1. Babylonians Says:
   September 15th, 2007 at 2:32 am

   The better question is: Does anyone think that there’s an alternative solution to put an end to the conflict in Iraq? Partition or federation or confederation is a very normal end to this British-made entity and it’s time to face reality and deal with it the way it is.

2. mel Says:
   September 17th, 2007 at 8:20 pm

   The problem is that Iraq’s borders, like so many post-Versailles states, were drawn with such difficulty, prejudice, infighting, nitpicking and plain idiocy that the Western concept of a nation-state does not apply for the most part.

   Iraq’s borders were so arbitrarily drawn back then it is nearly impossible to reconcile today. Goodness, even the Estonians had a hand in determining the border with Turkey back in the 1920s!

   The only real “nation” that could develop a nation-state in this mess called Iraq are the Kurds — but that would just lead to a major regional war if that happens and completely destabilise the Middle East to an extent we’ve never seen before. Turkey would never allow any sense of a Kurdistan to exist, and would push rather far even if it is a confederated Iraq.

   And dividing the lands between the Sunni and Shia would cause an enormous amout of secondary and tertiary problems, not limited to resource imbalance in the carved lands. And just because they are split it would not mean the various extremist groups would live happily on within their own borders; this will still be a proxy war between Iran and Saudi.

   I fear it may look like a short-term solution, but it won’t work. Even if there is some type of conciliation between Sunni Saudi and Shia Iran and their proxies, the Turkish question would not be solved by confederation or partition. And remember, the Turkish military is rather worked up over the Gül presidency and may be eager to pull the trigger if anything else pops up that threatens their sense of Turkishness at the very least.

3. Humphrey Says:
   September 23rd, 2007 at 2:41 pm

   That Turkish issue is a good one, Mel, and short-term solution means it won’t work. I’m not sure what facing reality is for Iraq, Babylonians. The question is does the developed wwolrd plan the next thirty years in Iraq — keeping it together and building the institutions, or allowing partition and managing countless civil wars. The only truth is that we’re looking at about thirty years.

4. mel Says:
   September 24th, 2007 at 12:33 am

   Humphrey, I fear more than 30 years we’re looking at. The entire region has had a major identity crisis since the collapse of Ottoman rule. There has been ups and downs of Arab nationalism/unity/whatever-you-like-to-call-it. There has been proxy wars. This may sound controversial, but you know, if for some reason Israel does disappear — hypothetically, of course — it would probably unleash a major regional war. When the glue disappears, the only unifying issue, then they will war like Europe did centuries ago when it wasn’t facing a common threat.

   If we confine this to Iraq, then we have a problem. Any relaxation of a centralised state would give Mosul a reason to seek more autonomy. And any change in status would set Turkey off, especially if the military there really wants to show the politicians who is in charge. And Washington has little say if the Turkish military wants to intervene. It would be a complete mess.

   I forgot who commented that Iraq, sadly, does not have a “Hamid Karzai”. I think that’s a fallacy. Karzai is barely in control of anything outside of Kabul, and al-Maliki not much beyond his office. The only person since the end of Ottoman rule to have been a solid factor for unity is sadly the daemon from Tikrit. Even the restoration of the monarchy would be a mess, especially if it conjures up a Hashemite past.

   We can’t ask the region to play a bigger role, because if that’s the case, the proxy war will turn into a real one between Saudi and Iran. Then we’ll see 800 dollar oil. The EU won’t do it. NATO is handcuffed with the Turkey thing. It has to be US-led at this point…

   When you are in a quagmire, you are in for a long, drawn out demise…

5. Humphrey Says:
   September 29th, 2007 at 8:35 am

   Those are interesting point about the collapse of Ottoman rule and the absence of Israel. In a way that was recently proven by the Hamas-Fatah clashes. I have often wondered how the Chinese nationalists managed to turn the refugee camp of Taiwan into one of the world’s strongest economies, when the Palestinians have got no-where close.

6. mel Says:
   October 3rd, 2007 at 7:12 pm

   How Taiwan turned itself into a strong economy is sadly a blueprint that can be easily used — one that has nothing to do with democracy and human rights.

   Do not forget, that Taiwan was under martial law for ages and was was horribly corrupt. Remember years ago the jokes about products “made in Taiwan”? Do you see where I’m heading with this?

   China, in effect, is doing the same thing. It is using Taiwan’s blueprint. Don’t worry about the population, the economy is the key. If people have enough money to spend, they won’t complain as much. Russia chose the “Western” way and ended up with an ineffective democracy and economic disaster.

   The world can see that for the most part, many of the economic successes in the post-War world has been by non-democratic countries. Some argue that the difference in growth and development between China and India symbolise this perfectly.

   As with the difference with Palestine, simple — access. Taiwan had de jure independence and recognition until the 1970s, and still has de facto today. They have trade routes, they had tacit protection from the US. They had a pseudo-nationalist-authoritatian system in place, 1-party rule. Palestine had no access, no protection, and continual destruction of infrastructure. If Taiwan faces 1% of what Palestine faced, it would be apparent why.

   It’s easier to turn small countries around. Look at Slovenia and Estonia. Estonia had to re-create nearly all the institutions of a functional state in 1991 and is today one of the freest and fastest-growing economies in the world (and per capita GDP has already exceeded 2 “old Europe” EU members). But they had the trade routes (Finland, Sweden) and access to investments. Taiwan also had similar conditions. But Palestine? Not even close. If you have only basketcases as your friends (Estonia had Finland, Taiwan had the US), you generally don’t exceed beyond the group trend…

7. Humphrey Says:
   October 4th, 2007 at 8:35 am

   Interesting point about neighbors. Israel’s trade with Jordan and Egypt is a fraction (about 3 per cent, I think) of it’s overall trade, because of the huge difference in cultures — and the historical suspicion. Israel is very high tech. .

   http://www.humphreyhawksley.com/pages/reporter/fooc/ilaniyya-israel-august2006.aspx

   But Taiwan became rich during a trade ban with China, although now teh economies of the two are hiugely intertwined.

8. mel Says:
   October 9th, 2007 at 4:44 pm

   Yes, all you said is true. Taiwan got itself rich by trade with the US and other Asian countries — under one-party rule and horrific corruption. Nevertheless, they grew rich. China sees that as Chinese success, except that the one-party rule is now not KMT but Communist Party. They are now very highly intertwined, and this is an effective use of Chinese foreign policy, not just in Taiwan, but also with Japan and the US. If you have so many economic ties that you cannot rupture without upsetting the various stock markets and business elites, you can get away with plenty — and Beijing is showing us how spineless Washington is to Goldman Sachs and so forth.

   Israel had enemies all around, and has a relatively limited trade with the US. Israel is a borderline democracy and as corrupt as Taiwan, but it is socially absolutely fragmented. Look at the rise of neo-Nazis in Israel and the dual-class system — Ashkenazi has the most influence, then lesser to Sephardics, and further down. Throw in Russian and Ethiopian immigrants, it is fractured. And Taiwan is not faced with daily threats of terrorism from China (because China knows that would be counterproductive to luring Taiwan “back”).

   And it’s simple geography. Taiwan, surrounded by water, can trade itself out of trouble. It has a pretty clear path for resources from the water, since that’s also the path Japan gets its resources. Israel does not — it is surrounded by enemies, desert and not much water access — and it’s not a very safe one either.

   Companies invest less in a non-secure environment. Investors went into Taiwan because it was seen as a stable environment. Israel less so. This is why Central/East European countries fought to join NATO — to prove that they are stable and won’t be under threat from Russia, just to give investors a more relaxed feel going in.

9. mel Says:
   October 12th, 2007 at 5:34 pm

   Hi again Humphrey, going back to the Turkey situ. Look at things now with the US House of Reps’ resolution and the response from every angle of Ankara. This is what will help Gül in the eyes of the Army, and this joins them in condeming the “threats to Turkishness” from Washington. These sabre-rattling words about shutting down Incurlik and invading northern Iraq will continue. We’ll see at the end of Ramadan whether this goes ahead or not.

   But this is worrying, as the US Congress did something morally correct, perhaps decades too late, and in turn caused the bilateral and regional mess.I will expect Turkey to be in the news for some time. Anything can happen, including the military — using the invasion as an excuse, tries to topple Gül and Erdogan as “islamists” in their overall defence of Turkishness. If the Turkish military does a few lightning strikes, performs its umpteenth coup, and then retreat and repair relations with the US, it could be a grand move.

   Washington, under either GOP or Dems, cannot risk further alienating Turkey (their “model” for Islamic democracy — even if it goes through more coups, just because they are secular). I think the US will quickly repair any relationships (unless Turkish and US troops somehow fire on each other) for the greater regional issue. Losing Turkey would destroy US policy in the Islamic world for decades…

Leave a Reply