Christians in Iraq

[Labor Shall Rule]

I recently came upon an interesting thread on another board, and I thought that it would be good to discuss it here. The poster is a Christian Arab of Iraqi descent, and was discussing what the position of Christians should be in Iraq.


Christians Threatened in Iraq (http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/03/christians_threatened.html)

My dad saw this article about an hour or so ago and pointed out to me that he grew up with the aforementioned Mansour, who often coached he and his friends [my father's] in soccer, etc.

I read the article and looked back on some of the history I knew about Iraqi Christians (being a former Christian) and how they've been persecuted and virtually thrown off of their ancestral homelands for thousands of years, and with the ascension of Hussien, many fled to the Detroit/San Diego areas.

My thought/question is this, a 3 state solution is often propounded (a Kurd state, a Sunni state, and a Shia State), but what happens to these Christian minorities? What state do they live in? Should they be given some land of their own? What is their place in this post-Saddam society?

Thoughts are encouraged.

I think that many of us are divided on this question of the 'solution' to the ethnic and religious fragmentation of Iraq that was the product of both historical circumstances, and the invasion and occupation. I thought that the thread asked interesting questions, and I am interested to see what comes out of this forum.

[Vargha Poralli]

Originally posted by from the quote

My thought/question is this, a 3 state solution is often propounded (a Kurd state, a Sunni state, and a Shia State)

Which clearly an Imperialist divide and rule tactic. All these states will battle each other and their ruling classes would have to rely on US imperialism and the Oil companies for their benefit and each would scapegoat other to their people divert them.


Especially the Kurdish part would seroiusly have to rely on US imperilsim for protection from Iran,Syria and Turkey.


think that many of us are divided on this question of the 'solution' to the ethnic and religious fragmentation of Iraq that was the product of both historical circumstances, and the invasion and occupation.

An unified Iraq with a secular face is becoming more and more idealistic. But dividing Iraq will not benefit workers of Iraq anyway.


I thought that the thread asked interesting questions,

For which I fear I have no reasonable answers.

[bolshevik butcher]

Partition along ethnic lines will never solve anything, especially if its enforced by Imperialism. Just look at the Indian subcontinet, Isreal/Palestine or even Ireland for some examples. Divide and rule is a classic weapon of imperialism, it's a great way to divide the working class and destroy class consciousness.

The only way out for the Iraqi working class is a socialist revolution and the Iraqi workers showed in the oil strikes of 2006 and many other recent industrial disputes that they are more than capable of fighting together.

[Janus]

Due to the religious nature of Iraq, Christians have always been threatened at some time or another particularly since they compose only around 3% of the population currently. Of course, the recent US involvement provided an opportune time for certain minorities to push their agendas and get themselves heard. As far as what to do, I think the best solution at the moment is to continue the objective of an undivided, secular Iraq rather than split the nation into 3 separate states.

[Spike]

Christians have always been threatened at some time or another particularly since they compose only around 3% of the population currently.
Actually, Tariq Aziz who is the legal head of state of Iraq is an Assyrian Christian.

[Janus]

Actually, Tariq Aziz who is the legal head of state of Iraq is an Assyrian Christian.
Saddamn was the legal head of state of Iraq but it does seem that Tariq is an exception in terms of the Christian representation in Iraq. Of course, this is more a result of the secular rule that was seen in Saddam's time; something which was an exception to the anti-Christian attacks that occured before (particularly after Iraqi independence) and after his rule.

[Spike]

Saddamn was the legal head of state
Now that he's dead Aziz is the legal head of state.

[Janus]

Now that he's dead Aziz is the legal head of state.
:blink: Aziz is in jail since he was one of the most wanted Ba'ath leaders. Nouri al-Maliki is the current head of state as per the government change in 2006.

[Spike]

Nouri al-Maliki is the current head of state as per the government change in 2006.
The overthrow of a foreign government violates international law. Tariq Aziz is rightfully head of state of Iraq.

[Labor Shall Rule]

I personally think that the 'two-state solution', or the creation of a seperate Sunni and Shiite state, would be absolutely ridiculous, on the ground that they don't constitute a national identity, but a denomination of a religious teaching. I think that it would serve the interests of foreign capital if such a split occured; it would facilitate a region that would be a center for investment in cheaper labor, and another for excess oil supplies. It should be realized that the areas that are predominately Sunni are not agricultural bases or locations of industrial importance, but a desert wasteland that would be isolated and deprived in the occasion that they receive independence. I think that an independent Iraq, without the sectarian divide, would be the first step to reaching the objective of a socialist revolution.

I think that we should recognize the national self-determination of the Kurds, seeing that they have not been considered as human beings ever since the Mandate was initiated by the victorious Allies following the First World War. I think that it should be the task of that independent Iraq to ensure that their freedom to religious expression and practice would be protected in accordance to law.

[Spike]

I think that we should recognize the national self-determination of the Kurds
The "self-determination" card should be played cautiously. This tactic is employed by imperialists in order to tear a country apart and dominate it e.g Eritrea, Biafra, South Sudan, etc. Marxists support self-determination only when imperialism is threatened. Rosa Luxemburg did not support the secession of Poland from Russia because this would only fragment the proletariat. It would lead to the corruption of class consciousness and independence of the proletariat, the confusion of the class struggle, the impregnation of the workers with petty bourgeois democratic phraseology.

In the Kurdish case, I don't even think that the Kurds are even a cohesive enough of a people to have a separate country of their own. Religious, nationalistic, tribal, and linguistic differences among them have obstructed their unity, and in turn prevented them from fulfilling their nationalist and separatist aspirations from their separate host countries.