SOME success. Show me the successes that the UN has had and convince me that I’m wrong.
Considering all the moronic nonsense about the Middle East that Collunsbury undoubtedly reads from self-proclaimed “experts” in this thread and elsewhere (“Islam is fascism”, “if they hate us, it must be because they’re ignorant,” etc.), I don’t blame him for having little patience with fools.
I read collounsbury’s interesting posts above but I’m still torn on the question of whether an islamic state = a fascist state.
If we take the definition of fascism to be a one party state led by a dictator then this would appear to fit the examples of Iran under the Ayatollah and Afghanistan under Mullah Omar.
However, I’ve never understood why an islamic state has to be a one-party state. Why can’t there be three islamic parties who all contest a free and fair election? Mullah Omar may be well thought of in some islamic circles but he’s just a man, not a prophet. Being a man means he’s susceptible to human failings such as pride, vanity, egotism etc and so could turn into a bad leader.
So, even if you happen to be a radical muslim, wouldn’t you still rather have a democracy than a one party state? Democracy has built in safeguards against any one man abusing his position of power - the fact that he can be voted out after 5 years.
I don’t understand why the above argument wouldn’t be acceptable to muslims. If the above argument is acceptable to muslims then why can’t they take it one step further and allow non-islamic parties as well? In a country such as Iraq or Lebanon where there are Christians, why shouldn’t the Christians be allowed representation in Parliament?
The question of whether islam itself is vaguely fascistic in nature is also interesting. I think it probably isn’t in the final analysis (or at least it doesn’t have to be and in practice, doesn’t tend to be in that most muslims are only muslims in the same way most Christians are “Christians” ie nominally, a handy tag to identify yourself with) but I can understand why people would think it is.
Putting aside your definition of fascism, which I disagree with, why do you think that a multi-party state, or allowing non-Islamic parties, would be unacceptable to those people arguing for an Islamic state?
Aren’t there seats reserved in the parliament for religious minorities (in particular for christians) in the Islamic Republic of Iran?
Yes, there are, but I’m not sure if religious minorities are allowed to hold seats beyond that which is reserved to them.
What would your definition be then?
Was this not the case in Afghanistan and Iran?
possibly, but was this the case under the ayatollah?
So people who don’t want to be one country should be forced to stay together? By whom, us? The UN? On what grounds do we have the right to decide the issue for them? If a part of Iraq wishes to be it’s own nation, what is our moral justification for stopping them? And what is our rational justification for involving ourselves in yet another bloody civil war? Haven’t we had enough of these yet? Korea? Vietnam? Yugoslavia? How many more?
Simply put, if northern Iraq would prefer to be part of Turkey, or become it’s own nation, on what grounds do we claim the authority to prevent them from doing so? Is Wilsonian self-determination dead? Are all borders to be fixed in perpetuity? How unjust.
Turn it around: if Turkey and Iran both decide to “incorporate” sections of Iraq, do we simply allow them to make the arrangements? If the Kurds decide to organize Kurdistan from Turkey, Iraq, and Iran, removing large portions of oil-producing lands upon which all three countries depend for revenue, do we allow them to do so? The boundaries of the desired Kurdistan (as proposed by some groups) include lands where there are large minorities of non-Kurdish peoples who currently think of themselves as Turks, Iraqis, or Iranians. Who gets to decide “for” those people to which nation they belong? (And if you’re going to argue self-determination for the Kurds. do we let the Armenians stake their claims on the Kurdish lands that the Kurds took over when the Ottoman Empire was using the Kurds to suppress the Armenians?)
Extend those issues to every nation currently established in the region. Are we to simply turn them loose to “reset” their boundaries, arranging to sell each of them whatever weapons they can afford? If it were simply a matter of finding a good civil engineering outfit to redraw the lines, I’m sure the UN could come up with the money for a couple of new seats. The reality, however, is that at the current time, any “adjustments” to boundaries would be challenged by force. Sometimes it would be prompted by greed (or a fear of poverty) when the region under question was rich in resources. Sometimes it would be a matter of national pride. Sometimes it would be driven by competing interests of the diverse people in the region. The result, however, would most likely be warfare regardless the region.
This is a great thing as far as I’m concerned. It shows that eventually, even in the most zealous of ideologically driven countries - eventually the angst tends to subside and common sense begins to rise to the surface. Certainly, it’s my opinion that the USA could make some very strong overtures towards Iran on this very point. It would would be a sorely needed display of magnanimity I feel - and it could result in Iran being quite supportive of the USA if the diplomacy was tactfully handled. My suggestion would be for Colin Powell and Dick Rumsfeld, together at the same time, to visit Tehran a.s.a.p. - then, if things were to pan out well, President Bush shoud visit Tehran within 3 months of said visit. The USA and Britain need support in the region - grass roots support amongst the Imams - and some magnanimity and graciousness by the US Administration towards Tehran right now would be priceless I rather think.
Interesting observation. I often see the word “liberalisation” used in these conversations. Sometimes, I prefer to use the slightly longer description “freedom to live our lives the way that we would please” - which obviously doesn’t get used as much because it’s longer to say. However, if you consider the impact of my longer definition - such freedom also brings with it a cost too. And that cost is the infrastructure which needs to be put into place to provide all the necessary checks and balances to ensure that a population doesn’t run amok. Freedom to live as one pleases ALSO entails the risk of insidiuos black market activitity, and mafia activity, and local crime etc. In the Western World, we’ve somehow managed to live with our endemic levels of local crime and mafia activity by offsetting the anguish against the joy of our personal freedoms. The infrastructure you need is an extensive police force - a force which is NOT a tool of a government to stay in power - rather a force which is meant to do what a police force is TRULY meant to do - namely, to protect and to serve - and to uphold the rule of law.
Well, I’ve observed elsewhere, haven’t I Coll that a true freedom of the press is in short supply in parts of the MENA region. Indeed, of my 5 Golden Ideals of Stable Society, “A Commitement to Freedom of the Press” is a vital component because it provides a source of checks and balances - it allows corruption (both intra and extra goverment) to be uncovered and such a thing, in turn, allows the healthy ability for another of my Golden Ideals to prosper… “A commitment to eradicating corruption and black market activity…”
Indeed, I recently watched an interview with an Iranian Supreme Court Judge - a wonderfully urbane and articulate man - who opined "Why do the Americans insist on this ‘Axis of Evil’ rubbish? Do they not realise that Iran was pivotal in organising the Northern Alliance and aiding the overthrow of the Taliban? Do the Americans not realise that if they just stopped their bluster for a moment, that Iran and America have many, MANY common interests in the region?
Heh Heh Heh. I reckon Saudi Arabia should invest all of their Oil Money into turning the country into one GIANT rain forest. They’ve got the money to pay for it… get the Nike advertising execs in… JUST DO IT!
Now this, for me Coll is the most important paragraph I’ve seen you write in the last 4 weeks ever since your other monster thread first started. I know, I know… I’ve gone off on tangents trying to impose my theories on human nature into that thread - and a lot of the reason for that was that all of us, collectively, were sometimes unable to see the forest for the trees. But here, in the paragraph above, you’ve finally identified to very nexus of the reason for Islamic Statehood aspirations - namely, the locals are just plain sick and tired of their leaders fucking vanity and corruption. As I mentioned earlier, stamping out corruption is one of my 5 Golden Ideals for Stable Society - and it presupposes a common trait in human nature - that is, if we can get away with something without getting caught, some of us at the very least will try and get away with that something. Of course, to stamp out corruption, you need a lot of infrastructure and a fair and equitable rule of law, and a police force and various other Civil Administrations to uphold that rule of law. It’s quite a big task to stamp out corruption because it’s only natural that the lucky bastards who in the “winning positions” aren’t going to willingly give up those positions - not the least of reasons being that they know they’ll most likely go to jail - (or worse!) Hence, I can finally see now why an Islamic State of some sort is so instantly desirable to the inhabitants of the MENA region - it will at least be a way of somehow keeping the bastards honest.
As for the other aspects such as festering social issues, social dislocation caused by rapid population growth, stagnate buying power and equally rapid urbanization - I remain unconvinced that an ideological stance would, in and of itself, be inherently more capable of implementing a given solution than say, a civil administration in a Western society would be able to - after all - such matters are most often practical matters which require civil engineering projects such as sewerage plants, and road networks, and great town planning etc. Still, it has to be said, the MENA region really deserves a massive kick in the arse for their inaction on these issues. It’s just plain an obscenity in this modern day and age that people should be subjected to living in squalid conditions with no sewerage as an example… it reflects incredibly poorly on the nations which are guilty of such things. Everyone should be able to poop with the clear conscience that it won’t arrive in somebody elses drinking water later that day…
Well, it seems to me that the single smartest move the US forces in Iraq could make right now would be to enter into full on, no holds barred, respectful dialogue with the Imams of the country. In the abscence of any other form of civil structure, the Imams seem to be the only people at the moment who can wield any sort of positive influence over Iraq’s 26 million souls. The population of Iraq, with good reason, is entirely cynical and skeptical towards anyone bearing gifts these days, and who can fucking blame them? My advice to Jay Garner? Work WITH the Imams, not against them… and do it NOW!
Yes, that was enshrined in the 1979 Constituition. However that is only 5 out of 270 seats ( now 290 ). On the other hand, since total non-Muslim population in Iran is only estimated at 1-2%, that’s not all that out of whack.
Afghanistan, pretty much. Iran, no.
The history of political parties in Iran post-revolution is pretty complex. The Constituition ( which can be found here: http://www.oefre.unibe.ch/law/icl/ir00t___.html ) guaranteed freedom of association in this regard ( with some important and easily twisted caveats about not undermining the revolution ) and a plethora of parties participated in the first election. Subsequently there was a repressive crackdown and most secular parties shut down and only a couple of religious opposition parties were left standing. The situation has fluctuated since then, but since 1997 several new parties have been authorized and there are certainly a number of political groups operating legally in Iran now. In the 2000 election there were 18 reformist parties active - There was a subsequent crackdown on at least a couple of those and the political battle for liberalization goes on, obviously not yet won. However Iran is still quite a bit more democratic than many of their neighbors.
As of 2000 ( next Maljis election is in 2004 ), the main Iranian legislative body consisted of:
Reformers ( various ) - 222 seats
Conservatives ( various ) - 55 seats
Independants ( various ) - 13 seats
Tam:
I’m sure you know a lot more about this than I do, but just talking about the political breakdown of the Majlis is kind of misleading. Isn’t the governmental structure of Iran set up such that there is this verneer of democracy, but the religious leaders retain the real power? How much can even a reform minded Majlis do as long as the religious leaders maintain ultimate power? Granted, having any political parties at all is better than a one party state. But for true reform to take hold, won’t there need to be some sort of revolution to bypass the control of the religious leaders?
Absolutely. Which is why Coll described it as such a queer creature. Iran is still a theocracy. The supreme executive and judicial branches are theocratic and they dominate the political system.
What is encouraging is that at the junior executive and legislative levels, you have a fairly vigorous democracy. This is less important at this moment in terms of actual control ( which is limited, though not wholely nonexistant ), but rather in its expression of experience as a democratic society with democratic instituitions. When ( or if ) things change in Iran, they bode well for a transition to a truly functional democracy. In comparison to Iraq, Iran has a much better cultural framework to work within to accomplish such a shift.
Little, though a little more than nothing.
I honestly don’t know. I’d guess at “not necessarily”, but it is awful hard for me to predict. Internal power struggles among even the conservatives happen all the time and some conservatives are less conservative than others. I could forsee the possibility of a Gorbachev-like figure taking control after Khamenei is gone ( its remotely possible given some subsequent statements, that Khomeini’s originally designated successor, who was ousted as political heir at the last second, might have been closer to that model ).
But I’ll readily admit I could be wrong. There are too many variables I’m only weakly informed on.
Heh Heh… a revolution to outmode the revolution…
You say you wanna revolution? Well you know… we all wanna change the world…
Bloody John Lennon - his satire on the revolution movements in the late 60’s keep ringing true don’t they?
I wonder if “Revolution” by The Beatles has ever been heard by the Imams of Iran?
There are non-Kurd minorities on those lands, and I agree that self-determination has to have some limit in how small a region can self-determine. I suppose the limit is somewhere between the size of the nation of San Marino (for certainly we allow them their right to remain independant of and we’d object to their being conquered) and the size of a city block. But surely regions the size of those the Kurds inhabit should be given the freedom to form their own government, the freedom to shape their nation according to their interests. Are they to be forever condemned to the slavery of being a minority voting block in a huge nation, or do we allow them the right to govern themselves according to their own wishes?
I know it’s problematic, but I think people are being overly dismissive of the idea that some presently existing nation-states are illegitimate and artificial and ought to be split up. Some nations simply are not meant to be. Yugoslavia is one of those, and all the efforts to force them to stay together against their will have been bloody and disastrous. There is no historical unity within those boundaries, and that “nation” encompassess people who think of themselves as separate people along boundaries that do have traditional patterns. They have nothing to gain from staying together, except that the poor regions can continue to leech off of their wealthier neighbors under the auspices of a central government.
Yes, Kurdistan may require certain lands to secede from other nations, but if the people in those regions desire it, who are we to deny it? If Turkey, Iraq and Iran complain that they need those oil revenues to function, than that is clear evidence that the people of the Kurdish regions are being exploited. It would indicate that more wealth is being extracted from those areas, and stolen through taxation, then is being returned to them. Otherwise, the loss of that territory would be a break-even proposition, because the nations would no longer have to provide services there. So the Kurds are having their region exploited to support the rest of some artificially-drawn nation, and that’s supposed to justify their continued exploitation?
Rex:
I wouldn’t at all be surprised if we end up with 3 (or more) states whether we want it or not. You may be onto something by suggesting we not fight it. It’s definitely out-of-the-box thinking, but this box is a lot different from any box we’ve seen before.
Realistically, though, it’ll never happen by choice in the current political climate. For all the reasons others have listed above.
There are some good points in that last post RexDart, I must say.
Without doubt, with the benefit of hindsight, Vietnam was a classic example of a dreadfully ugly war being fought to no good end at a political level. The people of North Vietnam, and a goodly number of South Vietnamese too, merely wished to be free of colonial influence and to be a country unto themselves. The efforts by the USA to prop up South Vietnam resulted in countless tragic waste of life and much bloodiness.
The lessons of history I think are this - if a given region is identifiable by a language border - by and large that should be the border of the region if it wishes to be a nation state. Obviously, San Marino and Monaco are exceptions to this concept in so far as they speak the same languages of their surrounding neighbours - but in the case of Yugoslavia as an example - the language and cultural borders clearly identified the physical borders of those countries too.
However, it was also pretty darn clear that Serbia had embarked for a long period on forced ethnic removal by establishing theft by possession being 9/10 ths of the law - and just like the Israeli settlements in the West Bank - geez it can be an intractable problem. And the same thing, it seems, has happened in Kirkuk. It’s a Kurdish hometown but the Arabs started moving in under the rule of the gun circa 1975 onwards and so now, you’ve got an entire generation of disputed land claim by the former residents versus the current residents.
One solution, without doubt, is a fair and public referendum on independance. Such a referendum requires all people to vote compulsorily and the UN should help hold such a referendum. The ballot can ask multiple questions of course - instead of just one question on whether the Kurds say, or anyone else, should aspire to nation state hood.
But it has to be said… I sometimes resent the position of the Turks… they wish to have their cake and eat it too it appears. They wish to be a NATO country and a member of the EU etc etc, and yet, economic mid range performer that she is - somehow she can always find the money to fund an army to not only suppress her own Kurdish minority - but also to threaten an invasion into Iraq as well.
My attitude is this - if the Kurdish minorities happen to straddle 3 countries - and IF a referendum was somehow held so that said minority could decide if they ALL wanted to become their own nation state - there’s no harm in letting that happen. To wilfully fight against it bucks the lessons of history and merely invites bloodshed.
But it’s important to note… a fair and impartial referendum needs to take place - the will of the people - all of the people - needs to be heard.
Sadly, the ego of “past glories” affects a shitload of people in the region - you only have to look at Turkish Cyprus to get a glimpse of how inflexible Turkey will prove to be on this matter. Which is why I reiterate - pressure has to be brought to bear on Turkey to allow a referendum to take place. It would be very hard for Turkey to maintain her current policy towards the Kurds if an inarguable public vote was made manifest I rather think.