Revisiting the Concept of National Self-Determination: Iraq and the Prospects for (Soft) Partition
Note: The following is an excerpt from my research proposal for my summer class: U.S. Foreign Policy in the 21st Century: Dynamics of Change. I wanted to post this to see if it could spark any beneficial discussion. I am currently researching and writing my first 10-page draft. Aside from the usual forum discussion, any comments could help me in my policy draft.
After the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the United States found itself facing violence and chaos from two opposing religious factions – the Sunnis and the Shiites – and a northern region that is all but completely autonomous from the central government. Despite the recent de-escalation in violence and insurgent attacks, attributed by many to the 2007 military “surge,” the core issue of a stable, viable Iraq is far from being solved. The prospects of a multi-state solution have been marginalized in favor of a single-state Iraq. The single-state solution, despite its support, is an anachronistic policy and should be abrogated as official nation-building policy.
The most arbitrary and distorted borders in the world are in Africa and the Middle East. Borders drawn by early 20th century diplomats and politicians of Western nations have produced a convoluted geographical make-up, resulting in some of the most violent and tumultuous regions in the world. The United States has discovered this geopolitical fact first hand in Iraqi. Inter-ethnic conflict, a quasi-separatist northern region, and a central government lacking political authority, the U.S. is faced with an acute political dilemma that will require a change in course.
Despite its lauded success, the surge has not solved the essential issue in Iraq: a stable and legitimate central government. As political strategist Steven Simon identified in a recent article, the surge merely gives the illusion of political workability for the current Iraqi government; the prospect for long-term political stability in Iraq is nebulous, at best. In order to remedy the geopolitical mess that is Iraq, the United States must seek a new course of action.
While the U.S. still holds a relatively influential position in directing the course of Iraqi politics, it should consider the political option of initiating the partition of Iraq into separate Kurdish, Shiite, and Sunni polities, according to their religious and ethnic make-up. The partitioned states should be loosely connected under a political federation with Baghdad serving as a shared city-state, federation capital. It is in the interest of the geopolitical future of the Middle East and the objective set by the United States to a rebuild a stable, democratic Middle East, that a serious consideration is given to the prospect of re-drawing the archaic and incorrigible borders of the current Iraqi state.
Would you say that partition is an approach driven mostly out of a realism paradigm or and idealist paradigm? That’s tough to say. I think you could make an argument either way.
Aside from the obvious issues involved with partitioning Iraq, how do you think that plan would play politically here in the US?
David M. Manes
7 Jul 08 at 6:05 pm
Ha, this title is way too long. Our Recent Comments feed is going to be out of control.
But it is a good title, nevertheless.
David M. Manes
7 Jul 08 at 6:05 pm
National Self-Determination is quintessential Wilsonian idealism! However, “pragmatic” Wilsonianism is the bedrock of the neo-liberal (Fukuyama style) movement. Whether or not the Bush Administration that invaded Iraq can be considered a part of the “pragmatic” Wilsonianism group is debatable. People like Francis Fukuyama certainly wouldn’t like to be grouped with Donald Rumsfeld. The best explanation I’ve heard is this: the former is part of the “pragmatic” neo-liberals; the latter is a part of the Jacobin neo-liberals.
How does the partitioning plan play out in the U.S.? Ask Leslie Gelb and Joe Biden (Gelb-Biden Plan). I think most Democrats jump at any plan that potentially limits U.S. oversight and provides a chance at disengagement (although I’m not sure this is the plan for such a move). Republicans typically favor the status quo and no major institutional reform plans. Other than that, I’m relatively unsure of the political uptake of a federation partition plan.
S.C. Denney
7 Jul 08 at 6:33 pm
Good points with the Democrats/Republicans, but I was curious how the voters would view it. Is partition something president Obama/McCain would ever propose? Is there enough support on our end to make it happen?
I think the idea has potential, and in spite of its difficulties, it is probably the best alternative to any other way of getting out of the current quagmire.
David M. Manes
7 Jul 08 at 6:37 pm
Rumsfeld et al = neoliberals? Methinks not. The primary (though not the only) difference between neoliberals and neoconservatives is the NCs’ disdain for international institutions. They may share some of the same goals, but the term neoconservative exists for a reason. I will not have you besmirching the (I think) good name of neoliberalism.
On the original subject, is the current situation really a quagmire? It seems obvious that the situation has improved to the point where there is a reasonable chance for some kind of quasi-stable solution. The certainty displayed by many of the surgeniks is, of course, overstated, but I see no reason to hurry and risk further instability. Then again, we are probably an Israeli strike on Iran away from a shitstorm the likes of which we have not yet seen. I’m tired of Iraq.
jkkuwitzky
7 Jul 08 at 7:20 pm
Ack! Forgive my semantic errors. I meant to differentiate between the different types of “neo-conservatives.” NOT neo-liberals. I was reading through a review of Dennis Ross’s book on statecraft, where Ross, who considers himself a “neo-liberal,” talks about why he aligns himself with people like Fukuyama because of their “realistic Wilsonianism.” I had that terminology linkage in my head when I wrote “neo-liberal.” My fault.
On the original subject, partition now, more than ever, is possible because of the “relative” calm in sectarian violence. However, as I will argue, neglecting to give the Kurds an autonomous state (in a federation) is setting the stage for a (potentially violent) secessionist movement later on. Furthermore, to hope that Shiites and Sunnis can cooperate in the long run under one unified state is something of a pipe dream (methinks). I have much higher hopes for international toleration than I do intra-national toleration.
S.C. Denney
7 Jul 08 at 8:37 pm
I am too a (realistic) neo-liberal. So, shame on me for the semantical mishap.
S.C. Denney
7 Jul 08 at 8:38 pm
Moreover, if it weren’t for the negative connotation that the Bush Administration gave neo-conservatives, being neo-conservative wouldn’t be such the travesty it has become.
So, in the meantime, to all of those who feel that intelligent and tough-minded use of U.S. (and Western) power can and should be used, but with a sensitivity to the way issues are framed and involving working with others, just stick to being a neo-liberal; even though neo-liberals and neo-conservatives share this core virtue of power with responsibility.
Bottom line: the 21st Century (mainstream) neo-cons became the 21st Century Jacobins after 9/11. Shame.
S.C. Denney
7 Jul 08 at 8:50 pm
I laugh out loud every time i read some ill-informed lefty blogger hurling the neo-con label at anyone from Madeleine Albright to Hillary Clinton. Neo-con is the new fascist.
I’m very worried about the direction that grassroots opinion on foreign policy seems to be heading (actually I think I am generally worried by most grassroots opinion). I look forward to the histrionics that will no doubt follow President Obama’s prudent decision to extend the American presence in Iraq. Love live Samantha Power.
jkkuwitzky
7 Jul 08 at 10:08 pm
I prefer Jacobins. Mainly because I just finished A Tale of Two Cities.
S.C. Denney
7 Jul 08 at 10:13 pm
Joe Biden may potentially be the next V.P. He’s a big fan of partition. Him and Leslie Gelb (who should be the next Ambassador to Iraq).
S.C. Denney
7 Jul 08 at 10:15 pm
The idea seems like it would work if people would just act reasonably, but I think we know that that is a bit too much to ask. There are no clearly good options, but partition seems to be begging for regional militias and resource conflicts and increased involvement in domestic Iraqi politics by neighboring regional powers. Not to mention a lot of angry Turks.
jkkuwitzky
7 Jul 08 at 10:53 pm