A Debate To Divide Iraq On Ethnic Basis
(Click on the map to enlarge.)
My post Iran, Iraq and the USA : A Big Question Mark? has received interesting comments that need to be tackled in a separate post for the simple reason that many people who read the posts do not bother to read the comments.
These comments discuss the possibility of splitting up Iraq on ethnic basis, and so deserve serious notice.
Let me give you a few samples:
First Comment:
“I think the breakup of the country (Iraq) is inevitable at this point. The questions is: how to bring this about without genocide. Kurdistan should be a separate country. Southern Iraq will be separate. And Sunni central and western Iraq should develop an economy unrelated to oil.”
Second Comment:
“I have to say that Biden’s proposal is growing on me. I admit I first had a kneejerk reaction that it was a partition plan, but he has definitely thought it out in ways to avoid an outright partition and proposes a true confederation (not unlike the American confederation that preceded the formation of the US when our constitution was ratified. He claims that this can be done without throwing out the Iraqi constitution, but using it as a basis for a central govt with limited power and function, while the three factions get to control their own regions. And, he also proposes a system which would fairly divide the oil revenues (since contrary to what Elrod suggests, I don’t see any other way for the Sunnis to survive…maybe glass factories using the vast resource of sand that they would control?)”
Third Comment:
“Since even Sunni/Shia marriages are breaking up, and the Kurds are already a separate sect, it just seems the logical way to go. The main problem is getting all the interested parties to accept it-as I thought I heard that a similar plan had been rejected by the Iraqi parliament, but can’t remember what the reasoning was. I think the regional powers that want a stable ME may have to pressure the Sunnis and Shia to accept a federation.
Fourth Comment:
“I’ve read in several sources that thousands of ordinary middle-class Iraqis are leaving the country for Syria, because of fears for their safety. Isn’t it better to split the country if it will stop this exodus? Iraq’s borders are artificial, anyway, having been drawn up by the British in the 1920′s. I just don’t feel that they have the ability to put national pride over sectarian/religious loyalties.”
Fifth Comment:
“I don’t disagree that the exodus is already happening and that we may have no choice but to support federalism as a way to use sectarianism as an advantage instead of an obstacle. I am just saying that I really don’t know where the Iraqi people stand on this (certainly signs that many are giving up on unified Iraq but I don’t know if that is a mandate yet), and I do think that if the critical point of no return hasn’t been reached yet, then we might not want to push it in that direction.”
Now here is my humble opinion after reading these comments.
While in a democracy you are free to discuss anything under the sun, it is quite another thing to take decisions about another country’s future/destiny after occupying it for three years without international mandate.
America’s decision to take over Iraq was almost a unilateral one…As a consequence of that questionable decision a havoc has been created in that country, and now some hurried patch up solutions are being aired loudly.
This attitude is similar to that of a child first breaking the toy and then collecting his close friends to discuss how to repair it. Children are known to get seriously wounded when messing around with broken complicated toys.
Iraq is not a toy to be messed around with.
I am astounded at the suggestions being made to first break Iraq into pieces and then have a superimposed federal structure there.
After having forcibly entered the country (on a fake ground) does not get the ‘outsiders’ an automatic divine right to decide the destiny of Iraq. To some this may appear as the height of arrogance and short-sightedness.
God Save The World!!!
17 Responses to “A Debate To Divide Iraq On Ethnic Basis”
Swaraaj,
I feel I need to point out that even in one of the quotes from my comment, I stated:
Thus explaining that I feel any plan to federalize Iraq would have to be mandated by the Iraqi people.
I agree that American arrogance with regards to Iraq’s future is regrettable. Ultimately, the solutions for peace and stability have to come from with in; a lesson that we all (liberal and conservative) need to remember
That being said, any proposal to “break up Iraq” (whether in the form of independent nation-states, or in the form of a lose confederation) will naturally run against three problems:
1) Borders. As much as we like to think of Iraq as being composed of three distinct regions, in reality the gray areas are pretty significant. This is especially problematic when it comes to the status of Baghdad (which both Shiites and Sunnis will want to claim as their capital) and Kirkuk (an historically important Kurdish city, that is now inhabitated almost entirely by Sunnis). And yeah, you can have jointly ruled territories in the middle, which works great until someone elects a fundamentalist or hyper-nationalist. You know, like the militia groups battling for power in the streets of Baghdad, or the Kurdish sepratists who tend to dominate Northern Iraq.
2) Turkey. Turkey doesn’t want anything resembling an independent Kurdish state. Perhaps we can buy them off; but with what? EU membership? (And will Europe go for it?) And what kinds of guarantees will that Kurdish state give so that they will not intervene in Turkish politics?
3) Sunni Arabs. To be blunt, they don’t want a three-state solution, federal or not. They want a single, unified Iraq. And they seem willing enough to fight for it.
In short, three state solutions just complicate Iraq’s problems. Ultimately, Iraq’s ethnic groups are going to have to make the necessary compromises to get along; and that’s true whether they split up or not. And I’m afraid that if we push them into a three-state solution before those compromises have been made, then we will (once again) only be making a bad situation worse.
The problem with dividing Iraq is that there is a disparity in resources in the different ethnic parts. For example: There is a lot of oil in the southern Shiite area and the Northern Kurdish area. The central, Sunni area is pretty much a barren desert with no oil. Arab countries with no oil have bad economies. Ergo an autonomous centrao Sunni state would have a bad economy. Harsh economic conditions breed desperation. Desperation leads to terrorism. So an economically weak Sunni state would be a breeding ground for terrorism even more so than it already is.
It would be in our best interests to keep Iraq unified.
Georgia Frawg-
Sen. Biden’s plan calls for a loose confederation of three states. The federal government would be responsible for distributing oil revenue from the south to the other two states. The Sunni’s would get 20% which roughly corresponds to their ratio in the general population.
Swaraaj- Not all Americans voted for Bush or agreed with the invasion of Iraq on the flimsy grounds that were used for justification. I honestly think it had more to do with the PNAC than any connection with terrorism. The Projects signers were constantly complaining about Clinton’s policy of containment, and pushing his administration for regime change. With oilmen, Cheney and Bush, they found a more interested audience.
I believe we were looking for a way to establish bases to protect Israel and have a stronger presence in the region for our oil interests. Saddam’s WMD’s and 9/11 were the red herrings cherry picked for the occasion.
The subsequent destruction of Iraq and deaths of many innocent civilians weighs on the concience of many, as do the cost in our own soldiers’ lives and waste of billions of dollars. I don’t think you can blame posters here for seeking a solution. We know our country caused the current problems, and it is painful to watch Iraq deteriorate daily into civil war. What is your opinion of what should be done? There seems to be no perfect alternative.
Kim-
There are a few problems with allocating a set amount of revenues to each group…
Firstly, whenever one artificially redistributes revenues from any industry, that industry will become less efficient and less profitable. However, you let Sunni’s compete with Shi’ites (economically, not violently) for oil revenues, then that will drive innovation and lead to a more profitable Iraqi economy as a whole.
Secondly, if each group has a set allocation of resources, there is no need to compete. This is the same problem that occurred with communism. If you automatically get a set wage, then people have no reason to excel. The same goes with groups. This will ultimately styme production and innovation, thusly rendering the Iraqi economy ineffective.
Thirdly, since this redistribution is based on ethnic proportions, the majority will just have that much more political clout. If they are to have a electoral system that is similar to ours, then money will be able to buy a lot of power in the new Iraqi government. If most of that money is artificially endowed to a certain ethnic majority, not only does it create more incentive to commit fraud, it gives an already extremely powerful political force even more power to potentially opress the Sunni minority and block them from power.
Frankly, the only good way to allocate oil revenues is to allow every Iraqi, as an individual (not the member of a group), to have the ability to compete in a free market situation. In that case, the borders won’t matter as much, and maybe the Iraqi economy would actually take off.
Let the comity of nations decide. If they don’t…then leave Iraq alone…Or, as I have said a number times, have a deal with Saddam Hussain who was forcibly/illegally removed from power.
In recent photographs Saddam Hussein looks fit, fresh and ready to take charge of his country once more!!!
Even as a dictator he had, until his removal, saved his country from the sectarian violence, murder and mayhem. The US intervention has caused a civil war in that country and has no moral authority to stay there for even a day more.
If Saddam Hussain invites the US forces to stay on for a while till he gets the hang of the things, help him out. Better still ask him to seek the help of the United Nations. In this manner the lives of innocent American soldiers would be saved.
Don’t forget that there was a time when the US administration had Saddam Hussain as an ally, knowing well his dictatorial/ruthless approach. So why is the US administration fighting shy of dealing with him?
So there is nothing immoral if the US administration begins a working relationship with Saddam Hussein to save its face, and the lives of the American soldiers.
I keep hearing crap like that and I cant help but wonder WTF! How does that make any sense? What are our “oil interests”? What will being close do for us? Why would we need to be? Saudi isn’t close enough? What would we need to “protect Israel” from? They really don’t have much to worry about any conventional enemy and having us close surely would deter terror attack, so again what would be the point?
Today’s Voice of America report strengthens what I am saying:
And the CBS News: “The U.S. military on Thursday said sectarian killings had spiked in areas of Baghdad not included in a security sweep, with police reporting more than a dozen killings in the capital — including four American soldiers — and 20 new bodies dumped on the streets.”
What are you saying? That you’re unhappy right? If you were trying to make a particular point you really haven’t nailed it down so you may want to be more specific.
GeorgiaFrawg,
I agree with some of your concerns about govt control over the oil industry; however, I think there are some unique factors that need to be considered.
First, massive foreign investment is needed to get the Iraqi oil industry functioning at full capacity. It does no good to have the factions competing for this because there is no way that they will get that foreign investment unless there is stability. I just don’t think it’s realistic to think that they are going to lay down there arms and enter into a non-violent competition for resources.
Second, the Iraqi economy is almost completely built on oil. That may not be a good thing, but it is the reality, and in order to allow each faction to compete economically, each of the groups has to share the oil revenues according to some formula, IMO. Otherwise, if left to the resources that they each have geographically, the distribution to Sunnis is so inequitable that they couldn’t possibly survive long enough to build an economy based on anything else.
Third, I don’t think anyone is suggesting a govt run oil corporation. Its simply a matter of securing investment from Iraqi and foreign oil companies, who would pay the govt the leases to get the oil out of the ground. But the suggestion here is that the revenues go to a central govt, to be distributed according to some formula (which would have to be mutually agreed upon by Iraqi groups), rather than have the oil rights go to whichever group controlled the particular land over the oil reserves.
Eric- I probably shouldn’t have posted that, since it is largely my opinion from everything I have read. It is a fact, however, that the US is building four large bases in Iraq and a 600 million dollar embassy. Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Bill Kristol and others formed the Project for the New American Century in the ’90s to urge a larger US military build-up and presence around the world. They basically promoted a global leadership role and wanted the military presence to protect American interests abroad. The group wanted confrontation with unfriendly regimes and urged regime change in Iraq in the mid-90′s. They were highly critical of Clinton’s containment policy of Saddam Hussein.
When Cheney and Bush took office, many of PNAC’s founders went to work in the new administration.
They urged regime change in Iraq and Iran-wanted to remake unfriendly regimes into democratic allies.
The other part of what I wrote is a stretch—but there is a document from Cheney’s 2002 meeting with oil execs mapping their interests in Iraqi oilfields over at Judicialwatch.com.
The problem with separating out the oil revenues is that the actual oil property will be in the hands of one of the three groups. It will be an awful temptation not to seize it for all of the revenues. This country was designed by the British not to be governable and we should face up to the fact that this artificial country is coming apart. That is not to say there is no chance that a federation of some type could not exist but the level of violence and mutual distrust make that possibility fainter with every days body count and bombing.
I quote from my comments elsewhere in one of the posts in the TMV:
No single nation should consider itself as a Messiah to solve any other nation’s problems.
It is like a good intentioned fellow wanting to settle the problems of a perpetually squabbling husband and wife a couple of thousand miles away by forcing himself to live in that couple’s house.
The chap who does this must be a certified innocent/naive character or worse.For heaven’s sake who asked the USA to enter Iraq in the first place?
What should be done if a marriage does not work at all? Either the problem is solved through mututal agreement, diplomatic intervention or arbitration. The court in this case is the United Nations where all countries are represented. And it is only the UN, or a consensus among all countries, that can decide in its wisdom what should be done.
Every nation knows has native wisdom to resolve its most intractable problems. Forced American therapy is unlikely to work everywhere. Iraq had been a great civilisation once (when the most of the West was considered wild and barbaric).
And this is not the first time, or the last, that Iraq is going to face a crisis. Left to itself, the country would sort out its problems. As it is the bloodbath is going on every single day there.
So please don’t impress me with the argument about the ‘humanitarian’ reason why the USA is in Iraq and the former’s ‘ardent’ desire to prevent a bloodbath resulting from a civil war!!! We are witnessing a type of civil war in Iraq, notwithstanding the presence of US, and other, troops for more that three years there.”
My answers to these questions were: “Thanks Allen McPheeters for considering me of some worth to answer the tough questions you have posed. In all humility may I state in the beginning that I am no expert. But let me try:
Answer No. One: As I said in my earlier comment
The court in this case is the United Nations where all countries are represented. And it is only the UN, or a consensus among all countries, that can decide in its wisdom what should be done.
That means hand over the charge to the United Nations. Once that happens the US troops stationed in Iraq can be withdrawn in a period of, say, six months. Gradually replaced by the UN peace forces.
Answer No. Two: Iraq too wants peace and ordinary people wish to see the return of normal routine life. Invite all shades of Iraqis on the table – including Saddam Hussain – and you would be surprised by the response. All of them are dog tired and would see the light at the end of the tunnel and behave themselves. The raison d’etre of current insurgency would vanish. Well, inspite of all this if they wish to kill each other, let them go ahead. No power on earth can stop them.
Answer No. Three: The USA as a sole super power stands to gain a great deal if the US administraion with due humility apologises for the aggression. A powerful nation is respcted not by flexing its muscles all the time, but by its humane and generous behaviour. One can commit mistake, but it is important to apologise to gain in stature.
As it is, says The Christian Science Monitor, “almost two-thirds of Americans in each of three major polls say that they oppose the war, the highest totals since pollsters starting asking Americans the question three years ago.”
And the greatest gain for America would be that its rulers can prove that they are truly democratic leaders and honour the verdict of their own people, and are not tinpot dictators.”
I am repeating my answers for the simple reason that the questions above keep popping up again and again trying to prove that America is in Iraq for three years to “save that country”, whereas it has landed Iraq in a total mess, resulting massacre of innocent people and mayhem.
There is a big problem to the partioning of Iraq. Iraq is now a “soverieign” nation and it is up to Iraq what they do with their country. The Iraqis could tell the US to leave immediately and we would have to leave. Biden and the US can only suggest the partioning. What happened to Iraqis elections?
The British in their colonial hey days had relied on their tried and tested policy of ‘Divide and Rule’.
Now let us see what the U.S. amdinistration does with this policy of the old empire where once upon a time the sun never used to set.
But imitation does not always work as we all know from the counterfeit products from China and other countries that are flooding the world market.
Rudi,
Go to Sen. Biden’s website and read his speeches about his proposal. LINK and LINK. He adamantly denies that it is a partition plan (it is instead a suggestion for a central govt to handle limited issues, overseeing a federation that would handle all local interests…much like the US colonies did from the end of the Revolution until the ratification of our Constitution…it took a number of years until we were ready to forge a unified govt too.)
And, Biden also is not advocating that we impose this on the Iraqis, but rather that we suggest it as a diplomatic solution. He then gives the reasons that he thinks it might be acceptable to each of the factions.
I am not saying that I back the proposal 100%, but I definitely think it is worth considering and that it is imperative to read his actual plan before making a judgement. My opinion completely changed when I read it, vs. what I initially thought he was proposing. And that is coming from a Republican, so not inclined to be easily swayed by a Democrat’s proposal.
I still think there are some problems with it: borders, borders, borders, as well as details of how the oil revenue sharing would play out. But it seems to be the most well-thought out strategy that I’ve seen for the political part of the equation.