Qubad Talabani, son of Iraqi president Jalal Talabani, spoke to University of South Carolina students yesterday, advocating less centralized government in Iraq as the answer to some of his nation's current problems.
Other parts of the country are looking at forming similar regions so they can govern themselves with as much autonomy as possible over their own affairs, thus reducing the powers of the central government. By reducing such powers, you will reduce the different communitiesÂ’ insecurities because of the mistrust that exists today."
He adds, "At the moment, Baghdad is the prize and everybody is fighting over it. We need to reduce the relevance of that prize so that we reduce the level of tension throughout Iraq."
The mistrust and tension, Talabani says, is a part of Saddam HusseinÂ’s legacy, pitting one community against the other, as well as instilling fear from cruelties committed by the former regime against all segments of the population.
"My own region, Kurdistan, was decimated by Saddam," Talabani says. "He destroyed about 4,000 villages, killed about 200,000 people, and used chemical and biological weapons in over 250 incidences – primarily against civilians."
Prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, most Kurds believed themselves to be the only victims of SaddamÂ’s brutality. "But when the regime fell, we realized that Iraqi Arabs were also victims," Talabani says. "We recovered hundreds-of-thousands of bodies in mass graves across the country, many of which were dedicated to children three to six-years-old. Most had been experimented on by the regime. I cannot describe the carnage and brutality in a way that you would be able to comprehend just how bad it really was."
Interesting. But if that is the case, then why not let Iraq dissolve into three more homogenous countries?
1
In reality we are already seeing federalism creep into Iraq. The Kurdish area of Iraq is already functioning as an autonomous region, and the less control that Bagdad has over the Kurdish region, the better. The Shia south is the same in some respects, but the religious fanaticism of that area is likely to ruin the prospects for the people there.
As for the Sunni area, who knows? Everything is still too fluid to tell if the Sunnis will wish to participate in a government, even one composed of more federalism.
Posted by: jesusland joe at April 10, 2006 08:07 AM (rUyw4)
2
One thing to keep in mind; that while allowing the country to split into the regions dominated by Kurds, Sunni, et al, may sound like a good idea, the Iraqis wouldn't accept it (IMHO) because of the unequal distribution of the oil producing regions.
Posted by: Lonevoice at April 10, 2006 09:28 AM (CvGtv)
3
I think the concern about letting Iraq break up is about balance of power. Iraq has always counterbalanced Iran. Beyond that, an independent Kurdistan would survive about three days before Turkey and Iran decided to invade so their Kurdish regions wouldn't get any ideas.
Finally, one must wonder if it makes sense to create a nation-state based on ethnicity or religious sects. It may only delay fighting until each state has established it's own military.
Unless we are willing to redraw the entire Mid-East map, Iraq must stay a single nation and federalism is the only way that will happen.
Posted by: KG at April 10, 2006 09:51 AM (SZsz5)
4
I seem to remember that the British created Iraq from three former provinces of the Ottoman Empire. I believe the three provinces were Mosul, Bagdad, and Basra. The British created the nation-state of Iraq from three distinct provinces that the Turks had drawn up according to ethnicity and religious beliefs.
If you look at the maps, isn't that about how the situation is on the ground right now in Iraq? The Kurds are in the Mosul area, the Sunnis in the Bagdad area, and the Shia in the Basra area. Why not base a federal republic along these lines? I believe the natural progression is toward a division along these lines, anyway. Why not make it formal?
Posted by: jesusland joe at April 10, 2006 10:27 AM (rUyw4)
5
Break-up actually makes sense - which is why so many will oppose it. Bush & Co are idealistic nation-state status quo'ers - the left is blinded by no-borders one-worlders adherents ... neither wants more mini-nations - both want to manage "world reality" from their perspective views.
Both fear (as well as the current world power structure) that breakups can be contagious on the world scene.
Lonevoice makes an interesting comment about unequal wealth distribution - funny isn't it - the reason to stay together so one area/group to have access to another area/group's resources ..... which is the same motivation/reasoning for war and conquest in the first place.
Posted by: hondo at April 10, 2006 12:54 PM (4mgfY)
6
You are right, hondo. But back to the original problem, and I will propose a solution. The oil income should be divided between the three federal entities based on the population of each region. For instance, if Kurds make up 25% of the population, they would receive 25% of the income, etc.
But who would honestly administer such a program? I guess that is the real problem in all this. There is no one in Iraq who wishes to give up their claim to the other's resources. So much for a great idea.
Posted by: jesusland joe at April 10, 2006 01:47 PM (rUyw4)
7
JJ
Never happen. When it comes to resources, most humans tend to believe they have some divine right to another's property - they will cloak it with some BS about what's fair, share whatever - resort to historical bizzare territory claims - anything - and when possible - conquest (with the right intentions of course).
Hell! Look at the Japanese. They've got essentially nothing - marched out brutally claiming all around them - got the shit kicked out of 'em - then brilliantly learned how to improvise and adapt. Its a pity the Japanese/Asian model isn't exportable to the rest of the world.
Posted by: hondo at April 10, 2006 03:08 PM (4mgfY)
Hide Comments
| Add Comment
