Introduced 9/12/12 as a House
resolution (#137) by Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, the following language:
"Expressing the sense of Congress
that the Azeri people, currently divided between Azerbaijan and Iran,
have the right to self-determination and to their own sovereign
country if they so choose."
Self-determination is concept that is
hard to object to in the abstract. Of course, our government, during
the 1860's acted forcefully to deny self-determination to residents
of our southern states, and self-determination for Native Americans
is a status that has still not been fully achieved -- to say nothing
of the residents of the city where Congress meets.
Congressman Rohrabacher, 65,
representing California's 46th congressional district, serves on the
Committee on Investigations and Oversight of the House Committee on
Foreign Affairs.
Before his election to Congress,
Rohrabacher was an assistant and speechwriter to President Reagan,
playing a significant role in the development of the Reagan Doctrine,
which supported the use of overt and covert aid to anti-communist
movements around the globe, as a way to contain the Soviet Union's
influence in various countries. (This led to such efforts as the
Iran-Contra affair, support for the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan, and
Joseph Savimba's UNITA in Angola.)
Southern California is one of the areas
in the United States where Azerbaijanis (either from the former
Soviet Union and Iran, or from the diaspora elsewhere) have settled.
Since 2004, there has been a congressional caucus on Azerbaijani
interests, which is clearly having some influence.
The province within Iran known as East
Azerbaijan has a mixed population of Azeris (a Turkic-speaking people
of mixed Caucasian, Iranian and Turkic origin, who comprise about
15-20 percent of Iran's population overall), as well Kurds,
Armenians, Assyrians, Talysh, Jews, Georgians and Persians). The
principal city is Tabriz and the city of Ardebil is a Caspian
seaport. (West Azerbaijan is majority Kurdish.) The people of (the
former Soviet republic of) Azerbaijan and Iranian Azerbaijan have
been separated for more than two hundred years. The Azeris in Iran
are about 50% greater in number than those of the Republic of
Azerbaijan. Like most Persians, they are predominantly Shi'e Muslim.
The question is why this member,
without a co-sponsor as yet, has introduced a resolution weighing in
on the status of one particular minority in Iran. Can we expect
other such measures related to Iranian Arabs, Kurds, or tribal
peoples? Is the resolution designed simply to create more problems
for -- or to further alienate -- the Islamic Republic of Iran?
Rohrabacher has been quoted as saying, "Iran
has played on ethnic and religious groups to advance its interests in
Lebanon and Iraq. The United States should look for opportunities to
do the same...”
The National Iranian-American Council
has called the idea behind the resolution "radical," and
has said, "playing on ethnic tensions is a recipe for the worst
kinds of violence, and that’s exactly what he’d like to see
happen in Iran. In fact, Rohrabacher has admitted that he supports
the terrorist group Mujahedin-e Khalq over peaceful opposition groups
because of the Mujahedin’s willingness to use violence."
If the Obama administration is
emphasizing its concern about nuclear weapons programs and eschewing any
intent to foment regime change from outside, are such resolutions
really helpful to the ongoing negotiations our diplomats are
conducting? We saw what division along ethnic lines did to Iraq in
the aftermath of the U.S. invasion.
Shouldn't the Congressman tend to what
directly impacts Long Beach or Rancho Palos Verdes, rather then
seeking to decide the fortunes of groups on the other side of the
world? It strikes me that tossing gasoline on the flames may not be the best way to bring a fire
under control.
No comments:
Post a Comment