.Partition Debate Splits Iraq
Last month, the White House dismissed the idea that Iraq should be divided into three countries as an impractical scenario that most Iraqis don't want.
But the biggest Shiite party of the Iraqi parliament is calling for the creation of autonomous regions in Iraq, sparking a debate in the war-torn country's coalition government. Opponents -- namely Sunni Arab leaders and Shiite leader Moqtada al-Sadr -- say the plan amounts to the de facto partitioning of Iraq.
In an interview with Asharq Al-Awsat, Abdulaziz Al-Hakim lobbied for the establishment of a federal Shiite region consisting of eight districts. "Al-Hakim, who is the chairman of the Iranian-backed Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), said the Shiite south should become one of several regions which would comprise an Iraqi federation."
The Malaysian Sun picked up the New York Times story on the parliamentary dispute, noting that the Shiite plan would give them control over petroleum resources in Sunni areas.
The partition approach essentially calls for dividing Iraq into three separate political entities: The north, dominated by Kurds, the center dominated by Sunni Arabs and the south dominated by Shiite Arabs. Many Iraqis, priding themselves on a long tradition of sectarian tolerance and high rates of intermarriage, reject the idea. Moreover, the country's regions do not neatly divide along ethnic and religious lines. The country's biggest cities -- Baghdad, Kirkuk and Mosul -- have very diverse populations.
Nonetheless, the partition idea has long had advocates in the United States, especially among those sympathetic to the Kurds. Ralph Peters, a retired U.S. Army officer and author, championed the idea soon after the U.S. army ousted Saddam Hussein. "President Bush needs to perform radical surgery on Iraq now, while the world remains in a funk over our success," he wrote.
As the successful U.S. invasion turned into an unsuccessful occupation, former State Department official Peter Galbraith made the case that partition was the only way to extricate U.S. forces from Iraq. Leslie Gelb, chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations, also endorsed the idea, according to Slate's Timothy Noah.
More recently, Simon Jenkins of The Times of London advocated partition as the last best chance for a minimally decent Western withdrawal. In a May 2006 op-ed titled, "The fantasy is over, we must partition Iraq and get out now," he wrote:
"According to the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), the December 2005 elections appeared to heighten sectarian tensions and polarize sectarian divides," the GAO reports in "Stabilizing Iraq: An Assessment of the Security Situation" (PDF).
"According to a U.S. Institute of Peace report, the focus on ethnic and sectarian identity has sharpened as a result of Iraq's political process, while nationalism and a sense of Iraqi identity have weakened," the report states.
The biggest beneficiary of a divided Iraq, notes the Toronto Globe and Mail, would be Iran.
"Shia Iran, already wields significant sway across the huge swath of oil-rich southern Iraq where the long-oppressed Shia majority now hold the political upper hand," Paul Koring wrote last weekend. "But neighbouring Sunni powers, including Saudi Arabia, would find it intolerable if Iran were to emerge as an even more dominant regional power out of the ashes of its long-time rival Iraq."
On Monday, the Iraqi parliament voted to defer the vote on a proposal for a Shiite federal region until Sept. 25.
Kurds Fight Parliament Over Flag
In another sign of the pressures that drive the partition debate, Iraq's Kurdish leader is upholding a ban of the Iraqi flag in the Kurdish-held north. Massoud Barzani sent a letter to the speaker of the Iraqi parliament saying the Kurds would not bow to pressure to stop flying the "Kurdistan flag" instead, according to the Turkish Daily News.
The Al-Mashriq, a Baghdad daily, criticized the Kurdish move.
"The Iraqi government ought to have drawn Barzani's attention to the fact that the suffering of Iraqis is a bigger issue than his complex about the flag, and that anything that divides people should be avoided."
The issue, according to Al-Mashriq, is more about Saddam Hussein than the flag itself.
"Iraqis used to hate anything associated with the regime, even though - to be honest - many good things happened then, such as the nationalisation of oil, free education, the eradication of illiteracy. The arrogance, dictatorship and bad conduct of the former president Saddam Hussein meant these positive aspects were lost."
"Iraqis believe the flag represents their unity. If it is to be changed, parliament should deal with it. The Kurds are represented in the parliament, so they can submit a proposal to change the flag through the legislative channel, rather than by personal decree."
WaPo
It's fucking amazing that even today we can not have a conversation about Iraq, and it's future without adding lies and stupidity about it's past. What the Fuck is this part of the story:
"Iraqis used to hate anything associated with the regime, even though - to be honest - many good things happened then, such as the nationalisation of oil, free education, the eradication of illiteracy. The arrogance, dictatorship and bad conduct of the former president Saddam Hussein meant these positive aspects were lost."
Isn't it plainly obvious to any observer today that these claims were no more than cheap regime propaganda. How do we base a discussion on the future path of Iraq if we can not even agree to the basics of it's resent history?
But the biggest Shiite party of the Iraqi parliament is calling for the creation of autonomous regions in Iraq, sparking a debate in the war-torn country's coalition government. Opponents -- namely Sunni Arab leaders and Shiite leader Moqtada al-Sadr -- say the plan amounts to the de facto partitioning of Iraq.
In an interview with Asharq Al-Awsat, Abdulaziz Al-Hakim lobbied for the establishment of a federal Shiite region consisting of eight districts. "Al-Hakim, who is the chairman of the Iranian-backed Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), said the Shiite south should become one of several regions which would comprise an Iraqi federation."
The Malaysian Sun picked up the New York Times story on the parliamentary dispute, noting that the Shiite plan would give them control over petroleum resources in Sunni areas.
The partition approach essentially calls for dividing Iraq into three separate political entities: The north, dominated by Kurds, the center dominated by Sunni Arabs and the south dominated by Shiite Arabs. Many Iraqis, priding themselves on a long tradition of sectarian tolerance and high rates of intermarriage, reject the idea. Moreover, the country's regions do not neatly divide along ethnic and religious lines. The country's biggest cities -- Baghdad, Kirkuk and Mosul -- have very diverse populations.
Nonetheless, the partition idea has long had advocates in the United States, especially among those sympathetic to the Kurds. Ralph Peters, a retired U.S. Army officer and author, championed the idea soon after the U.S. army ousted Saddam Hussein. "President Bush needs to perform radical surgery on Iraq now, while the world remains in a funk over our success," he wrote.
As the successful U.S. invasion turned into an unsuccessful occupation, former State Department official Peter Galbraith made the case that partition was the only way to extricate U.S. forces from Iraq. Leslie Gelb, chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations, also endorsed the idea, according to Slate's Timothy Noah.
More recently, Simon Jenkins of The Times of London advocated partition as the last best chance for a minimally decent Western withdrawal. In a May 2006 op-ed titled, "The fantasy is over, we must partition Iraq and get out now," he wrote:
In much of Iraq everything points to a looming conflict between Shi'ites and Sunnis. To all who know these people, this is an utter tragedy, brought on by the coalition's continued presence and its failure to establish order. All recent experience of such conflict, whether in Ulster, Palestine, Sudan or Yugoslavia, sees it resolved into population movement and ethnic cleansing. This is now proceeding bloodily in and round Baghdad. It will bring an awful residue of ghost districts, refugee camps, revenge attacks and safe havens.The U.S.-backed electoral process of the past year has contributed to the weakening of Iraqi national identity, according to General Accounting Office report released on Monday.
In Yugoslavia the solution, abetted by western intervention, was partition. In Iraq America began the same process by guaranteeing de facto autonomy to Kurdistan. That logic must now be followed to its conclusion.
"According to the Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), the December 2005 elections appeared to heighten sectarian tensions and polarize sectarian divides," the GAO reports in "Stabilizing Iraq: An Assessment of the Security Situation" (PDF).
"According to a U.S. Institute of Peace report, the focus on ethnic and sectarian identity has sharpened as a result of Iraq's political process, while nationalism and a sense of Iraqi identity have weakened," the report states.
The biggest beneficiary of a divided Iraq, notes the Toronto Globe and Mail, would be Iran.
"Shia Iran, already wields significant sway across the huge swath of oil-rich southern Iraq where the long-oppressed Shia majority now hold the political upper hand," Paul Koring wrote last weekend. "But neighbouring Sunni powers, including Saudi Arabia, would find it intolerable if Iran were to emerge as an even more dominant regional power out of the ashes of its long-time rival Iraq."
On Monday, the Iraqi parliament voted to defer the vote on a proposal for a Shiite federal region until Sept. 25.
Kurds Fight Parliament Over Flag
In another sign of the pressures that drive the partition debate, Iraq's Kurdish leader is upholding a ban of the Iraqi flag in the Kurdish-held north. Massoud Barzani sent a letter to the speaker of the Iraqi parliament saying the Kurds would not bow to pressure to stop flying the "Kurdistan flag" instead, according to the Turkish Daily News.
The Al-Mashriq, a Baghdad daily, criticized the Kurdish move.
"The Iraqi government ought to have drawn Barzani's attention to the fact that the suffering of Iraqis is a bigger issue than his complex about the flag, and that anything that divides people should be avoided."
The issue, according to Al-Mashriq, is more about Saddam Hussein than the flag itself.
"Iraqis used to hate anything associated with the regime, even though - to be honest - many good things happened then, such as the nationalisation of oil, free education, the eradication of illiteracy. The arrogance, dictatorship and bad conduct of the former president Saddam Hussein meant these positive aspects were lost."
"Iraqis believe the flag represents their unity. If it is to be changed, parliament should deal with it. The Kurds are represented in the parliament, so they can submit a proposal to change the flag through the legislative channel, rather than by personal decree."
WaPo
It's fucking amazing that even today we can not have a conversation about Iraq, and it's future without adding lies and stupidity about it's past. What the Fuck is this part of the story:
"Iraqis used to hate anything associated with the regime, even though - to be honest - many good things happened then, such as the nationalisation of oil, free education, the eradication of illiteracy. The arrogance, dictatorship and bad conduct of the former president Saddam Hussein meant these positive aspects were lost."
Isn't it plainly obvious to any observer today that these claims were no more than cheap regime propaganda. How do we base a discussion on the future path of Iraq if we can not even agree to the basics of it's resent history?
posted by madtom at 10:27 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home