The clash of religion (2): how Iraq is being partitioned
To many in the West, the conflict in Iraq is seen as a battle between coalition forces and Iraqi insurgents – but it’s not that simple as two facts make apparent. First, there is virtually no conflict in the northern third of the country where Kurds are predominant. Second, appalling though coalition casualties are, the overwhelming majority of the deaths are Iraqis killing Iraqis. How do we explain this?
Fundamentally it is to do with the division of Islam into two branches: the Sunni and the Shi’a. Whereas there are serious theological divisions between Catholicism and Protestanism in the Christian religion, the differences of belief between Sunni and Shi’a are comparatively minor.
The basic difference – which goes back to the very origins of Islam – is over the source of authority. Sunnis believe that God has not specified the leaders of the Muslim community after Muhammad and that the leader has to be elected, while Shi’as hold that leadership should not be passed down through elections but rather through divinely appointed infallible descendants of Muhammad. This may seem subtle to non-Muslims, but to many Muslim extremists it is literally a matter of life and death.
One of the many complicating factors in Iraq is that, while in the Arab world as a whole Sunnis are in the clear majority, in Iraq the Shi’a are in the majority by around 60% to 40%. A further complication is that, in spite of Shi’as being the majority in Iraq, under Saddam Hussein it was the Sunnis who held the instruments of power. So a lot of scores are being settled and the battle for power is literally murderous.
What we see today in Iraq is effectively a civil war with the main division being between branches of the same faith. The conflict is increasingly bringing about a ‘de facto’ partitioning of the country: the Kurdish north already has a considerable degree of independence, Sunnis dominate the centre, Shi’as control the south, and in mixed Baghdad most sections of the city are becoming increasingly Shi’a or Sunni.
The coalition invasion and its aftermath may have exacerbated the Shi’a/Sunni conflict in Iraq but did not create it. I am currently reading a history of the Middle East by Bernard Lewis prior to my Easter visit to Israel and it is clear from this book that bitter divisions between Sunni and Shi’a – often involving violence and bloodshed – go back 1400 years to the death of Muhammad.
March 15th, 2007 at 12:25 pm
Radio 4 had a programme on this am from Amman. Their are 1 million Irag refugees in this small country. The largest amount of refugees since the 2nd World War.
I was astounded that nothing has been published in the press about this situation and the burden on Jordan is terrific.
We should be pouring money into Jordan to alleviate the burden and stop spending billions on weaponds (Trident) that will never be used.
March 16th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
It will be a terrible day if it happens, but I’m not so sure Britain will never use nuclear weapons. In some ways the world is a more dangerous place now than it was for much of the Cold War. But even if Trident’s successor never launches in anger, the weapons have deterrent and strategic value.
If we’re looking to save money, how about cancelling the 2012 Olympics? National Lottery money that is currently supporting thousands of charities will instead be flung into the bottomless pit of the worst bungled estimate since Holyrood, and all for what? Three weeks of drug-enhanced running, jumping and swimming. Let’s give them to the French!
March 16th, 2007 at 11:05 pm
Two points, Nick:
1) If nuclear weapons have a deterrent effect, what right do we have to deny non-nuclear nations the right to acquire such weapons?
2) The cost over-run on the Olympic Games is outrageous but it’s totally wrong to suggest that this is simply an investment for three weeks – already winning the Games is invigorating east London and inspiring young athletes and, once the Games are over, the facilities will be used by local people for many decades.
March 17th, 2007 at 12:20 am
Questions for Nick. What use it retaliation?
Killing for killing sake?
Would you press the button and, if so, what use would it be?
America and Britain have caused the 1 million refugees, we have a moral obligation to assist in the relief.
March 17th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
Roger:
1) I agree (with some caveats) that we have no right to deny nuclear weapons to non-nuclear nations. The caveats relate to the potential dangers of proliferation.
(a) The word “right” presupposes some notion of fairness. Fair or not, it is in Britain’s interest to restrict ownership of nuclear weapons, as far as possible, to Western nations. Isn’t this one of the goals of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty? (Similarly, it serves Russian and Chinese interests to control nuclear proliferation.)
(b) More idealistically, proliferation beyond the existing nuclear club brings with it an increased danger that non-state agents will acquire nuclear weapons from a nuclear nation. Non-state agents, such as a group of Islamist terrorists, may not be easily deterred from using nuclear weapons. It’s also possible that some states may not be deterred from using nuclear weapons, but I believe many will be. Did possession of nuclear weapons help to prevent a war between India and Pakistan in 2002?
(c) It is in Britain’s (and the world’s) interest to try to prevent certain unstable nations (such as North Korea) from acquiring nuclear weapons.
2) I was being a little facetious, and I acknowledge your points. Nevertheless, I believe that if invigorating east London and providing sports facilities are the aims, they could be achieved much more cost effectively than the likely £10 billion the games will swallow. That still leaves billions devoted to three weeks of athletics, inspiring young athletes, and other lesser goals.
March 17th, 2007 at 3:09 pm
Mavis:
If we’re dealing in simple moral certainties, can I ask you this correspondingly simplistic and emotive question: would you stand by while invading forces enslaved or killed your family? Or would you (as happened in France, Russia, and Germany during World War 2) resist?
I accept that we have a moral obligation to help in the relief, though I don’t accept that America and Britain are solely responsible for the refugee situation. Need I mention again the cost of the Olympic Games?
March 18th, 2007 at 8:44 am
Conventional warfare is a form of warfare conducted by using conventional military weapons. The forces on each side are usually well-defined.AND FIGHT USING WEAPONS THAT PRIMARILY TARGET THE OPPOSING ARMY.
Nuclear,chemical and biological are indiscriminate and target whole populations and countries.
In the above case,(Conventional Warfare) yes I would fight to try and save my family.
Turning to Nick’s point about Pakistan and India in 2002. Pakistan came so close to using their Nuclear Weapons when they thought they were losing, that most of us held our breath.
March 18th, 2007 at 12:51 pm
What is the problem with the cost of the games, Nick.
The re-generation would have to take place. Transport links must be upgraded. In the costing there are so many items that are included which go back to the Treasury anyway. Talk about creative accounting. This lot take the biscuit.
As a Northerner, I will probably not see much benefit. But that does not mean that I am not happy to see a run down part of the Capital re-invigorated.
March 18th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
I held my breath, too, in 2002. Maybe had India not had nuclear weapons, Pakistan would have used theirs? Maybe it was the deterrent effect at work?
There are nuclear weapons designed for use on the battlefield, but I think we were both discussing their use against population centres. If nuclear weapons are ever used in this way again, it would be a total catastrophe. I don’t want to see London destroyed any more than you do. But I think we will be safer if we are in a position to threaten destruction on the same scale.
Unfortunately we can’t uninvent nuclear weapons. Even if every country in the world destroyed their inventory, the technological capability would still be there for countries such as the US, China, and Russia to recreate the weapons within a few months. How to destroy the technological capability? Short of civilisational collapse, I don’t think that’s possible.
Also, don’t forget that about 60,000 civilians died in the Blitz during World War 2 from bombing and rockets, and many more German civilians.
March 18th, 2007 at 5:11 pm
Nick
Back to original question.
Would you press the button?
March 18th, 2007 at 5:50 pm
Roger,
“Sunnis believe that God has not specified the leaders of the Muslim community after Muhammad and that the leader has to be elected, while Shi’as hold that leadership should not be passed down through elections but rather through divinely appointed infallible descendants of Muhammad.”
I am afraid, it’s the other way around. Shia’s (the Iranian branch) elect their priests.
March 18th, 2007 at 6:05 pm
Are you sure, Alexi? See this explanation on the BBC web site and this explanation on Wikipedia.
March 18th, 2007 at 6:42 pm
Mavis,
Unless you’re suggesting I’m some kind of moral hypocrite who would support an idea in principle while leaving others to do the dirty work, you’ve already had your answer.
March 18th, 2007 at 10:01 pm
Nick
Just wanted to be sure that I had ‘read you right’.
March 19th, 2007 at 1:16 am
Mavis,
I hope nobody ever has to make that decision or press that button.
Regarding the cost of the Olympics, as I replied to Roger, it’s simply perverse and wasteful to attempt to regenerate the East End by squandering money on facilities for which there is likely to be no long-term use.
Security alone is likely to cost in excess of £1 billion. That’s the financial cost. Less tangible is the risk that the government will use the Games as a pretext for further curtailment of civil liberties and privacy. See Ministers plan ‘Big Brother’ police powers, or similar pieces by Henry Porter if you don’t believe anything you read in the Telegraph.