I keep thinking about this problem and would like to share my thoughts.
Apparently when a survey was held of the Iraqi people in 2005, I think, the verdict was in favour of federalism. The coalition decided to go ahead against this opinion and build a new united democratic Iraq.
Now I realise my ideas are simplistic and don't take into account viability of statehood and the odd political clashes with neighbouring states but anyway here they are for what they are worth.
There are 5 million Kurds in Iraq and there are 3 Kurd provinces which form an autonomous region in northern Iraq. Why not form a new state of Kurdistan? The Kurds are Sunni Muslims in the main. The difficulty is that there are 15 million Kurds in Turkey, 6 million in Iran and 1.5 million in Syria. There are also nearly a million in Europe and about 10.000 in the USA. I am not sure whether the three provinces could cope with an enormous influx or whether Turkey would be prepared to have a new state on its southern border or whether indeed Turkey would let some of its southern territory become part of the new Kurdistan for the same reason. However there would seem to be some mileage in the formation of a new state called Kurdistan despite the historical and geopolitical baggage associated with such an idea.
There are 9 Shia provinces in the south of Iraq and the majority of the population are Shia muslims. Why aren't these provinces acceded to Shia Iran and become part of that nation's territory and responsibility?
This would leave 6 Sunni Muslim provinces probably in the west and south west of the present Iraq. These would have a political and religious connection to Turkey through the historical Sunni Ottoman empire since the 1500s. Perhaps this territory should form the new Iraq with a new name even. The coalition's first duty would be to protect its borders while internal security and form of government was left to the Sunni Muslims. The idea of a secular Western supportive state may have to be shelved if that is not the wish of the inhabitants.
I have wandered away from federalism and into three different states. I think this is a pragmatic recognition of the forces on the ground. It seems to me the coalition is in for a sustained round of head banging if it attempts to hold the dissenting and antagonistic forces together.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I'm no expert on the affairs of the Middle East, but it seems we ought to take our share of responsibility for the troubles in that region as I think I'm right in saying that some of them (particularly Iraq) stem from broken promises and secret agreements made in the aftermath of the First World War.
We have borne witness to bloodshed, violence and devastation within states that were created, by lumping together various ethnic groups, in the aftermath of this particular conflict and I don't think you can force people into feeling allegiance to a country where they feel that some of their fellow countrymen are out to do all they can to destroy them or force them out. However, as you point out, it is a very difficult situation as it is not just the citizens of Iraq that would be affected - the potential ramifications for other countries, both in the region and in the wider global community, but I feel we just can't carry on blithely as we are and you make some interesting suggestions for solving this problem.
This much I will say - we can't carry on like this. I feel that the people of Iraq deserve freedom, stability and the opportunity to live a life without fear or the threat of violence. I don't know how this could be achieved, but I sinceely hope it is - and soon.
Post a Comment