skip to nav

The partitioning of Iraq

ARGUMENTS FOR:

Iraq is an artificial country with no natural unity, created by the British after the 1914-18 war. Under the Ottoman Empire, Iraq was divided into three vilayets (provinces): Shia Basra in the south, Sunni-dominated Baghdad in the centre, and Kurdish Mosul in the north. Partition now would assume a similar shape.

Partition is the best solution for the sectarian enmities that have reduced Iraq to civil war. Iraq's Government of National Unity is not united and is incapable of governing.

The examples of former Yugoslavia and India/Pakistan show that partition is the answer when peoples cannot live peaceably together.

There is no longer an Iraqi nation (if there ever was one): there are Kurds, Sunni Arabs and Shia Arabs. Partitioning Iraq is a recognition of realities.

Partition offers a get-out for the US and Britain. Troops could be pulled out sooner.
The First Post guide to the issue of the day

ARGUMENTS AGAINST:

The Iraqi state has lasted for more than 80 years. There is now an Iraqi nation. The present conflict - brought upon Iraq not by its people, but through an invasion - is about who dominates, not about separation or secession.

The sectarian bloodshed will get worse. Proposals for partition ignore the reality of Baghdad (population 6 million) which is divided between Sunnis and Shias. Attempts to partition Iraq will make Bosnia look like a tea-party.

Iran will dominate the oil-rich Shia south, which will destabilise Iraq's Sunni neighbours.

Turkey to the north, with 14 million Kurds, fears the establishment of an independent Iraqi Kurdistan, and Turkey is the West's most valuable ally in the Middle East.

Failure to create a democratic Iraqi state or federation will represent a humiliating defeat for Bush and Blair in the War on Terror, and a victory for Iran and al-Qaeda.

FIRST POSTED DECEMBER 11, 2006

News & Comment: News & Politics