Sorry to say, but I’ve been disappointed by the lack of Indian knowledge I’ve been finding here recently…

You seem to imply that the correlation between ethnic diversity and violent conflict is one of cause and effect. I believe that ethnicity is easy to exploit for conflict, but most states in the world are ethnically diverse (even European ones). To say that poor third world countries are more at risk for conflict when ethnically diverse is just to say that poor countries are more at risk for conflict.

I refer you to the following pages that address this point:
http://www.minorityrights.org/SWM2006/swm2006_threat.htm
http://www.upf.edu/grec/en/0405/docs/montalvo.pdf
http://kroc.nd.edu/colloquy/issue1/feature_collier.shtml

Most of these papers argue that it’s not ethnic diversity, but polarization (itself is a symptom of past conflict, rather than of diversity) that is a factor in promoting conflict or that inequality between a dominant group and an oppressed group is a predictor of conflict.

Redrawing the borders risks turning a civil war into an international one with enormous forced population movement as people lose their homes and property and livelihoods permanently. It’s worth being 100% certain that separating the groups will have the desired effect.

Excellent point about Kabul too. I’d read about the many fights for Kabul but didn’t put it together like that. I also agree there’s no law written in stone that official state lines must coincide with the location of ethnic groups. However, I believe that in the third world, if they aren’t, violence and anarchy will just increase and continue so although it’s possible in decades or centuries W. Africa may solve its own problems or Pakistan and Afghanistan, the question that most peole ask and answer “no” to is “Can we wait that long and risk it?” since the outcome isn’t even clear.

“Pakistanis, and Bangladeshis split themselves up after the British left.”

Bangladeshis, yes. Pakistanis- sort of. There are many people who believe that the Pak project was instigated in part by the Brits who were hoping either to divide to continue ruling, or something else.

I would also note that India at least had the Mughals and some empires before the Brits arrived, which reasonably overlapped with what Britain took over (though obviously not completely). So I don’t think that India is a good example.

Chirol
Regarding Pakistan’s instability: bizarrely, most of the Pakistan military appear to favour a strongly federal state and the breakoff of Pashtunistan. I think they believe, interestingly, that they could handle it federally, and that they would get to keep the spoils. Anyway, that’s what I’ve heard and read from speaking with Pakistanis (former and present military and semi-military).

What I think would be worse is that there remains the problem of Kabul and the Shamali. Essentially, all other wars have been fought to ensure that these remain in the hands of the controlling party. Only the Uzbeks really don’t need them as a prize- Tajiks and Pashtuns will never cease to try to get back what is “rightfully” theirs. This is why a federation is better than breaking it up. But I wonder if this is also the case in Iraq with Baghdad? Would the Sunnis really give it up? Why wouldn’t they fight until the bitter end?

Thanks for your answer. Will be mulling it over. I personally think this sets a dangerous precedent, the idea that the area of a nation-state should correspond exactly or very nearly to the residence of a particular, self-identified ethnic (wider meaning) group. This idea- that a state should be a nation- was the justification of much of the genocide in Europe in the 18th and 19th centuries (as France, England, and Germany first consolidated their hold on the diverse peoples in their territory, eliminating hundreds of languages in their wake), and at present is the justification of irrational anti-immigration policies, etc.

While Kurdistan may eventually develop, I think that the Kurds will remain a diaspora people. Even with an ethnic homeland, many are deeply rooted where they are, and they would likely stay there unless pressured by the states they currently reside in. After all, many misrahi jews remained outside of Israel until life became intolerable.

Regarding the Balkans…yes, the final pieces of the former Yugoslavia are seperating, but they also have a larger trans-national government to (eventually) absorb them. Nothing similar exists in the M.E.

Something which is not regarded with favor by Turkey.

Expect there to be tough measures out of Ankara to counterweight any talk of actual independence for Iraqi Kurdistan.

I do have a minor quibble with this line though:
“Some states which were cobbled together by the Europeans have worked out such as India (albeit with initial violence)”

Have you forgotten that the former single territory of British India has actually split into India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh and still includes the heavily disputed Kashmir? If anything, India is yet another example of how colonial Frankenstein states can’t help but break apart.

• Creating a federal system for a unified Iraq?
• On top of insurgency, dealing with 2 border disputes, an even more disaffected Sunni “middle”, and the relocation of countless ethnic enclaves located on the wrong side of the line?

In my opinion, it’s more likely to succeed with with Iraq because it wouldn’t have significant effects on its neighbords territory (the Kurds don’t have that muchc laim to Turkey, Iran and Syria, just small parts which they could be made to renounce in return for all of N. Iraq.

Breaking up Afghanistan essentially is breaking up Pakistan too and that I don’t think we can risk. As for setting a precedent, its hard to say. But it’s definitely VERY valuable in terms of looking at current and future conflicts mostly with regard to former USSR republics (Chechnya, Azerbaijan, NK, Central Asia etc.). Just like the period of decolonization brought major changes to the world map, I think we’re beginning to head down Decolonization 2.

The first stage was shaking off their colonial masters, the second will be dealing with the aftermath, i.e. establishing real viable states, whether inside their current borders or outside. It’s a topic for a book, but an exciting one!

First, do you think we should also break up Afghanistan?

Second, do you think that all ethnic and national groups who want independence from their colonial / local powers should get it (Kurds, Tajiks, Chechens, Native Americans (I mean in S. America, as ours are more or less gone), Uyghurs, etc.)? What I mean is- do you think this is a good move specifically for Iraq, or would it set the right precedent as well?