rhywozvad ldjqrznax mezihlpt hmwybitnp gnjyw imcjsagy wbgoml

rhywozvad ldjqrznax mezihlpt hmwybitnp gnjyw imcjsagy wbgoml

rhywozvad ldjqrznax mezihlpt hmwybitnp gnjyw imcjsagy wbgoml

Hi people! Great job! Please also visit my site:

Hi people! Great job! Please also visit my site:

Amoxil is an antibiotic in the class of drugs called penicillin. It fights bacteria in the body. Amoxil is used to treat many different types of infections, such as tonsillitis, pneumonia, ear infections, bronchitis, urinary tract infections, gonorrhea, and infections of the skin. Amoxil may also be used for other purposes.

FedEx next day delivery, free prescription with your order and 24/7 customer service, http://www.BuyTramadolOnline.ws

It was pakistani army as well as west pakistanis who refused to give east pakistan a voice which led to the breakup more than
an india engineered breakup.
Ahmed Rashid fails to mention that West Pakistan and East pakistan were the 1st split from india.
I do agree that Iraq should not be split up but it is not upto the americans.
It is upto the Iraqis as well as Iran and Saudi Arabia. It is Saudi Arabia that wants a civil war in iraq. Iran may want it in certain conditions so as to not let pressure build up over itself.
But the bigger problem currently is Saudi Arabia.

As in any hierachy, dominant groups justify their domination through cultural or racist arguments.

According to the dominant one(or the intermediary groups that occupy a better position in the social order), the subordinate groups deserve a lower status because of individual and collective "falts" or deficiencies (sex, race, and today, lack of education and identification with an "underdeveloped" culture).

Which means that any hierarchy produces a racist or derogatory rhetoric, which in the short or longer term, brings about a feeling of discontent. This discontent then is instrumentalized by the elites who fear chaos and the end of their rule, and by ambitious politicians.

The middle classes, politically, are always the "problematic classes", precisely because it is "in the middle" and oscillate.

The Quebecois will probably not choose independence for two reasons : one is that amongst Anglo-Canadians, there is a rising fear that Canada itself might lose its independance and become a US state 2) there is a Québécois state and an elite and the rhetoric of contempt towards Québécois has practically disappeared.

The US ruptured the status quo by invading Iraq. We have a short term moral obligation to help the people there form a government. We do not have a 10 year obligation to them. You cannot impose democracy on another people. It must come from their hearts and minds.There are some who want a modern democratic state there, but many want another totalitarian state. Americans do not understand why anyone would reject prosperity, modernity and freedom. Cultures do change over time, but it takes many generations to move forward.

Americans want others to have freedom, but how many persons must be injured or killed for a fragile and temporary peace?

Does the US military help or hurt American security by being there? Would it be safer for Americans and other modern nations if the ethnic groups were busy fighting each other instead of us?

The American people will choose their next president based on the national security issue. Which candidate will make you safer?

It's true that dissolving old borders typically involve a painful convulsion of war. But in the end, modern peoples hold a fundamental belief in self determination; that people should select their own governments according to their own rules. And when these rules are forced arbitrarily into place (for example, with an ineffectual unity goverment forced into existence by the white house), the result is a mess.

Although war is terrible, we should admit that the traditional mid-east alternative, of holding 19th century borders via murderous dictators, is no solution. With that, let's at least list a few positives of dissolving old arbitrary borders:

1. States break into units adequately sized for consensus to emerge. Imagine a Shiite state in South Lebanon, or an Iraqui Kurdistan. Theses states could govern themselvs coherently based on their citizens' will. Today, those regions cannot.

2. Real arab dissent rises to the surface and gets discussed. If some states want a modern democratic state and others want an Islamist Republic, so be it. In the long run, one evolves faster and better than the other, and the region sees it and reacts.

3. The control of armed forced becomes aligned naturally to the nation-state. A group like Kurdistan's private militia, or Hizbollah, or any variety of others, becomes naturally the military arm of their sovereign governments, not an inconvenient truth outside the constitutional power strucutre.

In the end, this third point is the most critical and obvious. Be it in Lebanon or Iraq, the middle east cannot move forward with powerful non-state militias controlling the ground. Destroying such militias is not practical, as Israel is finding out. States will naturally fracture around these existing militias. Maybe it's time to let those fractures happen, and deal with the wars to come, rather than the wars ongoing today.

Is Iraq really "Indivisible"?

We are accustomed to reading or hearing statements about the "indivisibility" of Iraq from Iraqis of all persuasions, in-and-out of government. The latest such statement comes, not surprisingly, from one of the leaders of the Iraqi Opposition in an article about his vision of a unified, "democratic," and, certainly, "indivisible," post-Saddam Iraq. There is, of course, the obligatory call for building a "democratic" Iraq; however, in this and other Iraqi-grown versions of democracy there will be no room for any discussion of the ethnic or religious diversity of Iraq as if the country were a homogeneous society and not an ethnic patchwork imposed on the people by force. One cannot but ask, "What kind of democracy is it when you call for submerging ethnic, cultural, linguistic, and historical differences in the so-called"national interest"(Read: "Arab interest")? As far as Kurds are concerned, Big Brother will always be in charge in Iraq, democracy or not.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Division of Iraq into two independent States, Kurdistan and Iraq, would be the best thing that could ever happen to that country.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We are not surprised at all when we read or hear such views because when it comes to the Kurdish issue, an Iraqi is an Iraqi whether he is in or out of government. There may be a slight difference in approach among Iraqis regarding the Kurdish issue, but it is difficult to find many who would recognize the right of the Kurds to independence unequivocally and without any reservation even though those same Iraqis readily give this right to other oppressed nationalities that have less of a claim to independence than the Kurds do.

Iraqi Arabs have to ask themselves one fundamental question: Is the Kurdish demand of self-determination, including independence, legitimate or not? If their answer is "Yes," which is extremely unlikely, then there is no problem because that means that the Kurds and the Arabs of Iraq can live side by side as two sovereign neighboring nations with good, neighborly relations with all that the word "neighbor" implies. But if their answer is "No," then, logically, we could justifiably say that all of Iraq should go back under Ottoman / Turkish rule, which used to be the case until the end of World War 1. Both Kurds and Arabs would reject this idea, of course, as they should.

However, we have to ask Iraqi Arabs if there is any difference between the injustice of putting back all of Iraq under Turkish rule and that of keeping the Kurds under Arab rule, as has been the case for the last eighty years. Hasn't the Iraqi Arab rule been much more horrible and inhumane in its treatment of the Kurds than the Ottoman Turkish rule was in its treatment of Arabs, Kurds, Armenians and other nationalities? Who exactly committed genocide in Kurdistan by eliminating a quarter of a million Kurds in the murderous Anfal operations of the late eighties if not the Iraqi regime? Who used weapons of mass destruction freely and in many places culminating in the massacre of 5,000 innocent men, women and children in Halabja if not the regime of Arab Iraq? Who dynamited and razed to the ground practically every village and small town in Kurdistan if not the Iraqi regime? Who is practicing ethnic cleansing and the racist Arabization of the Kurdish areas still under Iraqi government control if not the Arab Iraqi regime? And who has been threatening the liberated part of Kurdistan with invasion, retribution, and re-annexation from the day it was liberated a decade ago if not the Iraqi regime? And how about the countless other unrecorded daily crimes that were perpetrated against the Kurdish people in order to break their spirit and cow them into submission? Surely, these crimes were not committed by people coming from outer space. Haven't we been fooled long enough by the big lie of "historical brotherhood" and "common history" between Kurds and Arabs in Iraq?

The Kurds want to get out from under Arab Iraqi rule just as the Arabs wanted to get out from under Ottoman Turkish rule almost a century ago. If the Arab revolution against Turkification and Ottoman Turkish rule and for independence was legitimate then, and it certainly was, why isn't the Kurdish revolution against Arabization and Arab rule and for independence from Iraq legitimate now, almost a century after the Arabs gained their independence?

We wish to ask one simple question of members of the Iraqi Opposition as well as ordinary Iraqis and even supporters of the brutal regime: Would they accept to live under Kurdish rule (not that the Kurds have ever wanted or would ever want to rule Iraq)? There is no doubt that it would be impossible to find a single Iraqi who would be willing to live under Kurdish rule, or any other, for that matter. So, why do these same Iraqis expect the Kurds to live under an Arab rule that is known worldwide for its brutality and inhumanity? In fact, why should the Kurds want to live even within a post-Saddam, supposedly democratic, pie-in-the-sky Iraq when they can, and should, rule themselves in an independent and truly democratic Kurdistan much to the benefit of Kurds and Arabs alike? If some groups in the Iraqi Opposition cannot even bear to hear the name "Kurdistan," and all believe that to talk about the right of the Kurds to have an independent country they can call their own is a taboo, what hope is there for the Kurds in a so-called future, democratic Iraq?

Given the horrible record of brutality and inhumanity of various Iraqi regimes towards the Kurds since the inception of that country eighty years ago, which culminated in the eighties, and given Kurdish resistance to Iraqi rule from the very beginning, Iraqis should not be surprised if the Kurds want not only to be free from their hateful, present rule but to have nothing to do with any kind of Iraq, democratic or not, under any circumstances.

The division of Iraq would not be detrimental to anyone; in fact, it would be beneficial to both Arabs and Kurds alike because it would end a century of bloodshed between them and put an end to a terrible crime that was committed against the Kurdish people when they were forced by colonial design into an unworkable union against their will. For here is an artificially created country with two distinct, main nationalities, and a few minorities, each with its own language, culture, history, ethnicity, traditions, and aspirations and yet one of these two nationalities is denied the right to be itself and is forced to become the other and serve the other against all the laws of Nature and God. And, as we all know, the result of this forced, unnatural, unequal, dehumanizing, and horrible union has been constant warfare between the two sides. Unless we think anew and undo the terrible mistakes of the past, we will continue to be victimized by the past.

It is high time for all those who have upheld the myth of the unity and territorial integrity of Iraq, including the Western Powers, to have the decency, humanity, courage, and wisdom to stop perpetuating a big injustice done to the Kurdish people when they were robbed of their right to Statehood and realize that the division of Iraq into two independent States, Kurdistan and Iraq, would be the best thing that could ever happen to that country.

What? A Kurdish President for Arab Iraq? You must be joking

Jalal Talabani, or as known amongst the Kurdish people, Mam Jalal (Uncle Jalal) has become the first elected Kurdish president for Un-deserved- to- survive-Iraq (UDS-Iraq).

Mr. Talabani is also known for his gaffes, for speaking his mind without thinking, saying conflicting statements like he isn't the one said them a minute or a day ago. For the people old enough to remember mid sixties Jalal Talabani is not known with good credits, around the time of second Kurdish-Iraqi war, when he switched side from Mustafa Barzani to Iraqi State, or as known the 66 incident.

Around late seventies he established his own party and attaching three more political parties to the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan or YNK in Kurdish. Since then he has been dealing with the great powers and regional powers in an unbelievable ability of twisting and maneuvering around daily made decisions, so much so that no one knows when he is lying or when he is telling the truth. Great Kurdish writer Musa Anter once called him Mr. Lambada, who dances to the every tune (Lambada was a very popular Latin song at that time).

Although he has been a Kurdish leader, his interests never been Kurdish due to his interests never been openly and clearly declared to the Kurdish people. His involvement in Kurdistan-under-Turkish occupation and Kurdistan-under-Persian occupation is so dirty that one can not hold his thought back about his involvement in killings of Kurdish politicians from mentioned regions, specially the case of Dr. A. Ghassemlou's assassination in Vienna in July1989. He was the one convincing Dr. A Ghassemloo to go to the negotiations with the Persian State officials in Vienna. Without his involvement Persian State was not able to get Dr. Ghassemloo over there and assassinate him so cowardly.

Through his relations with the Turkish State he has been the main reason behind the Murdering of Brothers' war (Brakuji in Kurdish) from the North Kurdistan, most particularly the PKK's guerrillas since 1984.

His very disturbing conflicting statements on Kirkuk is also another issue bothering the Kurdish people, and I am afraid of that it will be during his Presidency that Kirkuk will be lost permanently.

When I have heard the news that Mr. Talabani has become the President of Iraq, I have said to myself that USA is betrayed the Kurdish people once more. Mr. Talabani is the worst choice for the path-in-making for a sovereign Kurdish nation-state in the un-solvable issues with the Arab Iraq, and the Racist neighbor of Turkish, Syrian, and Persian States.

While he was very fresh President he said he is an Iraqi first then Kurdish, apologetically spoke Kurdish in the USD-Iraq's parliament's opening ceremony. What else could be expected from Mam Jalal? According to the TAL he signed in Nov. 2004, he will be President for another 10 months, then leaving the post to someone else (most probably to a Sunni Arab). However 10 months is long enough for him to do un-reversible damages to the both Kurdish causes in USD-Iraq and greater Kurdistan.

No one knows why he is Iraqi first in an artificial state that failed so badly that un-deserve to survive, the country that did almost every single thing mentioned in the Handbook of Kurdish Genocide to the Kurdish people. I am sick'n tired of the news on mass graves.

I have seen many good news and optimist opinions about his election to the office of President of Iraq, however I could not hold my mind on bad possible things waiting to be happen, and I was scared from the possibility of losing the Kirkuk for once and for all during his Presidency. Already Dr. Ibrahim Jaffary said the Oath different then how it supposed to be during the swearing in to the Cabinet. The section on Federal status of USD-Iraq in the Oath either changed or skipped, and I do not believe that this done without his knowledge, and even it was done, then this means Arabs do not care for his Presidency, so why should he ?

I wish he never candid himself to the position, stayed in Kurdistan, and work for an independent Kurdistan. That was, and is the right thing to do for him. After forty years of being in the struggle, experiencing the loosing of many great friends, experiencing Halabja - ANFAL and Genocide, he must resisted to the re-making of Iraq, and stop the future Kurdish-Iraqi war from happening (just couple days ago a suicide bomber killed 50 people and wounded another 150 people in Hewler).

The only thing must come out positive from his mistake of being president of Iraq that Mr. Massud Barzani is left the only leader to do the job, and possibly becoming the single leader of Southern Kurdistan. Mr. Massud Barzani is giving signs of hope that he is more open to the idea of independent Kurdistan.

I sincerely apologize from my friends in PUK, and I believe Mam Jalal doesn't deserve to stay as leader of PUK anymore. He should forced to leave the post to a new leader to be elected amongst the PUK leadership.

As a progressive, secular, democratic, and pan-Kurdish party PUK has a lot to contribute to the political solutions to the all parts of Kurdistan. Mam Jalal does not have anything left he can do for Kurdistan and the Kurdish people.

I am praying that he will prove me wrong, and I will be honored if I see that.

Any partition of Iraq would have to include a Kurdish section, given that the Kurds have already carved out an enclave in northern Iraq. For better or for worse, the creation of anything approximating a Kurdish state would have profound and unpredictable consequences for the entire region. Turkey, Iran, and Syria could all face widespread destabilization in the wake of such action, and they would certainly be willing to go very far to prevent the creation of a Kurdish province/state. Iran and Syria in particular are notable for their willingness to violate international norms in pursuit of what they deem their interests, and while Turkey is more moderate, its "Kurdish question" is its biggest liability as it pursues EU membership. It's doubtful that Turkey would countenance any action that risks stirring up its volatile minority. The destabilization of the countries in question could easily cascade throughout the regional system, and the consequences are difficult to predict. For these reasons alone, partitioning Iraq would be, at the very least, unwise.

Why the Kurds are miserable and asking for an independent Kurdish state?

Not even a modicum of the crimes, atrocities and genocides perpetrated against the Kurdish civilian have been documented, revealed or even recognized. One of the reasons is probably most people are unaware of them since they were never allowed to be exposed. I will try to briefly point to some them for readers information.

1. 10,000 ( Ten Thousands) dead and 5,000 ( Five Thousands)injured in a single day in a Kurdish city named Halabja. Saddam attacked this small city by the most devastating weapons. Internationally prohibited chemical weapons were applied.

2. 8,000 (Eight Thousands) male members belonging to a clan named" Barzaniis" were arrested and disappeared. For more than 23 long years, there were no sign of them. Their destiny was unknown totally. Their families meekly remained in anticipation. With no income and supervision. Waiting all these elongated years hoping that someday they may reunite together. They had been found, all of them had been massacred and buried alive by Saddam dictator regime. The bodies of 512 were just retrieved few months ago.

3. More than 4,000 (four Thousands) Kurdish villages and town have been reduced to rubble and entirely ruined.

4. In an operation named "Anfal", 182,000 One Hundred Eight thousands Kurds were expelled out of their homes, misplaced and executed by Saddam.

5. Iranian, Turkish and Syrian prisons are filled with Kurdish political dissents, activists and writers. Just during last three months, 3 Kurdish political prisoners were tortured to death by Iranian authorities. Their pictures were posted on numerous Kurdish website.

6. Turkey continues to kill innocent Kurdish civilians under the pretext of dislodging and disarming a Kurdish group "PKK ". No matter for whatsoever reason, the killing of innocent people can not be justified. According to some estimates, 8000 members of PKK or other Kurdish political groups are serving indefinite terms in Turkish prisons. No access for Human Rights Groups.

7. 500,000 ( Five Hundreds thousand ) Kurds living in Syria and having been born in that country have been refused citizenship and recognition. The most primary and basic right of every citizens.

What has happened to the stateless Kurds has never and ever happened or had distinctiveness in the relating of any country, people or nation. That is why they are struggling for an independent Kurdish state.

Torture, Persecution, Execution of Kurdish Political Prisoners

The individualities of a political prisoner can be defined as: someone held in prison or otherwise detained, perhaps under house arrest, because their ideas or image are deemed by a government to either challenge or threaten the authority of the state. In many cases, political prisoners are imprisoned with no legal veneer directly through extra judicial processes. However, it also happens that political prisoners are arrested and tried with a veneer of legality, where false criminal charges, manufactured evidence, and unfair trials are used to disguise the fact that an individual is a political prisoner.

Detailed information on human rights violations and the precise figure of Kurdish political prisoners serving term in nefarious jails in Iran, Turkey and Arab Republic of Syria remain complex to draw together and verify. But what is affirmative is the range grows drastically and more violations are befalling furtively. Many Kurdish political activists have been reportedly abducted by Turkish and Iranian intelligence, held in secrete places for interrogation and ultimately assassinated. The whereabouts of more than 239 Kurds who were rounded up following the riots in Qamishli, Syria remains passive. There are no independent human rights or other concerned organizations in Iran, Turkey and Syria to gather and assess human rights data, or assist those whose rights are violated to seek redress. The media and means of private communication are subject to strict controls, and individuals who bring human rights abuses to the attention of international human rights organizations do so in fear of possible reprisals against themselves or their families.

The many similarities, the consistency of allegations made in different words by individuals of different backgrounds and beliefs, provide compelling evidence of a pattern of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment of political prisoners in Iran, which continues to the present day.

Iran has stepped up the execution of Kurdish political prisoners. Many Kurdish political prisoners are being held for no reason other than their _expression of peaceful political views. The judiciary is handing down lengthy prison sentences following unfair trials of critics. Today, there are an estimated 57,000 political prisoners in Iran. There are lower or mid-ranking democrat, Marxist or other leftist elements, Kurds and member of different ethnic and minority groups.

In certain previous extrajudicial executions evidence has come to light indicating the direct involvement of one or more official Iranian services, specifically the killing of Dr Abdolrahman Ghassemlou, leader of the Kurdish Democratic Party of Iran, together with his two companions in Vienna on 13 July 1989 and that of Dr Kazem Rajavi, representative of the National Council of Resistance, who was killed in Geneva in April 1990. In both these cases police investigations revealed evidence pointing to the involvement of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

In Iran, the conditions of prisons are in grave violation of international standards. The facilities are entirely inadequate for the care of the number of people now held there, the food is insufficient in quantity and nutrition, the water supply unclean, sanitation virtually absent, clothing meager, and barred walls open to the elements expose the inhabitants to winter conditions. Disease is rampant. Capacity to provide medical care is hampered by insufficient supplies and primitive facilities. Dysentery and yellow jaundice, probably due to Hepatitis A, are epidemic and many, many, many prisoners had already died, mainly from dysentery, some from pneumonia.

In Turkey, members of PKK are usually tortured in the period immediately following arrest, but may be subjected to torture at any time during their imprisonment, both before and after trial, particularly if other members of their political group are arrested who give more information on their political activities or the names of other activists. Torture and other forms of physical or psychological ill-treatment are applied not only to obtain information, but also to extract statements, sometimes recorded on film, in which the prisoner condemns the organization to which he or she belonged, repents of their previous political beliefs and activities and pledges support for Turkey.

For political prisoners held in Syria stress and uncertainty are constant pressures. Prisoners have been kept blindfolded for hours or days at a time, so that they became disoriented and insecure. Torture and arbitrary punishment may occur at any time, without warning. Uncertainty extends to the future as well as the present. Prisoners have no way of being sure how long they will remain in prison. Those who are tried may not be informed of their sentence for weeks or months. The sentence itself begins only on the day of the judgment and so lengthy periods of pre-trial detention are not subtracted from the prison term. Even when the sentence expires, prisoners may not be released unless they have repented.

This total disregard for a basic human right, the right not to be tortured or ill-treated, grossly violates international human rights law which prohibits torture in all circumstances. Their arrest, trial and detention are clear violations of Articles 9, 10, 11, 18, 19 and 20 adopted and proclaimed by the General Assembly of the United Nations.

The tormenter governments of Tehran, Damascus and Ankara should meet their international obligations and liberate all Kurdish political prisoners and others held based on their religious or ideological opinion and belief. The practice of extrajudicial killings should publicly be condemned, while making it clear to all government officials and representatives in the afore-mentioned countries and abroad that such killings will not be tolerated. Concrete measures must be enacted aimed at ending all forms of ill-treatment in the specified states, such as acceding to the UN Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

Democratization strategy necessitates to be effectuated in Syria, Turkey, likewise.

Ahmad Zakhoi

Bush Administration's plea to Congress for supplemental $75 million in an exigency spending bill to buoy up U.S. efforts to structure democracy in Iran was the initial walk in the direction of democratizing that country. Budget apportioning ( $75m ) aimed at propagating democracy in Iran was sought after to outline democracy, safeguard human rights and reform the totalitarian regime's frail status. Among those considered meritorious are the oppositional groups and members of ethnic minorities. The two major Kurdish political groups (KDPI and Komela) are categorically in rating list, as well.

If the US were to democratize a country vs. its wishes and devoid of generation and international consensus on the issue, then the US copes with serious legitimacy and credibility harms relating its policies. Democracy is brought about not by imposition. To democratize Iran, we need to realize three critical factors: the precondition to create an institutional capacity to undertake such a task, the must for broader international mutual aid for such an Endeavour and most prominently the prerequisite to partner with legitimate civil society and community leaders in those countries to facilitate the creation of democracies.

Promoting democracy in Iran would appreciably serve public and strategic US national interests. Democracies are the best regimes for ensuring regional stability and equitable prosperity for their citizens. If Iran were democratized, it would ensure regional stability, international order as well as individual and national prosperity. At present, the most critical of all is the willing public opinion supporting democratization efforts in that country hence, leaving the baseless regime fully ineffectual to resist. The steadfast and valiant Iranian masses have expressed their sturdy loathing and disgust to the ruling totalitarian clerical regime.

Nation states resembling Syria and Turkey are among those overbearing regimes that continue to throttle the voices of democracy-loving citizens through vehemently repressive and abusive authority. The US needs to promote, fund and support the reformers, political dissidents and human rights activities in Syria and Turkey striving to chuck out dictatorship and swap it with liberal democracies.

The Right of Self-Determination

Michael Albert

The right to self-determination is considered jus cogens, and a part of customary international law that imposes binding obligations on all nation states. It is considered not simply a principle of international law, but rather an affirmative right of all peoples. It is seen as a prerequisite to any genuine enjoyment of any of the human rights. There are an estimated 140 minority groups around the globe, asserting their right to self-determination. Despite notable recognition of the right to self-determination, there is still a great deal of disagreement among states, and among international scholars, as to the scope and parameters of the right to self-determination, as well as who, exactly, is entitled to such a right. This "paradox of self-determination" has lead internationalists to question the true meaning of self-determination in the post cold war era. The question often asserted is whether the principle of self-determination actually grants an affirmative right to minorities and indigenous people to determine their own destiny, or is it merely a case of "a noble word being abused?"

Although the idea of self-determination is by no means new, scholars have yet to agree upon the actual source of its origin. President Woodrow Wilson was responsible for elevating the principle of self-determination to an international level when, in 1916, he included it in his fourteen points. Thereafter, while the League of Nations did not explicitly mention the principle of self-determination in its covenant, scholars agree that self-determination was "implicitly embodied in spirit in the mandate system of the League of Nations as a sacred trust of civilization . . . ." In 1945, self-determination gained strong support from various nation states that were under colonial rule, and it was eventually incorporated into the United Nations Charter. By the 1960s, the citing of the principle of self-determination had become common-place, appearing everywhere from the International Court of Justice advisory opinions, to the charters of regional organizations, to a significant number of major international conventions.

For some, the right to self-determination is limited strictly to those individuals who are under colonial rule or foreign occupation. This is known as external self-determination, and it gives those under the aforementioned circumstances the right to conduct their own affairs without any foreign interference. Yet for others, the right to self-determination is not limited to those under colonial rule or foreign occupation, but rather, it is given to all peoples, including minorities and indigenous people who live within the boundaries of an existing nation state. This is known as internal self-determination, which gives minorities and indigenous people the right to determine their own destiny. However, there is disagreement as to the scope of the right to internal self-determination given to minorities and the indigenous. Some argue that the right to internal self-determination encompasses the right to secede. Others assert that the right to internal self-determination is merely the right of minorities and indigenous peoples to have a representative democratic government chosen through a legitimate political process.

In the post cold war era, virtually all claims of a right to self-determination assert the right to secede, whether those claims were made by Chechnyans, Southern Sudanese, Quebecois, or Kurds. Nation states are quick to point out that minorities do not have the right to secede, since secession would not only violate their territorial integrity guaranteed them by the United Nations Charter, but would also be volatile of the doctrine of Uti Posseditis Juris. Adopted by the International Court of Justice in Bukrina Faso v. Republic of Mali, Uti Posseditis Juris requires the respect of the pre-established borders and frontiers. On the contrary, proponents of the right to secede argue that the territorial integrity of a state, as well as the pre-established borders and frontiers, have been arbitrarily drawn by colonial powers without regard to the ethnic minorities living within them. Proponents also insist that a genuine enjoyment of human rights must include the right to secede, since "it is for people to determine the destiny of the territory, not [for] the territory [to determine] the destiny of the people."

It is sometimes said that to accord international recognition to these separate national formations will lead to instability in the world order. The argument is not dissimilar to that which was urged a hundred years ago against granting universal franchise. It was said that to empower every citizen with a vote was to threaten the stability of existing state structures and the ruling establishment. But the truth was that it was the refusal to grant universal franchise which threatened stability ... Self determination is not a de destabilizing concept. Self determination and democracy go hand in hand. If democracy means the rule of the people, by the people, for the people, then the principle of self determination secures that no one people may rule another - and herein lays its enduring appeal.

The right of self-determination has long been recognized as an indisputable prerequisite to any genuine appreciation and enjoyment of human rights. It is a positive, legal obligation established by customary international law, multinational and bilateral treaties, including the United Nations Charter, in addition to various advisory opinions articulated by the International Court of Justice. It has been advocated for by leaders of great stature, such as Woodrow Wilson, to more obscure minority groups, such as the South Sudanese. Yet, despite the popularity of the principle of self-determination, a great deal of ambiguity as to its scope and breadth continue to undermine its true effectiveness as an affirmative right for those who are searching for a means by which to determine their own destiny and future.

Today, thousands of people are killed in their search for the illusive goal of self-determination. From Chechnya to South Sudan, and from Yugoslavia to Kurdistan, their search has leaded them to a dead-end road full of obstacles, resentments and a lack of recognition. But these people continue to put their lives on the line, hoping that those noble words of self-determination amount to much more than political rhetoric. So they continue to die, hoping that maybe, there is a genuine right of self-determination.

Iraq's borders aren't 19th century, they're from the early 1920s when Iraq was created by Churchill. I'm not sure how someone can make such a gross historical error, given all that's widely known about Iraq.

It's not our business to divide it into ethnic/religious states. But if we withdraw (and the huge, permanent bases make that unlikely), Iraq will undoubtedly splinter as Yugoslavia did. It may head that way even with our presence there. We've unleashed the forces of chaos and cannot ever restore order.

The U.S. wants an Iraq that is not hostile to it, as was Saddam's Iraq. That is why the U.S. removed Saddam. Without assurance that dividing Iraq up sectarianly would not result in any of the sectarian parts being hostile to the U.S., that is not a direction the U.S. should embrace. Of course, the U.S. may not have a choice.

It is not clear to me why Rashid today in your Washington Post commentary speaks favorably about some stable 19th century understandings about Arab borders.

For one thing the concept of The Nation of Islam has been the dream nation of all Muslims since Mohammed came down out of his mountain retreat.

For another, the Ottoman Empire ruled from the Atlantic to the Persian border over most Arab regions for nearly 375 years, from about 1550 to 1918. And the Turkish sultans were the self-proclaimed protectors of that vast land area as well as much of southeastern Europe.

Iraq was simply one more region under their rule. It was the British Empire at the end of WWI which drew all those straight lines in the sand, with the help of the French. See Fromkin's "A Peace To End All Peace" about this mess.

Accordingly this hodge-podge of Middle-East boundaries and conflicts has no more
validity than the late and unlamented Yugo-slavia, or the fiction of Afghanistan, a patchwork of warlord provinces and ethnic rivalries that has only combined to fight the outsiders like the British, Russians and now our incompetent American clowns led by our Fascist/Republican trash now looting our country at every turn.

Although it will never happen, a swing to a policy for 3 nation-states which must, in the end, include a new Kurdistan, with some 25-30 million Kurds in the region.

This would be the only route to a just, permanent, and possibly peaceful solution.
In general, the trends of the last 100 years have moved toward a healthy separation of ethnic and religious sectarian groups into new nation-states.
The 61 year old U.N.with all its weaknesses underscores this movement.

Ion C. Laskaris, Burlington,Vt. + iclrevusa.com

If not split, Iraq will become another Afghanista.

Baqi Barzani

Dictatorship has vanished, a representative self-government formed, democratization course enforced, economic sanction lifted, international humanitarian relief and reconstruction efforts are underway but still we are far away from our main goal. It has been more than 2 years but the US has failed to thwart the long-term insurgency and establish peace and stability. Despite spending its most budgets on military and intelligence operations, reorganizing, and training Iraqi forces to tackle with terrorism and secure their sovereignty and liberty, innocent civilians are killed and terrorized on the streets every day. Suicide bombing, sabotage and terrorism redirected by influential regional powers are to blame for these atrocities. The basis for the escalating number of attacks on U.S troops is not likely to have anything to do with the former regime loyalists. An end to the occupation should have been immediate had the U.S been acting in the interests of Iraqi's and not their own agenda. Anger, frustration, and hostility amongst the Iraqi population directed at the occupying forces climb day by day. Iraqi people now believe that the American-led occupation of their country is doing more harm than good. Opposition and anti-Americanism sentiment has intensified more than ever.

Although Saddam resorted to force and terror to overcome the issue of order and stability but Iraq was a stable society. Whatever violence did arise was premeditated violence planned by the state. Under absolute power, It could be switched on or off upon demand from Saddam, its dictator. The then dilemmas he coped with were more the external pressure and economic sanctions. The dynamics that led to the retreats of Iraq were mostly the imposing wars and fragile economy. Even during the war with Iran, subjection to UN economic sanctions, and invasion of Kuwait, Iraq had not experienced such instability.

Iraq is being transformed to what Afghanistan was in the 1980s. Militants are turning the resistance into an international jihadist movement. Foreign fighters coming from different parts of the world are merging as cells or complete units with Iraqis. If the occupation persists long, Iraq would be a productive ground for international Islamic fundamentalism similar to the case of soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Keeping in mind that these terrorists are bred, financed and sponsored by radical Arab states, any Islamic Arab nation is not an easy front to win for US.