Arab newspapers give details of future Iraqi government

[DuncanK]

http://slate.msn.com/id/2079814/

Over the weekend, several Arab newspapers described the details of a postwar American political order in Iraq and named the officials who might rule the country.


In a front-page article on Sunday, the London-based Al-Hayat quoted U.S. officials as saying that postwar Iraq would be divided into three administrative zones. Taking a page out of British imperial history, the Bush administration intends to name a woman, Barbara Bodine, a former ambassador to Yemen, as administrator of the central zone that includes Baghdad. After World War I, Britain also appointed a woman, the colorful Gertrude Bell, to run Iraq, though Bodine might have less clout. According to the London-based Saudi paper Al-Sharq al-Awsat, she and the two administrators of the northern and southern zones (both former generals) will report to retired Army general Jay Garner, who heads the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance, the euphemistically named body created by the Pentagon to govern Iraq. The paper also asserted that a four-member interim presidential council made up of Iraqis would be set up to advise the Americans. It may include former ministers "Adnan Pahchachi, an Arab Sunni now based in the United Arab Emirates; Fouad Aref, a Kurdish Sunni headquartered in Kurdistan; Abdelghani Dalli, an Arab Shiite living in Britain; and Ahmed al-Habboubi, another Arab Shiite currently residing in Egypt."

The alleged U.S. intentions in fashioning such an arrangement are criticized by the United Arab Emirates' daily Al-Khaleej. In a leader, the paper excoriated the "wicked, fiendish intentions" of the Bush administration, pointing out that the subdivision of Iraq suggested the country would be carved up along sectarian and ethnic lines—the north has a substantial Kurdish population, the south is predominantly Shiite, while Sunnis are concentrated in the middle of the country. However, the appointment of retired military men to administer the north and south suggested, on the contrary, that the administration might impose tighter control over the Kurds and Shiites precisely to avoid Iraq's partition, which virtually everybody in the region opposes.

[PLATO]

For those who continue to ask what a post-war Iraq would look like, here it is. A remakably sound strategy to ensure that the seperate factions can be dealt with appropriately while a national unity is formed.

[Arrian]

I tend to read the Jordan Times & Lebanon Star, and have seen a LOT of speculation on US government intentions. Except it isn't presented as speculation - it's presented as fact (I suspect in order to impress the reader with the writer's knowledge).

I read such articles with a healthy does of skepticism. This could be correct (I have heard a lot about dividing Iraq into three zones, but then again, the last article I read that suggested that said that we would also divide Saudi Arabia into 4 parts. ), but who knows until it actually happens?

-Arrian

[Shi Huangdi]

Are these the same Arab papers that said Israel was responsible for 9/11.

[Oerdin]

IIRC Al-Huyat is an extremist Arab language newspaper in London. I seem to recall Al-Huyat writing crap about the CIA and Isaeli inteligence plotted 9/11 so they could have an excuse to take over the Arab world. They also urged Arabs to join with the Taliban and "defend Islam" against the "crusading" Americans & British.

This paper is a rag.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Oerdin
IIRC Al-Huyat is an extremist Arab language newspaper in London. I seem to recall Al-Huyat writing crap about the CIA and Isaeli inteligence plotted 9/11 so they could have an excuse to take over the Arab world. They also urged Arabs to join with the Taliban and "defend Islam" against the "crusading" Americans & British.

This paper is a rag.

Even a rag can sometimes have correct info. Three zones would make sense as long as they were temporary. National Unity is the goal and with the internal factions all trying to gain power in post war Iraq it would probably be smart to initially administer the three zones as described in the article.

[Odin]

THe Kurds should get thier independence, But if they do Turkey is going to have a fit. Why is Turkey so against an independent Kurdistan? It would get rid of a security threat in Turkey. It looks like the Kurds are going to get screwed again (as usual).

[rah]

I too would be interested on why Turkey has such a problem with an independent Kurdistan. The only thing i've heard is that if they were independent that have some grudges to settle with Turkey. Anyone care to enlighten us.

RAH

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'm guessing Turkey is thinking about Albania and Kosovo as it dealt with Serbia/Yugoslavia and don't want to deal with that.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by rah
I too would be interested on why Turkey has such a problem with an independent Kurdistan. The only thing i've heard is that if they were independent that have some grudges to settle with Turkey. Anyone care to enlighten us.

RAH

I believe that the Kurds claim part of southern Turkey as their territory.

[GePap]

In 1922 several Kurdish groups declared themselves independent, trying to create a Kurdish state out of lands that were claimed by the Still forming Turkish republic: the Turks defeated them, and have forever since been very wary of Kurds trying to create an independent state out of the Eastern part of the Turkish Republic (At this time, after the Greeks invaded and were repulsed all the Greeks of Western Turkey were kicked out as well). At the same time the Turks wanted to claim the Mosul area (now Northen Iraq) but the British would not allow this: there were a few minor clashes and the Turks had to give up thier claim.

[Az]

Actually, AFAIK, these lands are nothing but a burden on turkey. since it doesn't really need any buffer against attack. Therefore, I once again, fail to realize what is the reason.

[Buck Birdseed]

Since the brief existence of an independent Kurdistan, Kurds have been a percecuted minority in Turkey (and Iraq, and Iran...), with their language banned and even Kurdish-sounding names forbidden. There's still some doubt over whether democratic Kurdish parties are allowed to function in Turkey, and the language was released only recently.

Among the by-products of this often brutal repression are armed Kurdish guerilla groups of various kinds, most notably the PKK, who conduct campaigns of variedly standard armed struggle and terrorism against the Ankara government. These have quitened down in the last decade or so, and are largely seeking peace agreements, but the Turkish government is extremely paranoid and keeps a tight regime in turkish Kurdistan, repressing any sign of violence or political dissidence with often excessive force.

There's certainly the fear from the Turkish side that a free Kurdish state will lay claims to the (largely Kurdish-populated and traditionally Kurdish) lands on the other side of the border, and will act as a base for potential armed incursions.

[GePap]

The Kurds sit on the headwaters of the Euphrates and Tigris, as well as many othe rivers. Their land contains the most important part of the whole water system of the area. And water in the ME is crucial.

[Az]

Actually, Gepap, IIRC, the Tigris and the Euphrates start deeper into turkey, not in Kurdish lands.

and in any case, I hardly believe this is the reason the turks want to prevent their independance. They could just claim the dams in a peaceful agreement.

[GePap]

Kurdish lands run deep, and how would the Kurds be able to give over control to another state of vital infrastructure?

The Turks see it as part of their republic, and thus, its thier land..the residents are citizens fo the Turkish republic, period. Separatism and trying to break up Turkey are not allowed.

Its a little notion called nationalism.... you might be very familiar with it and its consequences.

[Buck Birdseed]

What the Kurds are engaged in (trying to preserve their culture, language and heritage) is nationalism. The Turks are trying to engage in anti-nationalist imperialist oppression, of the kind the Austrain empire would have conducted 150 years ago.

[Az]

Kurdish lands run deep, and how would the Kurds be able to give over control to another state of vital infrastructure?

why wouldn't they? One would've thought that getting an independent state was their goal? If you think that the reason that Turkey needs those eastern lands is Water, and what the Kurds want is an independent state, One would've thought that a compromise is quite feasible. unless some of our starting conditions are not true.

The Turks see it as part of their republic, and thus, its thier land..the residents are citizens fo the Turkish republic, period. Separatism and trying to break up Turkey are not allowed.

Well, that kind of thinking won't get you nowhere. ( an Israeli should know ).

[Ramo]

The Turks hvee been participating in ethnic cleansing on a massive scale during the past few decades on its Kurdish population to eliminate Kurdish nationalism. If there's an independent Kurdistan, the Turkish state fears that Kurdish nationalism would be resurrected.

[GePap]

I do not think Buck that the Turks see themselves as overlords of far flung lands away form their "homeland" but instead do view every bit of what is now the Republic of Tukey as Turkish land, beloging historically to them..that makes their oppresion of the Kurds, who are a minority within Turkey that happen to be concentrated in a few regions, nationalism.

Azazel: part of having your own state is controlling everything within it and not letting any outsiders make rules for you.

[Az]

Azazel: part of having your own state is controlling everything within it and not letting any outsiders make rules for you.

That's why the dams won't be within it.

[GePap]

A river is a common good..anytime a river crosses borders, states have to make agreements about water allocation (as an Israeli should know). Why should the Turks go thourgh the hassle when they can simply own it all? They do think it is all theirs anyway.

[Sava]

The international powers have never shown they can effectively drawn new borders after wars. Personally, I think by getting rid of Saddam, Bush is going to turn Iraq into a war-torn region much like the Balkans. Throughout history, anywhere Western International powers have tried to draw maps, they've created problems. I don't see how Iraq would be any different... in fact, it will probably be worse because these borders and zones are being drawn by a brain-donor like Bush.

[Buck Birdseed]

Originally posted by GePap
I do not think Buck that the Turks see themselves as overlords of far flung lands away form their "homeland" but instead do view every bit of what is now the Republic of Tukey as Turkish land, beloging historically to them..that makes their oppresion of the Kurds, who are a minority within Turkey that happen to be concentrated in a few regions, nationalism.

Imperialism is hardly related to proximity to the motherland, as most pre-colonial empires show. The turkish "nationalism" is rhetoric used to keep the empire together- if they're all Turks together there's no chance of any breaking off.

I'd go so far as to say that Nationalism can't actually be a position held by a non-minority. Nationalism is the doctrine of wanting to create your own nation (beside all the cultural preservation, interest-promoting, historical stuff), majority ethnic groups most often have their own nations already...