As Iraqis haggle over their may-be constitution, John Yoo asks the LA Times’ readers just what exactly is the point of a united Iraq? The country, as we know it nowadays, was first established in 1932 from three regions of the Ottoman Empire - Mosul, Baghdad and Basra - by the British. Yoo seems to advocate splitting the nation into three autonomous regions - the Kurds in the North, the Sunnis in the centre and the Shia down South – because a nation is of no use, to Yoo, unless it can provide “public goods such as defence, law and order”.
There are at least two things wrong with this idea, maybe more.
One, a united Iraq provides many public goods that a divided Iraq just would not. For example, Iraq is known to be a very oil rich country, oil kept Iraq going back in the day and will surely be depended on to. However, it’s not as if the entire nation floats above one giant oil-field. In fact, this is the supposedly the main reason Shias express any wish to divide – oil, not distaste towards the mere idea of an Iraqi state. .No, Iraq’s oil lies mainly in the North and the South. So, should Yoo get his way, should Iraq be divided into supposedly ethnically pure states, the Shia would have lots of oil, the Kurds would have lots of oil and the Sunnis, plainly, wouldn’t. Does this sound like a good idea to you? Does it?
Furthermore, conveniently overlooked is the fact that Iraq wouldn’t divide up as neatly as Yoo seems to suggest. Instead, as is often the case, the large cities - Mosul, Kirkuk and Baghdad – are multi-ethnic little organisms in themselves. Would it really be viable to kick some people out of their homes or even to have them governed by a administration completely unrepresentive of their beliefs? Most people like their homes and being represented, so efforts towards partition, especially in such an unstable country, would almost certainly bring about more violence and bloodshed.
Partition would also likely lead to very close ties between the would-be Shia south and Iran – and I don’t mean the “very close ties” often found between a man and a woman, not even the “very close ties” between a man and a fine Cuban cigar, I mean the “very close ties” between a big-angry-conservative-Islamic-Shia-state and a would-be smaller-slightly less angry-conservative-Islamic-Shia state. In the North, you have the fact that Turkey, Iran and Syria have substantial Kurdish populations and so, sternly oppose the creation of a Kurdish state. Just how peaceful a future would a land-locked state surrounded by hostile neighbors be? It’d be like Israel, but without the sea! Without the sea I tell you!
Later, Yoo says that division would allow “each group to find consensus on questions of religion and law.” So basically, the Shia would live under Sharia or Shite-lite Law, while the Sunnis and the Kurds would probably live with more secular principles. Probably. However, this doesn’t account for the fact that the Shia community itself is also quite divided. Look at the elections held earlier this year – the three main Shia parties all have different outlooks. The National Independent Cadres and Elites - supported by Muqtadir Al-Sadr - favour Islamic rule, while the Iraqi List – led by former interim leader Allawi – consists of mainly secular Shia politicians. En Revanche, the United Iraqi Alliance is formed by a grand mix of both theocratic ideologues and liberal humanists. A “consensus on questions of religion and law” would certainly not be found as easily of Yoo makes it look like it might.
So, Yoo’s article may not make much sense in theory, but boy, he’s gone and given us some fantastic practical examples. In 1945, for instance, there were 74 independent nations; today, there are 193 (two more if you count Taiwan and a nascent Palestinian state). And with decentralization has come economic growth, and more democracy. All that seems to resemble is a casual sweeping statement about the merits of small nations. Even at this level, the argument doesn’t hold up – most of the increase he speaks of has come not come from the break-up of nations, but from the end of those old colony thingies. Those nations are made-up largely by African nations, which I think we will all concede, are hardly perfect prototypes for democratic rule and prosperity.
Ladies and Gentlemen: I just don’t think it would best for Iraq to be split-up, not completely - as Yoo suggests - anyway. Yoo're wrong!*
*I had to.
There are at least two things wrong with this idea, maybe more.
One, a united Iraq provides many public goods that a divided Iraq just would not. For example, Iraq is known to be a very oil rich country, oil kept Iraq going back in the day and will surely be depended on to. However, it’s not as if the entire nation floats above one giant oil-field. In fact, this is the supposedly the main reason Shias express any wish to divide – oil, not distaste towards the mere idea of an Iraqi state. .No, Iraq’s oil lies mainly in the North and the South. So, should Yoo get his way, should Iraq be divided into supposedly ethnically pure states, the Shia would have lots of oil, the Kurds would have lots of oil and the Sunnis, plainly, wouldn’t. Does this sound like a good idea to you? Does it?
Furthermore, conveniently overlooked is the fact that Iraq wouldn’t divide up as neatly as Yoo seems to suggest. Instead, as is often the case, the large cities - Mosul, Kirkuk and Baghdad – are multi-ethnic little organisms in themselves. Would it really be viable to kick some people out of their homes or even to have them governed by a administration completely unrepresentive of their beliefs? Most people like their homes and being represented, so efforts towards partition, especially in such an unstable country, would almost certainly bring about more violence and bloodshed.
Partition would also likely lead to very close ties between the would-be Shia south and Iran – and I don’t mean the “very close ties” often found between a man and a woman, not even the “very close ties” between a man and a fine Cuban cigar, I mean the “very close ties” between a big-angry-conservative-Islamic-Shia-state and a would-be smaller-slightly less angry-conservative-Islamic-Shia state. In the North, you have the fact that Turkey, Iran and Syria have substantial Kurdish populations and so, sternly oppose the creation of a Kurdish state. Just how peaceful a future would a land-locked state surrounded by hostile neighbors be? It’d be like Israel, but without the sea! Without the sea I tell you!
Later, Yoo says that division would allow “each group to find consensus on questions of religion and law.” So basically, the Shia would live under Sharia or Shite-lite Law, while the Sunnis and the Kurds would probably live with more secular principles. Probably. However, this doesn’t account for the fact that the Shia community itself is also quite divided. Look at the elections held earlier this year – the three main Shia parties all have different outlooks. The National Independent Cadres and Elites - supported by Muqtadir Al-Sadr - favour Islamic rule, while the Iraqi List – led by former interim leader Allawi – consists of mainly secular Shia politicians. En Revanche, the United Iraqi Alliance is formed by a grand mix of both theocratic ideologues and liberal humanists. A “consensus on questions of religion and law” would certainly not be found as easily of Yoo makes it look like it might.
So, Yoo’s article may not make much sense in theory, but boy, he’s gone and given us some fantastic practical examples. In 1945, for instance, there were 74 independent nations; today, there are 193 (two more if you count Taiwan and a nascent Palestinian state). And with decentralization has come economic growth, and more democracy. All that seems to resemble is a casual sweeping statement about the merits of small nations. Even at this level, the argument doesn’t hold up – most of the increase he speaks of has come not come from the break-up of nations, but from the end of those old colony thingies. Those nations are made-up largely by African nations, which I think we will all concede, are hardly perfect prototypes for democratic rule and prosperity.
Ladies and Gentlemen: I just don’t think it would best for Iraq to be split-up, not completely - as Yoo suggests - anyway. Yoo're wrong!*
*I had to.
Top reviews:
DVD player
Digital Camera
Portable MP3 player
Travel
Product search: |
E-mail Kevin: blast_portmarnockREMOVE@yahoo.com
Email Michael: mickonline2REMOVE@yahoo.com
Previous posts
Archives
Latest Comments
Irish Blogs
-
Analogue
An Unrepentant Communist
Blue Birds Are So Natural
Cedar Lounge Revolution
Ciaran O'Kelly
Crabling Otter
Damien Mulley
Eoin Purcell
Fustar
Lord Byron's Pistol Club
Midnight Court
Most Sincerely Folks
Poetbloggs
Robert Donohoe
Shock
Twenty Major
A special place in my heart
'Proper' Journalism etc.
The Wireless
BBC Radio
4RTE Radio 1
