NationStates Jolt Archive

It appears that a prominent Iraqi Shiite politician has come out supporting three ethnically divide regions and a weak central government. Could this be what Iraq really needs to get off dead center or do you think it will increase the division and violence?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071013/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_071009212999

The Cato Institute has been suggesting this for some time.

sounds like it could work so long as they don't allow Poland to join :p

I'd say a federation is the best you can hope for, though why not have a confederacy?

Peter Gailbraith wrote about this posibility in his book 'the end of iraq' he was a US ambassador who worked in the region and has been in Iraq several times at critical points. He knows what ehs talking about imho

Also the current chair of the foreign relations commitee of the senate, Joseph Biden has been advocating for this for some time now as well.

imho it makes some sense to respect the natural evolution of the future of that state and it seem precisely what the 3 major ethnic and sectarian groups need. control over the daily fabric of thier lives without a central authority dictating from a position theyll never submit to again.

trust the experts. read what they have to say about it. it fits in precisely with what thier own constitution allows for.

sounds like it could work so long as they don't allow Poland to join :p

I'd say a federation is the best you can hope for, though why not have a confederacy?


actually the closer to a confederation they can initially get to the better off theyll be.

but the principals are similar

I think the differenec is that federations give more auuthority to a central gov to interfere in state affairs more readily. which may not be helpful much if these 3 factions of going to get the breathing room they need

It appears that a prominent Iraqi Shiite politician has come out supporting three ethnically divide regions and a weak central government. Could this be what Iraq really needs to get off dead center or do you think it will increase the division and violence?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071013/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_071009212999
The following.......:

Iraq's minority Sunni Arabs, for example, fear that it would lead to Iraq's breakup into a Shiite south and a Kurdish north, both with considerable oil wealth, while leaving them in a central region that's mostly desert and with scarce natural resources.

They also suspect that the creation of a self-rule southern region is part of a scheme by Shiite and non-Arab Iran to find a permanent foothold in Iraq.

Shiite political parties other than the Supreme Council are not as keen on federalism, with some totally opposed to it and others preferring a delay in its implementation on the grounds that it could deepen the country's security and sectarian woes.
Suggests that the proposal would more than likely fail. This has been discussed from the getgo of the invasion and it is always the same answer in that it could "deepen the country's security and sectarian woes".

It appears that a prominent Iraqi Shiite politician has come out supporting three ethnically divide regions and a weak central government. Could this be what Iraq really needs to get off dead center or do you think it will increase the division and violence?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071013/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_071009212999
Who gets what region? I don't think the Sunni and Shi'ia will be too happy if the Kurds get the oily north, and the Kurds and Sunni are going to be upset if the Shi'ia get it.

It appears that a prominent Iraqi Shiite politician has come out supporting three ethnically divide regions and a weak central government. Could this be what Iraq really needs to get off dead center or do you think it will increase the division and violence?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071013/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_071009212999

Well the US Senate at least thinks so. I have not seen it from the HOuse yet but I assume they'll follow suit..

We the people of Iraq who have just risen from our stumble, and who are looking with confidence to the future through a republican, federal, democratic, pluralistic system, have resolved with the determination of our men, women, the elderly and youth, to respect the rules of law, to establish justice and equality to cast aside
the politics of aggression, and to tend to the concerns of women and their rights, and to the elderly and their concerns, and to children and their affairs and to spread a culture of diversity and defusing terrorism.

Article 112: The federal system in the Republic of Iraq is made up of a decentralized capital, regions and governorates, and local administrations.

Just thought I'd throw that out there. Of course, though, what Iraq is on paper is quite different to the fucked up reality.

Well the US Senate at least thinks so. I have not seen it from the HOuse yet but I assume they'll follow suit..
The US Senate and House should not be taking this initiative.

After all Iraq is a "sovereign" nation? :rolleyes:

A nonbinding resolution to that effect won Senate approval last month, but Republicans supported it only after the measure was amended to make clear that President Bush should press for a new federalized system only if the Iraqis wanted it.

Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and other Iraqi politicians denounced the decision as an infringement on Iraq's sovereignty.
The US has already done enough to compromise Iraq. The people of Iraq should decide and let them live with THEIR decision.

The US Senate and House should not be taking this initiative.

Agreed. They shouldn't. The Iraqi's should.

After all Iraq is a sovereign nation? :rolleyes:

Yes they are a sovereign nation.

Yes they are a sovereign nation.
Technically yes, but in reality no.

Last time I heard about a Federal Iraq, every political party in the country voted against it because they beleived we would be partitioning Iraq along religious lines.

The Cato Institute has been suggesting this for some time.since before the first Shock-and-awe tomahawk hit Baghdad.. I am on the record (in the interwebs and here) as betting this: the imperial army bombing and occupation of Iraq is going to -end up- Breaking that Country in pieces. (balkanization )

The odds of my -future seeing powers - coming tru are greater than ever.(I was going to say long term analysis of probable result, but future seeing is just as good :-)

The Cato Institute has been suggesting this for some time.

Then you know it's a bad idea.

i don't know and it is none of my or the us gov'ts business, nor any craperation's business how they arrange the country.
they could divide into 64 different sovereign nations but that would be a choice of the Iraqi peoples - alone.


:upyours::fluffle:

Then you know it's a bad idea.

Um why is it a bad idea of the Cato Institute said it? A bit biased are we?

Um why is it a bad idea of the Cato Institute said it? A bit biased are we?

I don't consider bias against an organisation with reprehensible beliefs to be a bad thing.

At this point, I'm not sure you could deepen Iraq's security and sectarian woes. It might actually give them a framework within which they can each have the autonomy they need while working out some of their differences. As long as they can come up with an equitable way to divide the oil revenues, I think it could be workable.

And if the country does split up in the long run, maybe that's for the best. It is after all just a bunch of lines arbitrarily drawn on a map by the colonizing powers.

Originally posted by Europe and Eurasia
I don't consider bias against an organisation with reprehensible beliefs to be a bad thing.

Its obvious then that your opinions will not be very respected in NSG.

Federalism is a trick to weaken the country and Iraq's enemies favor a divided Iraq in the Middle East. Most Iraqis (with the exception of the Kurds) don’t accept federalism.

I don't consider bias against an organisation with reprehensible beliefs to be a bad thing.
Good, you'll fit right in here then.

I, on the other hand, see no reason to outright dismiss CATO due to narrow-minded prejudice.

It appears that a prominent Iraqi Shiite politician has come out supporting three ethnically divide regions and a weak central government.
Oh, what a surprise - the majority Shi'ites who were kept down by a dictatorship are in favour of a partitioned state, with a weak government.

Also - what about the other ethnic populations?
Could this be what Iraq really needs to get off dead center or do you think it will increase the division and violence?
What Iraq neds is someone bloody capable in charge, instead of the current leadership that seems particularly useless, and has led to vast, vast proportions of the 'unity government' buggering off.


How's about we just pick someone that seems capable, kick out the existing government, which nobody other than the current ministers would miss, and let them have a fair constitution which means that everyone in the land lives by Iraqi law, and that Iraq chooses who it deals with in terms of its oil etc.

That's probably the best choice.

The Cato Institute has been suggesting this for some time.
Quelle surprise...

You know, I wonder if Iraq might find a use in modeling its new government off of...

The United States of America.

The American federal system of states would probably work well for Iraq, allowing each province a considerable amount of self-government, but with the central government in Baghdad retaining a great deal of control. They just need to reinforce Iraqi unity with a clause prohibiting secession.

And I have a message for Sunnis worried about being left with the oil-poor center of the country - you have BAGHDAD! The cultural and social capital of Iraq! You have nothing to worry about.

I would go beyond just a federalized Iraq. I would split that geographic abortion into as many pieces as possible, and that would include three seperate countries. An apparatus of coercion is far less easy to construct when those who are being coerced can just walk on over to a more liberal nation, and war and protectionism are far less easy to maintain when you have fewer people to shift the costs to and when one is dependent on the friendship and trust of others to get necessary resources. In fact, I would be happy to see as many independent jurisdictions as possible in Iraq, even down to the individual level. A Saddam Hussein (or Hitler, or Stalin) couldn't hope to appear in a highly-decentralized order, but where there is centralization there is the means to destroy.

Good, you'll fit right in here then.

I, on the other hand, see no reason to outright dismiss CATO due to narrow-minded prejudice.

THE IRONY IT BURNS!

You know, I wonder if Iraq might find a use in modeling its new government off of...

The United States of America.
Aye, because the similarities in its culture, stability and landscape are vast, right?
The American federal system of states would probably work well for Iraq, allowing each province a considerable amount of self-government, but with the central government in Baghdad retaining a great deal of control.
Oh, you mean like it had, but with a more pointlessly democratic touch?

Nah. Have it all centralised and under one person. Otherwise the whole thing doesn't work. Iraq, like Russia, is too much of a mix of ethnicities, faiths etc. to work without some kind of Super Evil Dictator to glue things together.
They just need to reinforce Iraqi unity with a clause prohibiting secession.
Because as recent events have shown, absolutely everyone cares about what the Iraqi government thinks and says, yeah?
And I have a message for Sunnis worried about being left with the oil-poor center of the country - you have BAGHDAD! The cultural and social capital of Iraq! You have nothing to worry about.
Yeah, nice one. How're they going to make any money?

Erm... tourism?

"Over to your left, you'll see a pile of rubble... on your right, some people trying in vain to get running water, and also some more rubble"
I would go beyond just a federalized Iraq. I would split that geographic abortion into as many pieces as possible, and that would include three seperate countries. An apparatus of coercion is far less easy to construct when those who are being coerced can just walk on over to a more liberal nation, and war and protectionism are far less easy to maintain when you have fewer people to shift the costs to and when one is dependent on the friendship and trust of others to get necessary resources. In fact, I would be happy to see as many independent jurisdictions as possible in Iraq, even down to the individual level. A Saddam Hussein (or Hitler, or Stalin) couldn't hope to appear in a highly-decentralized order, but where there is centralization there is the means to destroy.
Yeah, that worked really well in North and South Korea/Vietnam, eh?

Agreed. They shouldn't. The Iraqi's should.



Yes they are a sovereign nation.

Which leads to an interesting proposition...

Let the fucking Iraqis decide on how they want to govern themselves.

I'm not talking setting up a system to elect representatives or what not.

Do it like we did. Have each area send delegates, they decide on the type of government they want. A unanimous vote of the delegates is required to set up a government. They flesh it out, they decide on whether to accept it, they decide their government, in a sense.

Which leads to an interesting proposition...

Let the fucking Iraqis decide on how they want to govern themselves.

I'm not talking setting up a system to elect representatives or what not.

Do it like we did. Have each area send delegates, they decide on the type of government they want. A unanimous vote of the delegates is required to set up a government. They flesh it out, they decide on whether to accept it, they decide their government, in a sense.
A unanimous vote to get things passed?

Aye, best of luck with that one in Iraq...

Which leads to an interesting proposition...

Let the fucking Iraqis decide on how they want to govern themselves.

I'm not talking setting up a system to elect representatives or what not.

Do it like we did. Have each area send delegates, they decide on the type of government they want. A unanimous vote of the delegates is required to set up a government. They flesh it out, they decide on whether to accept it, they decide their government, in a sense.

The Declaration of Independence had to be ratified unanimously. The Constitution was anything but unanimous.

Yeah, that worked really well in North and South Korea/Vietnam, eh?

Better than having them start off completely under the control of Ho Chi Minh and Kim Il-Sung. And at least now only half of Korea is under the control of a psycopath. In fact, if all of the Koreas and Vietnams had been divided even more and left to their own devices without Western or Soviet influence, their respective dictators wouldn't have had the muscle to push their murderous plans onto others. (Whereas a single nation would lend itself to complete dominance by said rulers.)