Why Partition Sucks Posted by Ilan Goldenberg

The Washington Post reminds us why trying to split a country up by oversimplified ethnic lines and not taking into account the more complex demographic realities can be a very very very bad idea.  Folks should keep this in mind when they talk about partitioning Iraq into three countries - an idea that fortunately has lost a great deal of steam in recent months.

Comments

[shawn]

I disagree with this analysis for a couple of reasons. First, although the India-Pakistan division resulted in a truly tragic number of deaths and displacement, this pales in comparison to the situation that would have existed had the partition never taken place (my parents were born in India soon after partition). Without a two-state solution, it is possible, if not likely, that a far more serious civil war would have erupted and India may have never been able to develop into a stable democracy in which Hindus and the world's second-largest Muslim population live side by side. The situation is by no means perfect, but the partition was nonetheless necessary.

Second, I don't know of anyone serious in the foreign policy community who believes that Iraq should be partitioned into three countries along sectarian lines. The only partition plan I know of maintains a weak central government overseeing a loose federation of three states. The difference is significant, because not only is the federalist system already incorporated into the Iraqi Constitution, but the central government would be responsible for the collective security of all three regions as well as ensuring that oil revenues would not be skewed towards one of the sects. The plan is not without it's share of problems, but it may be the only chance for political reconciliation, as long as it is coupled with the withdrawal of the U.S. military.

'The Washington Post reminds us why trying to split a country up by oversimplified ethnic lines and not taking into account the more complex demographic realities can be a very very very bad idea.'

This is a silly rhetorical ploy, telling us that we are 'reminded' of a debatable point on which we may have a different opinion or no opinion.

It's by no means obvious that partition on less 'simplified' lines would have reduced the violence. It would be more interesting to argue for t