main
side
curve
  1. In Memory of LAJ_FETT: Please share your remembrances and condolences HERE

Senate The Middle East Discussion Thread

Discussion in 'Community' started by Ghost, Jun 11, 2014.

  1. GrandAdmiralJello

    GrandAdmiralJello Comms Admin ❉ Moderator Communitatis Litterarumque star 10 Staff Member Administrator

    Registered:
    Nov 28, 2000
    I. Governments, not states. The Assad situation is inapposite.

    II. Can you explain to me how it's similar to Serbia, because I'm not seeing it.

    III. There was an international armed conflict where India intervened in the East Pakistan operations, and Pakistan lost badly. As part of the peace arrangements, Bangladesh was created.

    IV. ok, so I wiki'd it since I know squat about Yemen, and it looks like South Yemen had absolutely no international recognition. It was effectively considered a civil war. Prior to that, there was some sort of colonial division with the differing powers of the Cold War backing different sides. I don't see how this relates either.

    Basically though 44, recognition of a government is different -- coups, rigged elections, etc. happen all the time. States chose whether or not to recognize the purported authority as legitimate or not: take the example of Libya, where we decided to recognize the TNC instead of the Gadhafi government. That didn't mean that we no longer recognized Libya as a state, or that we recognized the existence of a separate state. we didn't. There was always just one Libya.

    The reason why new states aren't just recognized will-nilly in separatist situations is because that would set a precedent legalizing secession under international law, which would really really complicate the situation in Spain, the UK, etc. Secession is recognized when legitimized by the government (see: the UK, but not Spain or Ukraine) because then the referenda were consentual. It's against the interests of states to recognize a mechanism that would legitimate armed (or even peaceful) separatism as rightful under international law.

    Since you brought up Yugoslavia, I'll note that Serbia -- during the Kosovo mess -- tried to get the ICJ to declare that secession was against international law. The ICJ punted, essentially saying that it wasn't really sure whether secession was legal, but that there was technically nothing against secession in international law. Serbia wanted to argue that it broke the territorial integrity guarentees of the UN Charter, and the ICJ said that it did not.
     
  2. Violent Violet Menace

    Violent Violet Menace Manager Emeritus star 5 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Aug 11, 2004
    I wonder how the Bush administration feel in retrospect about the wisdom of having removed Iran's closest inhibitors.

    I also wonder whether Iran would have dared defy the US and the international community for as long as they have with their nuclear program, had this not happened.

    Edit: this was a follow-up to posts speculating on the wisdom of removing Hussein.
     
  3. Ender Sai

    Ender Sai Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Feb 18, 2001

    I doubt they think too critically about it.

    I remember arguing so strongly against the plan to go into Iraq, in the Senate here. The US was trusting people like Ahmad Chalabi for information, and he hadn't been in the country for god knows how long... That it's a massive ***k-up is of no surprise when considering how poorly planned it all was.
     
    Goodwood likes this.
  4. Mr44

    Mr44 VIP star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    May 21, 2002
    Jello, I don't even know how to respond, because I'm not quite sure what you're asking. I just started off with an unofficial list of states that were created anew through uprising and were ultimately recognized as such.

    Where before there was Pakistan, and in the same area, after, was the new state of Bangladesh.
    Where before, there was Yugoslavia, and in the same area, after there were multiple new states.
    and so on...
    I'm not sure why you are focusing on governments, or maybe I missed one of your posts?

    What I'm saying is that if the ISIS created a new state out of the Northern sections of both Syria and Iraq, there would be little either government could do about it. Literally, a new Islamic republic would be created out of the sections of two different countries. The international community could either recognize the new state, or mount a military response to dissolve the new state and return the land to its former owners. There have been examples where both options occurred. It's more similar to the former Yugoslavia, because if that occurred, then I doubt either former country (Syria or Iraq) would survive. Syria is currently in the weaker position, because if the ISIS joined the Northern section of Syria with the mirror section of Iraq for an Islamic republic, then the Southern section would probably end up falling to the opposition as well, creating a different country. Maybe it would be a good excuse to recreate historic Palestine?

    Iraq might survive, but there would be various ethnic divisions there as well. The Kurds would take the extreme North. ISIS would have the middle section to join with their part of Syria, and Southern Iraq would remain a vastly smaller, oil rich coastal country like Kuwait.(Unless Iran just stepped up to "help" and ended up annexing what was left) You would literally have 4 or 5 new states created out of the ashes of 1 or 2 countries. The strict ethnic lines wouldn't exist like in Yugoslavia, but you would have almost as strict religious-based borders.

    As I said, I don't think this is the group to unite the area in question for precisely the reasons Wocky outlined above. But it would depend on how the international community wanted to handle it. I seriously doubt there is the will for an armed incursion, so if the ISIS did manage to create a new state, all they would have to do is last a couple of years to achieve de facto recognition, if not outright official recognition. If I was the leader of the new Islamic republic, I would reach out to Russia or China, and trade some of my new revenue for some veto power.
     
  5. Ender Sai

    Ender Sai Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Feb 18, 2001
    Um if nobody recognises the state, Mr44, it fails the criteria under the 1933 Montevideo Conference. It's not actually a state, like how legally Taiwan ROC isn't a state.
     
    GrandAdmiralJello likes this.
  6. Lord Vivec

    Lord Vivec Chosen One star 9

    Registered:
    Apr 17, 2006
    What Islamic Republic? These guys are anything but a republic. Also Russia has already condemned ISIS.
     
  7. Ender Sai

    Ender Sai Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Feb 18, 2001
    It's actually the single best strategic objective they could pursue, Vivec. It's unlikely that China would be even broadly sympathetic because the notion that they recognise insurgents having a valid states is not the most popular idea in Beijing, but when you're out of luck and need allies, that's where I'd reach too.
     
  8. Jabba-wocky

    Jabba-wocky Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    May 4, 2003
    Ender, I think Vivec was pointing out that a major part of their platform has been an explicit rejection of democratic principles for almost as long as the US wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have existed. That's why they try to attack polling places and voters. Therefore, there's no way they would ever become or call themselves a "republic."
     
  9. Ender Sai

    Ender Sai Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Feb 18, 2001
    Of course, in the same way all those Marxist regimes used "democratic republic" in their titles consistent with the definition of republic?

    Please. The People's Islamic Republic of Iraq is a perfectly cromulent name for these people.
     
  10. Mr44

    Mr44 VIP star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    May 21, 2002
    Ok, sure on paper. My point is that if no one does anything about it, then it doesn't matter. The hypothetical Islamic state we're talking about could go "unrecognized" for 2 decades and achieve all the goals they set out to accomplish. No different than your Taiwanese example. Taiwan is something like the 25th largest economy in the world. I hardly think that the fact they aren't "recognized" bothers the citizens of Taiwan all that much, beyond the normal schizophrenia they feel about the PRC.

    If that's what Jello meant, I accept both of your legal arguments. My point is more that it doesn't matter from a practical standpoint.

    EDIT: Vivec, E_S pretty much answered this. I was using the phrase in the same way.
     
    Violent Violet Menace likes this.
  11. Ender Sai

    Ender Sai Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Feb 18, 2001
    Erm, it does bother them. When you arrive at CKS airport there's posters about how Taiwan should be recognised.
     
  12. Jabba-wocky

    Jabba-wocky Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    May 4, 2003
    Uh. . .Ender? What argument are you making?

    Marxist governments took the style "democratic republic" because it fit with their ideological framework. In particular, it fit with (largely Stalinist) ideology about how such governments were directly exercising the will of the masses. By contrast, these militants have written and spoken extensively on how popular legitimacy is a fundamentally bad idea, and should be rejected. Thus, they'd be unlikely to adopt this formulation.

    Do you have any rationale besides, "another country that mine disliked used this name?" Come on, man.
     
    Violent Violet Menace likes this.
  13. Mr44

    Mr44 VIP star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    May 21, 2002
    It's in the sense that the entire goal of the ISIS, or ISIL if you want to go old school, is to create the ultimate Sunni state within a defined geographic boundary. This is why the ISIS has even fought other Sunni groups that they have deemed to be unworthy, especially if these groups have any kind of foreign participation, and why other groups consider them to be just all around general jerks. The state they would create would be the exact mirror image of the state of Iran. The full title of Iran, as I'm sure you already know is the "Islamic Republic of Iran."

    Republic is used in these cases to indicate that the system of government comes from a higher power. Sharia. Then to the people, who are more than willing to accept the rule. <---that last part is sarcastic.

    This hypothetical government created by the ISIS would most certainly be called the Islamic Republic of al Sham, or the Islamic Republic of the Levant, etc..depending on what ultimate focus they wanted to give, but it would have the republic focus to give it the extra oomph for the masses.
     
  14. Lord Vivec

    Lord Vivec Chosen One star 9

    Registered:
    Apr 17, 2006
    Mr44, you need to rethink this point. Iran has elections. Yes, the Ayatollah has to approve candidates to run, but Iran HAS elections. One of the points of rhetoric Iran uses against the Saudis is that they're a least a republic in contrast to an absolute monarchy. ISIS doesn't want elections. ISIS will be a full dictatorship. In that sense, they won't be a mirror of Iran; they'll be a mirror of Syria/Iraq.

    If they intended to call themselves a republic, we'd be dealing with IRIS/IRIL, not ISIS/ISIL.
     
    Violent Violet Menace likes this.
  15. Darth Guy

    Darth Guy Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    Aug 16, 2002
    So, is there going to be an accepted English name for these guys? Because I've seen legit news sources use both ISIL and ISIS. I prefer ISIL because it doesn't remind me of Archer.
     
  16. Jabba-wocky

    Jabba-wocky Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    May 4, 2003
    That is completely wrong. Iran does not have the word "Republic" in its name to signify that it's "authority comes from a higher power." It is to signify that, after the Shah's dictatorship, they were reverting to a literal republic. You know, with popular elections. Where people vote to determine who is in government. That's not the sole element in their ideology, as they also endorse the principle of clerical guidance, but republicanism is a very real part of their ideology and rhetorical style. Thus, the word "republic."

    But do you know why this is ultimately stupid? LOOK AT THE ACRONYM. LOOK AT IT. WHAT DOES IT STAND FOR?!

    ISLAMIC STATE OF IRAQ AND AL-SHAM


    ISLAMIC STATE OF IRAQ AND THE LEVANT

    Islamic. That's it. That's the whole thing. There's no "republic" in their name. Because they don't believe in that. They already call themselves what they want you to call them. How can you people not grasp this?
     
    Violent Violet Menace likes this.
  17. Mr44

    Mr44 VIP star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    May 21, 2002
    Well, it's just hypothetical at this point. Nothing is even close to them being able to form a new country. It's not a hard and fast rule, it's just that historically, they would call whatever country they would form some sort of republic for the reasons outlined above. Even the ISIS wouldn't create a new country but then stand up and proclaim themselves the "brutal dictatorship of Islam," for example. And they most certainly could have Iranian style elections as long as the candidates are approved by the religious authority. It's a republic, after all. ;) But it also means the true power falls at the religious leaders, and not with the elected officials. In Iran, who takes the blame for any failings? The "elected" president. This means that the supreme leader can de-legitmize any president who acts against him, as well as upholding the idea that the supreme leader is infallible.

    EDIT: Wocky, there is no actual country. It's all hypothetical, so there is really nothing to argue for or against, right or wrong. It's just a fun exercise in poking fun at naming conventions and how they are used for effect. Geez, again, sometimes you don't have to disagree just to disagree.
     
  18. GrandAdmiralJello

    GrandAdmiralJello Comms Admin ❉ Moderator Communitatis Litterarumque star 10 Staff Member Administrator

    Registered:
    Nov 28, 2000
    44: Yes, it's a legal point. That's why I kept referring to international law.

    I distinguished the examples you mentioned because my thesis was not that "states cannot arise from armed uprising" but that an attempt to create a state under these circumstances would fail for lack of recognition. In the examples brought up in the thread, the creation of a new state was legitimized either through the consent of the state that the new state was separating from, or through an international agreement. If these ISIS folks can coerce the Iraqi government into accepting them, there's a better chance of it working out -- but otherwise, states have little incentive to recognize a new state under these circumstances given (again) the rise of separatist movements in the world right now.

    Can anybody do anything about these guys? That's a different discussion.

    Can an unrecognized entity later get recognized as a state? Sure. But then enter the second point that Wocky and Vivienne brought up earlier: an attempt by these guys to create a stable governing entity is unlikely to succeed, and certainly unlikely to succeed long enough for the rest of the world to get over how they were formed and recognize them anyway.

    So the crux of my point is on their ability to successfully create a nation-state, not their ability to create a de-facto self-governing entity.
     
  19. Lord Vivec

    Lord Vivec Chosen One star 9

    Registered:
    Apr 17, 2006
    Why not? They've been doing just that in the towns that they take over in Syria?

    Except they've spent years railing against democracy and voting and popular elections. They don't want elections. This is literally against their stated ideology. They have been screaming at the top of their lungs that they don't want any form of democracy or elections. Why you can't seem to hear it is beyond me.
     
    Violent Violet Menace likes this.
  20. Mr44

    Mr44 VIP star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    May 21, 2002
    I agree with all that then Jello.

    It's just that out of any circumstance, the ISIS is in the unique position because they are taking full advantage of the circumstances being presented to them. Neither one of the countries the group is operating in can effectively act against them, so it falls to the international community to do something.

    -Syria is more uncertain than Iraq, because if the Assad regime falls, then the power vacuum is going to become crucial.
    -Iraq is less likely to completely collapse, but a powerful enough group like ISIS could certainly carve out sections like it is doing.

    Generally, I consider the UN to be too rules intensive to the point of being paralyzing, which is simply its intended consequence. But if ISIS created a hypothetical country out of sections of Iraq and Syria, it wouldn't matter if the UN spent 10 years debating the violation of a 70 year old treaty. Ultimately, the state would have to be recognized or it would have to be overthrown.
     
  21. Jabba-wocky

    Jabba-wocky Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    May 4, 2003
    This is the most grossly uninformed debate I've been in for at least a week. 44, while to you they might not be a state, their whole style of public presentation is to act as if they are already a fully functional government. In all the places they've taken territory, they've gone about setting up a complete bureaucratic apparatus. Their internal ranks are the functional parts of the governmental structure they actually intend to have. We've seen it in Syria, where they are notable for the relatively huge amount of effort they put into "ruling" as opposed to fighting the Assad regime in the broader civil war. There's nothing "theoretical" or "hypothetical" about this. There's no nod to democratic principles because a major part of their ideology is rejecting democratic principles. Period. We already know what they want to do. We've already seen them do it. It's not a republic, in name fact or notion.
     
  22. GrandAdmiralJello

    GrandAdmiralJello Comms Admin ❉ Moderator Communitatis Litterarumque star 10 Staff Member Administrator

    Registered:
    Nov 28, 2000
    Well, this stuff really predates the UN -- if anything, it was harder to get a state recognized before then. The Montevideo Conference that Ender mentioned codified what was at the time customary international law essentially going back to the creation of the Westphalian nation-state, except back then there were hierarchies of states and everyone was really snobby etc. (only the best states got ambassadors, others had to do with ministers plenipotentiary or envoys, etc. and states derecognized other states just to be jerks to each other). The UN established the sovereign equality of nations, so that's no longer a thing... but the recognition of a state is essentially more a thing of the community of nations accepting you as one of their own or not. And it's more than symbolic, because nations treat with other nations. If they don't consider you a nation, they don't treat with you.

    That's why, for instance, there were a lot of practical reasons why the PRC wanted to be recognized as China. It wasn't just so they would finally have people take their claim seriously, but also so they could do business with the rest of the world.
     
  23. Mr44

    Mr44 VIP star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    May 21, 2002
    Vivec, you and Wocky are being kind of silly. Again, there is no country, and no official title.

    But show me any country that when it was formed, adopted a name like "the brutal dictatorship of ____" What would their flag be? Just a giant boot smashing into a image of a face? An image of a hand getting chopped off by a machete?

    Come on you guys. Syria, under Assad, had one of the most brutal secret police organizations in the world. The long title of Syria is the "Syrian Arab Republic." Moving away from the Middle East, Pol Pot was the poster child for brutal, genocidal dictators. Do you recall what the official name of his country was? It was "Democratic Kampuchea." The Khmer Rouge didn't carry out elections either, so the democracy part was a bit of a misnomer, don't you think? Names and titles have effect on the population. Even a group like ISIS knows this.

    Ok, it's just a fun discussion, with no real answer, and not worth getting adamant about. All we are doing is poking fun at the naming conventions used by some countries, especially when the name is the opposite of how the country seems to operate under. It's not an affront against an actual country, or some struggle against what the definition of republic is.
     
  24. Jabba-wocky

    Jabba-wocky Chosen One star 10

    Registered:
    May 4, 2003
    THEY ALREADY HAVE A FLAG. THEY LITERALLY ALREADY HAVE ALL OF THESE THINGS. WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU.



    [​IMG]


    LOOK THERE IT IS. STOP BEING "HYPOTHETICAL" ABOUT THINGS THAT ALREADY EXIST.
     
  25. Lord Vivec

    Lord Vivec Chosen One star 9

    Registered:
    Apr 17, 2006
    1) They don't need to call themselves "the brutal dictatorship of ___." Because they already have a name: The Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant. They came up with it a while ago. I don't know why you didn't get the e-mail.
    2) There are flags with swords on them. There are even flags with assault rifles on them
     
    Violent Violet Menace likes this.