Many commentators are writing about the process involved in the present Iraq draft constitution being one of “federalizing democratization” or “democratizing federalism”. It is no such thing. To federate means “to come together for joint action”. It is what happens when functioning, pre-existing states come together in a strong way, pooling many aspects of their soveriegnty into a broader, federated union… Like the 13 US states, in 1787, after they found that their previous “articles of confederation” were too weak. Or the “United Arab Emirates”: 7 small existing states that came together in the early 1970s to pool their respective capabilities.
What the present draft constitution proposes for Iraq is the exact opposite. It is the breakup of many key attributes of Iraqi soveriegnty and their division among a still unknown number of smaller, new sub-entities. It is incorrect to call this process “federation”; it is more rightly called devolution.
What the present draft constitution proposes for Iraq is a breakup very similar to what happened with the breakup of Bosnia into ethnically distinct sub-entities, or the partition of India into India and Pakistan, or the still-continuing breakup of the previous “Soviet Russian Federation”, including in Chechnya.
When initiated by democratic governments that enjoy real political legitimacy– Britain recently, or Spain in the years after democratization– devolution can enhance democratic participation and accountability at many levels. But when initiated under less ideal political circumstances, this breaking-up process can lead to fierce contestation over the newly-drawn internal borders and access to resources, mounting fear and mistrust, and a desire for ethnic-religious homogeneity within the various zones that can can all too easily lead to widespread or even near-complete campaigns of ethnic or sectarian “cleansing”.
The cycle(s) of violence that are launched may take many decades to lose their ferocity.
(By the way, I took the title of this post from a good novel by Bapsi Sidhwa about the pain of the Indian partition: Cracking India.)
And guess what? It is not only Iraq that’s on the neo-con’s menu for “cracking”… Now, some of the cracked-headed among them want to try the same formula in Iran, too…
Well, that’s what Michael Ledeen, the sleazy author of the Iran-Contra scandal and various other ignominious and illegal escapades, is now proposing. On October 26, Ledeen is moderating a conference on the topic at the American Enterprise Institute, the neo-con powerhouse where he’s hung his hat for several years now. The conference is titled The Unknown Iran: Another Case for Federalism? and it involves a roster of apparently exile-Iranian scholars of whom nobody I know ever seems to have heard. (Any further info on those individuals from JWN readers gratefully received.)
Well, there you have it. Occupation-encouraged “cracking” is evidently working so well in Iraq these days (irony alert, folks)– why not tempt Iranians into trying it in their country, too?
8 thoughts on “‘Cracking Iraq’ (and next up, Iran?)”
Comments are closed.
Interesting post, Helena. I have argued that the breakup of Iraq as a political entity was not the result originally intended by the Bush/Cheney administration. I hold to that view as it relates to the traditional elements of decision making within the U.S. gov’t. However, it is quite likely that such a breakup was at least the “plan B” envisioned by the Israeli hardliners and their inflluential agents within the U.S. government. To the extent these people were successful in hijacking our foriegn policy, you could say that the “devolution” of Iraq is in accordance with U.S. objectives. Maybe that was Alastair’s point in the earlier thread. It does seem that the neocons are sufficiently pleased with the results in Iraq to be advocating a similar program for Iran. There is not much chance of that happening, however, as the U.S. Army is no longer available for invasion/occupation duty.
RE: Cracking Iraq, and Iran, and Syria and S. Arabia…
At least Jabotinsky would be pleased:
Quote:
In the 1920s, Zionist leader Vladimir Jabotinsky called for Israel to rule “from the Nile to the Euphrates,” as the famous slogan went, by smashing the fragile mosaic of its Arab neighbors into ethnic fragments, then seizing the oil riches of Arabia. So Israel’s far Right and its American neocon fellow travelers are perfectly happy to see Iraq divided de facto into its three component ethnic parts: Shia, Sunni Arab, and Kurd. Better a feeble Iraq broken into weak cantons, like post-1975 Lebanon, than a nation united, even under a U.S.-run regime.
Unquote
From “Another Ayotola” in American Conservative
http://www.amconmag.com/2004_03_29/article.html
It is and always was Operation “Take down a major Sunni state.”
Nur – please elaborate. From whose perspective? For what purpose? Any old Sunni state?
I do think it’s important that we keep exploring the reasons for the war. I am not inclined to think there is a simple answer.
Nur al-Cubicle, I always saw Saddam as a dictator, him being sunni had nothing to do with it. He was a dictator.
After Hitler did we take down the “Christian state” in Germany, no we did not did we? And after Bush goes are we going to take down Christianity or the Republican Party in the U.S?
After Japan fell did we “take down” the Japanese people’s religion? No we didn’t did we.
“And after Bush goes are we going to take down Christianity or the Republican Party in the U.S?”
I sure hope so. We’re going to try. As to Christianity, I mean as a theocratic political movement, not as a religion.
After Hitler did we take down the “Christian state” in Germany, no we did not did we? And after Bush goes are we going to take down Christianity or the Republican Party in the U.S?
Of course they did not but they instead they do need Muslims stripped from their religion, stope reading and learning Quran that they clamed spreading hatred, moreover asking to banned and stope selling Quran in UK bookshops also.
I am from south Azerbayjan(occupied by iran).
I was computer student but can not work in iran because I did write my final project in Azerbayjan language & reject from university and I was in Tabriz Prison 2 week for this final project.