|
As
we probably already know, the twenty-first century is a period
home to a number of political advancements and shortcomings
alike. But an activist may agree that one such outstanding
corridor is that of the expansionist’s roles of government in
today’s war-stricken atmosphere. Take for instance, the role
that Iran is proposing to play in Iraq as of this year. In
January Iran revealed inexplicitly that it will try to bring
about increasing economic and military ties with Iraq.
What happens
when one of the strongest nations (e.g. Iran) makes such a
statement that arises directly from the upper hand in
government? In 1979, the Republic under Constitution, named
Ayatollah Sayyid Rudolph Musavi Khomeini as “faqih”
and ultimate decision maker. The executive branch included
elected president, responsible for selecting prime minister and
cabinet, which had to be approved and re-examined periodically
by parliament, or a congressional Majlis, elected legislative
assembly. There was a Judiciary independent of both executive
and Majlis. Iran’s Council of Guardians, consisting of six
religious scholars appointed by faqih and six lawyers approved
by Majlis, ensured conformity of legislation with Islamic law.
On such account, most western nations may consider Iran a threat
to world peace; a superficial concept that I have never
understood.
Then, there was
the Republican Party, created in 1979 and ultimately dissolved
in 1987 due to unmanageable factions. The Iran Freedom Movement
existed in 1987 but had been intimidated into silence.
Opposition political parties existed in exile abroad:
monarchists, democrats, Kurds, Islamic groups, and Marxists. The
regime stressed mass political participation through religious
institutions rather than political parties. Factories, schools,
and offices had Islamic associations similar to mosque voluntary
associations. Fervent religious zeal and support for the
Revolution promoted by the Pasdaran (the revolutionary Guard
Corps) just rendered situations worse over time.
Iran has ever
since been demarcated into twenty-four provinces, each
subdivided into counties, overseen by a governor general. Most
administrative officials are actually appointed by, and are
answerable to central Ministry of Interior. Furthermore, each
county has a clerical “imam jomeh” chosen from among county
senior clergy. Now here is one of the organizational features
that are in turn sometimes perceived by western nations as a
threat: This senior clergy actually serves as a direct
representative of the faqih, mentioned earlier in the article.
In my opinion, democracy works at the level of the people,
whether rule is by religious clerics or liberal politicians.
However, there is no reason whatsoever for westerners to fear
this privilege just because it exists in Iran; it is not
affecting the people living outside of Iran in any direct way.
What does
concern with expansionism have to do with foreign affairs,
especially with a country like Iran? Policies of Islamic
revolutionary government based on the export of Islamic upheaval
and liberation of Third World countries generally coincide.
Other major policies advocate independence from both West and
East, especially United States. For example, the war with Iraq,
which began in 1980, had been very costly in men and material.
The war ended with Iran's acceptance of a cease- fire in July
1988, but the blame still lies not only on Iran/Iraq’s policies,
but also on the overall input of countries in the West.
Is Expansionism
ethical? Aristotle is an ideal ethicist, so for now we’ll look
up to him for advice—Aristotle’s Politics occupy the second part
of a treatise of which the Ethics is undoubtedly the first part.
It takes us back to the Ethics as the Ethics looks forward to
the Politics. Aristotle never separated, as most are inclined to
do, the spheres of the statesman and the moralist. In the Ethics
he has described the character necessary for the good life, but
that life is for him essentially to be lived in society, and
when in the last chapters of the Ethics he comes to the
practical application of his inquiries, that finds expression
not in moral exhortations addressed to the individual but in a
description of the legislative opportunities of the statesman.
In this case we are considering expansionist roles in today’s
society. It is the legislator's task to frame a society which
shall make the good life possible. Politics for Aristotle is
not a struggle between individuals or classes for power, nor a
device for getting done such elementary tasks as the maintenance
of order and security without significant encroachments on
individual liberty. The state should be an aggregation of
families poised to retain a self-sufficing life, and a state
that seems to be expanding its role in a war-torn province is
really a craftsman whose material is society and whose aim is
therefore good life for all.
There is of
course, the possibility of fragmentation and civil warfare. The
British for example, are known to have had a policy of “divide
and conquer,” which lies on the theory that nations broken into
lawless entities are prone to fall into control of expansionist
nations. If the entire Middle East is demarcated into smaller
ethnic or sectarian mini-states for instance, which would
include not only large stateless nationalities like the Kurds,
but Maronite Christians, Druze, Arab Shiites, and others, a
direct threat would be presented to pan-Arab nationalism. Civil
and tribal breakouts are going to be more common in the near
future than it is now, given the mosaic of ethnicities and sects
in the Middle East. Numerous factions will have joined with
tribal, urban, and rural settings for many generations.
Therefore, even a minute in the local government, such as
creating a new ethnic or sectarian state would most likely
result in forced population transfers, possible ethnic
cleansing, and other types of human suffering. The Los Angeles
Times stated on Feb. 26, "The outlines of a future Iraq are
emerging: a nation where power is scattered among clerics turned
warlords; control over schools, hospitals, railroads, and roads
is divided along sectarian lines; graft and corruption subvert
good governance; and foreign powers exert influence only over a
weak central government."
King Abdullah of
Saudi Arabia motioned to other world leaders attending the Arab
League conference that American occupation of Iraq is completely
illegal. He also complained that the US and other foreign
powers would continue to dictate the region's politics unless
Arab governments settle any differences that they may have
within themselves. The King’s stern voice about the American-led
military intervention in Iraq suggests that his alliance with
Washington may be less harmonious than what the U.S. may have
been hoping, and some analysts even suggest that Saudis are
paying close attention to internal American politics following
the Democratic shortcomings in the fairly recent November
elections.
So what do U.S.
policies in Iraq have to do with the division of Iraq? Consider
if the U.S. and her allies play a part in making the decision of
Iraq to abolish the Iraqi army and purge the government
bureaucracy – both embankments of secularism – thereby creating
a vacuum that will soon be filled by sectarian parties and
militias. United States authorities must admit that their
foreign policies encouraged sectarianism by proportioning
authority based not on socioeconomic status but by ethnic and
religious identity. Even military divisions are currently
separated, with parts of western Baghdad being patrolled by army
units dominated by Sunnis while eastern Baghdad is being
patrolled by Shiite units. Without a surge of fresh new ideas to
unify a war-torn nation, reconstructing from technological and
parliamentary perspectives should be considered useless.
 Naheed
Ali's efforts and contributions to science and politics include
a number of publications. In addition to being involved in
freelance writing based out of Long Island, New York since
2003, Naheed has met and discussed political issues with many
representatives from different diplomacies, including the
United Nations, U.S. Presidential Campaigns and Amnesty
International. Additional info can be found in the author's
latest blog:
www.healingdream.blogspot.com
|
