Les Gelb, the former President of the influential, New York-based Council on Foreign Relations, has long been an active supporter of splitting up Iraq into three mini-states. In November 2003, he produced this plan for Iraq, called The Three-State Solution. (You now have to pay gobs of money to read it on the NYT’s website there, which is a pity. But commenting on it on JWN at the time, I described it as “almost lunatic and extremely dangerous.”)
Juan Cole’s reaction to Gelb’s partitionist proposal at that time was very similar:
- the idea is frankly dangerous. All we need is to have the Iraqi nationalists convinced we intend to break up their country. That will produce more blown-up US troops, God forbid.
Well, times change, eh?
Yesterday, Juan picked up his own red pencil, and going one step further than the British administrator of Iraq, Sir Percy Cox, did in 1922 he decided to redraw a bunch of boundaries inside Iraq.
He wrote:
- Personally, I am against breaking up Iraq. I don’t think it is more unworkable than Nigeria or Lebanon. [Last sentence not exactly clear? ~HC] And, the consequences are unforeseeable and potentially very, very dangerous.
I do, however, believe that the tendencies toward separatism must be recognized and managed.
I say that we make 5 superprovinces: Deep South, Middle Euphrates, Baghdad, Sunnistan, and Kurdistan, along with two smaller ethnic enclaves, of Turkomanistan and Chaldeanistan in the north. Bear with me…
Turkomanistan? Chaldeanistan? What on earth has he been smoking?
He then gives us– yes!– his very own map. More colors on it than old Percy ever had! Then he continues by discussing various details of what his plan is, and how to make it work. Along the way, he writes some extremely patronizing and imperialistic things… As in, saying that entering and controlling Kirkuk would be, “a good training wheel mission for the Iraqi army.” (Training wheels, of course, being what parents put on young kids’ bikes when they’re still learning to ride ’em.)… As in, decreeing baldly that, “The Coalition should dictate an oil profit sharing agreement before they go.”…
Well I could go on and on pointing out the follies my esteemed friend in Michigan engages in there. But the fundamental folly, surely, is his assumption that the US government has any right to determine the future shape of governance structures inside Iraq.
Then of course there is also (b), the folly of assuming that the US is still in any way capable of implementing any such scheme.
Today, he was backpedaling a bit. This was in response to yet another partitionist screed from Les Gelb– one in the writing of which Gelb was joined, indeed, by US Senator and long-time presidential wannabe Joe Biden (Democrat, of Delaware).
Yesterday, Juan had described his own proposal as being one for the formation of a bunch of “stans” (which is sort of a buzzword in some US circles for obscure, generally Muslim states located, well, someplace further east over there in Central Asia). Today, he rebranded his proposal, saying it was one for the establishment of “provincial confederacies.” He added:
- I do not see them as autonomous as Biden and Gelb propose, and, indeed, I have argued that the federal government should parcel out petroleum income to them in such a way as to bind them to the central state.
Whatever.
Hey Juan, maybe it’s time to sheath the red pencil and start acting a little less like Percy Cox?
Another interesting aspect of this whole story is that finally Les Gelb seems to have been able to persuade Joe Biden (Secretary of State in the next Democratic administration? Joe would love that!) to come on board his partition plan.
One aspect of what they write that I find extremely childish is that they leap right into their article by making a completely unexamined analogy with the situation in another, significantly different part of the world where the US has also in the recent past engaged in imperialistic (though in their view, successful) meddling. Namely, Bosnia.
Let me quote that whole introductory para to their piece:
- A decade ago, Bosnia was torn apart by ethnic cleansing and facing its demise as a single country. After much hesitation, the United States stepped in decisively with the Dayton Accords, which kept the country whole by, paradoxically, dividing it into ethnic federations, even allowing Muslims, Croats and Serbs to retain separate armies. With the help of American and other forces, Bosnians have lived a decade in relative peace and are now slowly strengthening their common central government, including disbanding those separate armies last year. Now the Bush administration, despite its profound strategic misjudgments in Iraq, has a similar opportunity. To seize it, however, America must get beyond the present false choice between “staying the course” and “bringing the troops home now” and choose a third way that would wind down our military presence responsibly while preventing chaos and preserving our key security goals. The idea, as in Bosnia, is to maintain a united Iraq by decentralizing it, giving each ethno-religious group — Kurd, Sunni Arab and Shiite Arab — room to run its own affairs, while leaving the central government in charge of common interests.
So let’s just glide right over all the atrocities of the ethnic cleansing campaigns by which those “ethnic federations” were created in Bosnia, shall we?
… My friend and esteemed colleague Gary Sick, who’s the Executive Director of the Gulf/2000 Research Listserv and an Adjunct Professor of Middle East politics at Columbia University, has picked up on many problems in the Biden-Gelb proposal in this commentary, which I am putting up on the JWN archive with his permission (and with my thanks to him.)
Gary writes there:
- Is Bosnia a fair comparison? There we have a country surrounded by European allies who offer willing cooperation and a per-capita troop level that would make Gen. Shinseki proud. Is it realistic to expect the same in Iraq, which is surrounded by malevolent powers on all sides and plagued with a perpetual troop deficit?
Note that a great deal hinges on what Gelb calls “international police protection.” In other words, we must enlist the United Nations or a coalition of the willing to come in and do what we have been unable to do with our 130,000 troops and $10 billion per month. Is it reasonable to expect that a regional conclave with U.S. (Sunni) allies Saudi Arabia and Jordan, U.S. enemies Iran and Syria, plus Turkey, which is preoccupied with the Kurds, will produce a harmonious and enforceable regional compact?
Let’s just imagine that after we adopt a policy of separation under a weak central government, the militias remain vicious, the insurgency accelerates, ethnic cleansing becomes endemic, rights of women and minorities do not improve, and regional powers prove to be more interested in their sectarian interests than in saving Iraq. According to this plan, we have now accepted responsibility for making all of this work. Will we really be better off than we are now?
Good questions, indeed.
…Inside Iraq, meanwhile, there is lots of real, national-level politics going on, as the representatives of all the parties negotiate over how to form what will almost certainly be a government of broad national unity. Beyond that, under PM-designate Nouri al-Maliki it will almost certainly be a government dedicated to maintaining the unity of the country’s administration as far as possible, as well as to negotiating a total and fairly rapid withdrawal of the US troops.
So I guess the pretensions of those Americans inside and outside the Bush administration who want to see the US act in as imperialistic a fashion in Iraq in 2006 as Sir Percy and the British India Office were able to in 1922 will have to come to naught?
Surely, the only “maps” and “red pencils” the US planners will be needing in the months ahead are those that will help them organize the most orderly and efficient form of troop withdrawal… Bring the troops home, and let’s leave Iraq’s future to its own people.
Helena
One of the things I like about Juan Cole’s present analysis is that he recognises the problem of Turkey and the Turkmen in Northern iraq.
You will see reports that the Turkish Army is insisting on its right of hot pursuit in Kurdistan
http://www.aina.org/news/20060430122437.htm
You will recall that Turkey has a (dormant )claim
on one of the provinces in Iraq.
The Iranians are having a go at the Kurds as well so things are heating up there. What is interesting are the persistent reports of our good friends from Tel Aviv being active among the Kurds.
Exercises in map drawing are useful. If you can’t find a viable solution with lines on the map then people end up moving. In millions.
So I find Juan’s exercise useful.
Working names for entities are useful, vis “Four Weddings and a Funeral”
I agree that the US shouldnt be drawing borders, but we have to find something to keep young Mr Bush occupied for the next two years (Oh God is it really that long?). He wont be able to enforce any lines he draws on maps so we might all be safe.
Nobody else wants to touch the Tar Baby so the situation will sort itself out. After the shooting stops people can redraw lines on maps at the peace conference in 20 years time.
Helena
This article on the border problems with Turkey might throw some light on the dangers in Northern Iraq.
The author of the piece is not an issue.
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/270
frank Wrote
What is interesting are the persistent reports of our good friends from Tel Aviv being active among the Kurds.
Can you provide a prove for this? Have you any link to clear this story please.
Dr. Khair El-Din Haseeb’s Presentation at Georgetown University
April 5, 2006
Dr. Khair El-Din Haseeb’s Presentation at Georgetown University
April 5, 2006
Personally, I am against breaking up Iraq. I don’t think it is more unworkable than Nigeria or Lebanon. [Last sentence not exactly clearl? ~HC]
For “it,” read “the Iraqi state.”
Although I don’t think Nigeria is really the analogy Cole is looking for. The history of the “workable” Nigerian state includes a civil war with a million dead followed by a generation-long cycle of coups designed to keep one region in charge – and one of the precipitating events of the civil war was, um, an attempt to redraw regional boundaries.
Frank, of course I recognize that there is a whole tangle of actual and potential “ethnic” issues in northern Iraq. But you know what? The folks who live there have been dealing with them– often very successfully– for the past 5,000 years or so. Especially now that the Iraqi Kurds need no longer fear a recurrence of Saddamist absolutism, many different (and hopefully nonviolent and rights-respecting) forms of public administration/governance would be open to them.
What I find completely objectionable is the attempt by any US person or entity to urge that the US ought to have its own “plan” for how these issues should be resolved, and to start drawing lines on maps, etc.
Treaty of Berlin, anyone?
I think we’re around 110 years too late to be able to pretend that that game can be played “innocently”.
In his backpedaling yesterday, Juan did claim that his proposal, “is based on discussions among Iraqi politicians.” I would have a lot more respect for his position if he stated quite clearly that these are decisions for the Iraqis to make. He might (perhaps) suggest a list of the different Iraqi groups that should be represented at that discussion and identify some of the issues they might need to tackle there… But at this point, meddling by Americans should absolutely go no further than that.
Actually, compared with his and Gelb-Biden’s present focus on how the country might be partitioned, I find the Bush administration’s declared public position of support for an Iraqi government of national unity– repeat, national unity– relatively refreshing.
Jonathan, thanks there! Last night, I was reading “it” as being “breaking up Iraq”… Today of course, your reading of it was blindingly clear.
Helena,
I find the Bush administration’s declared public position of support for an Iraqi government of national unity– repeat, national unity– relatively refreshing.
Helena, we all knew US administration stated and still stating many things about Iraq invasion what makes you or us to trust this “relatively refreshing” statement now? Do you really believe in what they saying?
Jonathan Edelstein,
an attempt to redraw regional boundaries.
Jonathan, I think to some degree it is, may be not like the outcome from Paris peace meeting 100 years ago in regards to ME, but I think US administration / Strategy simmers fishy some thing like that
“The move underscores the degree to which Bush’s declaration 17 months ago that the “ultimate goal” of US policy was “ending tyranny in our world” has been cast aside in the interests of old-fashioned geopolitics. ”
That old-time geopolitics is back
By Jim Lobe
Helena,
I was excited to see your post late last night, glad someone else was making the analogy I posted at AiB late Monday night.
Check it out here:
Only Self-Determination Equals Liberation
I think I may have posted it previously to an earlier comment, maybe it directed your own post? I hope so! Speaking of being refreshed, I was refreshed to find someone else, with perhaps a little more grounding in Iraq’s history, writing about this issue.
I feel like we can just as easily compare Bush to Lloyd George and Biden to Arnold Wilson, perhaps this makes Juan Cole the Gertrude Bell of 2006?!
So here’s a revolutionary thought, maybe POLITICIANS are the problem? And by politicians I mean the elite class of western-allied wealthy who are now running Iraq. The biggest problems I see with any partitioning plan are that these plans will never reflect the will of the Iraqi people. Whenever some analyst says things like “Kurdistan has been independent for __ and will never give up this independence” what they should actually be saying is, “the kurdish leaders have established a fiefdom outside the rule of international law(let’s be clear there is no kurdish “state” according to the UN or anyone else, unless i’m wrong they have even less recognition than Palestine).
Furthermore, it becomes increasingly clear that even in Kurdistan the leadership does not reflect the will of the people, and is increasingly a disconnected entrenched elite of powerbrokers and “fiefdom lords.”
By talking about partitioning Iraq,
#1 we are making decisions about borders and sovereignty-and thus being more honest than the bush administration over who really rules Iraq at this time, but are nevertheless engaging in some of the worst style of colonialism
#2 we are essentially attempting to set up a system of warlord provinces, where each “warlord” read “democratically elected politician meeting the standards of the international community(read, the united states), lords over his personal fief, but because he is a member of an “ethnic majority” in that region, and is “democratically elected” now we have “achieved victory in iraq.”
So again I say, I’m going to propose a revolutionary concept,
Perhaps “states” are the problem. Clearly this is a part of the world where we are again and again seeing the failure of the traditional “state.” What is really the ethnic makeup of southern Iraq? How often does it shift with the tides of pilgrims travelling to and from Najaf and Kerbala?
How do we define “foreign fighters” when Iraq had an ethnically diverse and international community for many years?
If someone invaded New York City, they might be surprised to learn about all the African “foreign fighters” to be found at 28th and Broadway.
Anyway, enough of my rant, but I will say this, self-determination is the only solution. And, self-determination cannot happen under occupation, nor can it happen with the US and other “international powers” meddling in Iraq. There are several “Iraqi proposals” for withdrawal and solving the crisis floating around out there, and while at least 1 or 2 do involved the UN as a temporary security body, it is ALWAYS considered subservient to the will of the Iraqi people in these documents.
Certainly, if we look at things from a traditional state mentality, we may find that absurd ideas such as Juan Cole’s “Chaldeanistan” and “Turkmenistan” make sense. Indeed, Gertrude Bell was the one who suggested “self-determination under British indication” and any Iraqi will tell you that’s not self-determination.
so enough of the GWBushes, Joe Bidens, Gelbs, and Juan Coles, just as we’ve had enough of the Georges, Wilsons, Coxs, and Bells 100 years ago.
Liberation means Self-Determination, and nothing less.
PS. Salah, I had another article published about the place of the media in Iraq, since you have asked previously, here’s that link:
What Can You Believe?
PPS. Anyone with a half a mind about history and imperialism has already seen that Bush wants “national-unity” his way, and only his way
Salah
This is one of the many links you hit if you google Israel Kurdistan
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/FF26Ak01.html
Best wishes
Helena
which of the six treaties of Berlin are you referring to please?
The name Treaty of Berlin is attached to several treaties:
Treaty of Berlin, 1742
Treaty of Berlin, 1878
Treaty of Berlin, 1885
Treaty of Berlin, 1899
Treaty of Berlin, 1921
Treaty of Berlin, 1926
source Wikipaedia.
I fought my way through to the end of Mr Fisk’s latest book and find a description of a million dead Armenians that he seems to firmly blame on the Kurds and Turks.
People do have a way of sucessfully resolving their problems.
He has a delightful passage on the difference between a massacre and a holocaust.
That is not a good part of the world for people to be stirring up ethnic tensions.
Some problems can’t actually be resolved by the particpants. Bill Clinton sent Senator Mitchell to Ireland to sort out that remnant of the Thirty Years War.
One of the altermatives to the unilateralism of Sharon is a resolution of the palestinian situation by an outside body.
Werent the oslo accords also about drawing on maps?
If there isnt a solution it important to know there isnt one and to identify the three least bad outcomes.
As for the Bush administration’s support for a government of national unity, one of the prime characterisitcs of government is a monopoly on the use of armed force. If you follow the line of supporting them, then logically you supply them with 150,000 troops for an unspecified period. Which runs counter to your position and mine.
Supporting Chichester Clarks government in Northern Ireland go the British Government into a thirty year war at great cost in blood and treasure.
I fear we are too late now to do much but watch from the sidelines. Last man standing gets to be the Government of Iraq and draw its boundaries on the map.
Helena
This morning’s Turkish press has two items of interest
The first indicates that somebody has a Rumsfeldian fantasy going on across the Kurdish Iranian border.
http://www.thenewanatolian.com/opinion-5998.html
the second is a piece by Cengiz Candar in the same issue who suspects that somebody is trying to get Turkey to line up with US against Iran.
I think I conclude that the rumour that US troops are going to leave Iraq remains just that, and that somebody in Washington is playing double or quits.
I think I am annoyed by this meddling in a future member of the European Union that will jeopardise its membership.
I fought my way through to the end of Mr Fisk’s latest book and find a description of a million dead Armenians that he seems to firmly blame on the Kurds and Turks.
Frank, are you implying the Kurds weren’t involved in massacring the Armenians? If you are, I suggest you read “The Emergence of Kurdish Nationalism: 1880-1925”
Brian
Not at at all. I recall Mr Fisk mentioning the Kurds as among the perpetrators at the instigation of the Turks but didn’t have the book in front of me to check my recollection.
Thanks for the reference to the book on Kurdish nationalism.
Helena
Riverbend in one of her inspiring posts mentions rumours of thousands of Iranian troops on the Iraqi frontier.
http://riverbendblog.blogspot.com/
Ho hum, the conflagration spreads. As I mentioned a few months ago there isn’t a firebreak.
How sad.
Brian– I just read your long comment above (which had been held up for moderation because of the links in it). No, I hadn’t read that AiB post of yours before I wrote this post here, but intend to do so now you’ve linked to it.
The title, “Only self-determination equals liberation” expresses something that I very firmly adhere to (and which has notably eluded the Bushies in all their use– expropriation– of the discourse of liberation.)
Regarding whether states as such are the problem, that’s a huge and weighty issue! My view in short is that no, they’re not the problem; attempts by groups of people to dominate other groups of people are the problem… Historically, when the state system developed in Europe after the Treaty of Westphalia, they created a series of relatively safe incubating boxes in which ideas of liberalism and egalitarianism could start to take hold… Thus, the notion of ‘state soveriegnty’ is a two-edged instrument: it can be used to protect authoritarian rules; but also liberal polities…
Anyway, we can’t resolve that totally here!
Frank– thanks for pointing me to River. My spouse just did, too. I’d better get on over there.
Frank,
It’s a great text, accessible yet academic. It’s also a bit short for its well over 200 pages-I think it’s only about 160 total content, the rest is footnotes, index, etc!
The Kurdish question is certainly something which has not been looked at enough in history, problematically being deemed a “problem in iraq” I think in most American minds, particularly after the gulf war and no-fly zones brought halabja again into the public mind.
I was shocked to realize just how much of “turkey” is “ethnically-kurdish” or historically ethnic kurdish territory. I had though Diyarbakir, for example, was on the Iraqi side of the border, when in fact it is well inside Turkish territory, along with its sister city, Erzurum.
I was also really interested to learn so much about the role of Kurds in the Armenian genocide, and of course the place of Armenians in massacres of Kurds, then again, the use of proxy ethnic groups to wage an imperial war of oppression is a long tale with many anecdotes.
The author of that text-which is packed away in preparation for my upcoming return to the Middle East next week, escapes me, but he even seemed to suggest that the direct influence of the Turks on the role of the Kurds in that genocide/conflict/what have you, may be questionable, and that the Kurds were only to happy to engage.
Again, Unless I’m misreading maps, or just mistaken, Armenia is closer to historically Kurdish land than Turkic, Turkish, Turkoman, etc.
Helena,
We’ll just have to agree to disagree on the role of states. Although perhaps I’ll change my mind in the future I find it unlikely. Personally I envisage a governmental system where power and decision-making is so localized that it encompasses what may someday be seen as the successor to the modern state-ideal, which you remind us all comes out of the Westphalian treaty process, something I’ll have to invest more time in.
For me, as an anti-authoritarin and an activist/journalist/etc who has been to Iraq, I cannot now think of a more salient example then Iraqi politics for the manner in which sectarianism, ethnic identity, religion, etc. is utilized by an elite class of leaders to prop up a role that is arbitrary at best.
For me, self-determination means just that, for all people in all places, at the local level.
At the same time, if Iraqis really want a parliament, a constitutional monarchy(shortly after the war there were in fact Iraqis looking for this!!), or even a US-modelled “republic” then so be it. that’s their decision, but it will never come about effectively under occupation.
Furthermore, as I’m sure you will second, there are plenty of examples of “westernized” states that have come through an occupation and been given a hand up, whose economies later came directly into conflict with our own in the US-Germany and Japan being the most salient examples.
More reason I feel that the civil war/deconstruction of Iraq, while perhaps not intentional, is certainly not considered a bad option by transnational corporations-the other model for a post-state world system.
of Iranian troops on the Iraqi frontier.
I think Iran start his war now with US on Iraq Ground.
This interesting thing here what’s those Kurds Parties and Kurdistan reign can coup with Iranians / Turkey troops try to fights on Iraq ground? Are they truly meant what the said, or it’s just the start of each one get some thing from this Iraq Cakes as US struggles to finish it up there in Iraq?
i think firstly juan cole was simply trying to offer a solution to this terrible mess we are in.
Riverbend is an extremely biased source of information but she does throw up the odd titbit of good info every now and then.
The untrustworthy iraqi kurds have brought this on themselves. They want it both ways. they want to have independence but they also want as much influence as possible within Iraq itself. They refuse to stop PKK terrorists from operating in northern Iraq and the turks and iranians have the right to stop these people, because the US wont.
As for the referendum on kirkuk in december 2007, Jalal Talabani’s bullet ridden body will be paraded through Ankara before the kurds can grab the oil rich town.
KarlikSuka4