Even a tiny probability of such a danger would worry anyone who cares about Iran. Iran's geographical integrity is a principle on which all republican democrats [of Iran] have consensus. To assess the degree of reality of this possibility we must analyze it on two grounds:
4-1. Domestic background: Iran's ethnic differences and the system's discriminatory ethnic treatments are undeniable facts. Sunnis play a far less important role in the political system compared to Shiites and so do the Kurds and Arabs compared to the Fars. Government positions are discriminately taken by Shiites and the Fars. There are huge economical differences among provinces. All this is due to the central government's wrong policies. But there is no noticeable domestic separatist movement that would demand the cessation of specific regions of Iran. Different ethnic notables are after the elimination of discrimination and fair participation in the political system. Federalism within a democratic framework is the maximum that could be realized and that the democrats support. Those who take the danger posed by disunion seriously think certain provinces may have such a potential: Kurd provinces, Turk provinces, Sistan and Baluchistan, and Khuzistan. Naturally the people in the separatist provinces should participate in elections in much lower turnouts. However, the voters in Kurd provinces (12.83% of the eligibles) and Sistan and Baluchistan (34.39% of the eligibles) who had shown low turnouts in the first presidential elections, took part in the eighth presidential election in turnouts amounting, respectively, to 53.45% and 70.13%. The turnout in Khuzistan (except for three elections), though always lower than the national average, has been close to it regularly. The turnout in East Azerbaijan has been lower than the national average and declining. It's interesting to note, however, that the economic situation in East Azerbaijan is better than the countries deprived provinces and its people have a fair share of government positions. The Leader of the country is Turkish speaking, and so is the head of the Assembly of Experts.
| Elections | East Azerbaijan | West Azerbaijan | Khuzistan | Sistan and Balushistan | Kurdistan | Entire Country |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| First | 53.53% | 40.11% | 74.03% | 34.39% | 12.89% | 67.43% |
| Second | 63.56% | 45.83% | 45.55% | 29.8% | 43.72% | 64.24% |
| Third | 78.66% | 58.73% | 54.49% | 47.6% | 48.46% | 74.26% |
| Fourth | 49.02% | 53.63% | 56.9% | 31.92% | 51.57% | 54.78% |
| Fifth | 50.6% | 55.23% | 59.02% | 38.68% | 58.68% | 54.59% |
| Sixth | 43.98% | 48.8% | 45.6% | 42.87% | 54.96% | 50.66% |
| Seventh | 67.76% | 73.71% | 74.08% | 65.28% | 79.04% | 79.92% |
| Eighth | 53.07% | 56.41% | 59.3% | 70.13% | 53.45% | 66.77% |
4-2. International background: The most important plan for the Middle East is the Great Middle East Plan of the US and its allies. The basic assumption of this plan is that tyrannical governments, on the one hand, and economic poverty, on the other, are the sources of fundamentalism and terrorism. Dictatorship feeds terrorism and spreads poverty. If the region is democratized, terrorism and fundamentalism will vanish, security is restored and the region's economy will flourish. This will benefit the global capitalism, which looks for safe markets.
In this, and similar other plans, there exists no category for the break-up of a country. Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, ... must be democratized not broken up. Even in the most radical democratization models of the region, that is democratization through military invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq, not only has there been no plan of dissociating these countries, but every effort was made to create pluralist democratic governments by bringing together all ethnicities, sects and factions. George Bush recently announced "the success of democracy in Iraq sends a message to the lands from Beirut to Tehran that freedom could be any nation's future." If Iraq is the Americans' democratic model for the region, there will be no talk about disintegration of any country. Furthermore, in terms of ethnic threats [to geographical integrity] Iraq was far more prone to disintegration than Iran. But Iraq did not dissociate and there was no plan to that effect. Not only that, a Kurd was chosen as the President. He (Jalal Talabani) says: "an independent Kurdistan cannot survive. The Kurds like any other people would like to determine their own destiny. But they have realized that this is not consistent with reality and is not possible. Since although our neighbors do not attack us but they will close their borders with us and an independent Kurdistan will not be able to survive. The dream is one thing and the reality another. The majority of Kurds voted for our list, the Kurds faction. The faction that asks for a federal Iraq, not independence." These are the words of a person who has fought for independence for years and has experienced 15 years of independent Kurdish rule.
In 1974 Turkey occupied the northern part of Cypress and divided the country into a Turkish and a Greek part, and in 1983 declared an independent Turkish republic in Northern Cypress in an attempt to separate it [from the rest of the country]. But no country recognized the Turkish Cypress and the international community univocally demanded the union of the two parts. Turkey and the Northern Cypress had no alternative but to retreat. In the referendum of April 24th, 2004, 70% of the Turkish part voted for the UN General Secretary's [peace] plan so that some of the sanctions imposed by the US and the EU be lifted. In April 17, 2005 elections Mehmet Ali Talat replaced Rauf Denktash. He supports the union of the two parts. The EU has given Turkey till October 2005 to resolve the Cypress crisis. If the international pressure, especially that of the US and Europe did not exist, Turkey and the Northern Cypress would still defend separation, not union.
Due to their economic interests and in order to safeguard their national security, Americans and Europeans are after spreading democracy in other countries and especially the Middle East. Countries' disintegration does not help this process in any way. We should not forget that democracies do not go to war with each other.
Preface >> Section 1 >> Section 2 >> Section 3 >> Section 5 >> Section 6 >> Section 7 >> Section 8 >> Section 9 >> Section 10
