On territorial integrity


by benross

This was a comment in discussions about constitution of a republic for Iran which was not welcomed there but I think it's too important to be brought-up NOW, to be ignored.

Jamshid wrote ... Regarding ethnic rights, There are three camps in Iran. One side thinks that giving full rights (language, self-governance, etc.) might cause an eventual break up of the country. The other camp doesn't believe this, and in fact believes that this will bring the country closer together and make it more vibrant and stronger. I belong to the second camp.

However, as long as there are members of the third camp who want to use autonomy as a stepping stone to actually break away from Iran, there will be always danger and mistrust, the weaker Iran, the stronger people will perceive these dangers.

For preventing the mistrust of some, we should not cultivate the mistrust of others...

This is an issue that should be dealt with long before getting to a legitimate process of drafting a constitution to be voted by people.

We can not dismiss any of three camps, just because we belong to one of the other camps. When the agenda is freedom, this includes freedom for trying to democratically proceed with the goal of secession.

As the current legitimate constitution of Iran is the starting point, we should also start with acknowledging the territorial integrity of Iran as it is internationally recognized right now. But this is also the starting point.

The main goal is freedom and the 19th and 20th century concept of territorial integrity is outdated -if not unsustainable- and it should not undermine the freedom -within rules- for secession. If you truly believe the inhabitants of Iran of all ethnic backgrounds share the same history and the same identity as a single nation as I do, then there shouldn't be any concern. If you don't believe it, then there is a serious ground for secession and serious reason for not blocking it. So either way you look at it, there is no justification in undermining the freedom of expression, or setting up some preventive measures undermining freedom of expression.

Federalism and autonomy, are management patterns, not necessarily related to ethnic differences. We should address the main issue head on. So instead of saying 'it is illegal to secede from the mainland', or simply postponing the issue by saying it is premature to speak of 'federalism' -which I incidentally totally agree- with respect of freedom of expression, we have no way other than specifying what would constitutes 'legal' secession.

My rule of thumb is that for a relatively reversible decision such as electing a 4 year term government, majority of over %50 as practiced in all democracies is sufficient. But for something as irreversible as secession, it has to be subject to some other conditions.

What I suggest is this:

For any territory to separate from the mainland, or to join to the mainland, there has to be a favorable majority of over %66 from the inhabitants of the territory, and a favorable majority of over %50 from the inhabitants of the rest of the mainland simultaneously. To me this is an absolute necessity for a peaceful, sustainable and stable transition. An Azari may say the rest of the country will never have %50 favorable vote for secession of Azerbaijan. I would say, then maybe it is not a good idea and it will create a never ending tension and violence. Go get the %66 of Azaris to be favorable to such idea, then you may have a good chance convincing %50 of the rest of the country. The hole point is to establish a peaceful democratic process... process again!

It goes without saying that in my personal perspective, this rule is mostly for facilitating the creation of 'Iran-e bozorg' -democratically- not shrinking it.


more from benross


by benross on


No Fear

Wishful Thinking., Benross

by No Fear on


Ok. you are saying, lets be united in our fight to topple IR , and then we will vote on federalism based on a generally accepted voting quota.

I can definitely see a true sense of being a democrate in you which persuaded me to carry a current debate over to your related thread to examine your idea with the current situation we are facing in regards to armed seperatism.

As you have rightfully explained, your method of %66 seperatist votes against %50 the rest of Iran Vote, will make it very unlikely for any groups with seperatist idealogies to break away from Iran. These seperatists can call your voting method undemocratic and unfair since the majority of the seperatists vote is not considered enough to grant them autonomy. Ofcourse, this is if we assume they would not gather enough votes from rest of Iran.

How would you react when these autonomous groups decide that for centuries, they have been betrayed and the only way is the continuation of armed resistance to kick out the persian invaders? Now you have to also deal with foreign media outlets covering the story that Kurdish people voted over %90 percent to  seperate from Iran but Iran refuse them their democratic right to self governance. Boy, you just shot yourself in the foot and your name will go down in history as the biggest jerk who caused kurdistan with its oilfields to part from Iran.

Otherwise, you will experience exactly what you are witnessing today.

Make no mistake about groups like PJAK and their seperatist agenda. I am sure you have seen the map of greater Kurdistan and heard  PJAK leaders say their long-term goals are to establish an autonomous Kurdish region within the Iranian state.

Confronting armed resistance groups who are involved in civilian death through their act of terrorism, is a lot easier than granting them a voice to gain support for their seperatist agenda.



maziar 58

Mr. benross

by maziar 58 on

SIR as you put it by saying ;try to play the democratic GAME of (vote count) and the 66 vs. 50 is never achievable any way; so we gonna play this game of civil conflict democraticly for ever.

But for now let's unite and get the IRR out of the way.

BTW liked Mr. samsam bringing the kurds as a clear example Bravo.

today the oil out put profit from FREE Kurdistan in Iraq divided among western co.s and Kurdistan and with a small percentage going to Baghdad.

And I'm affraid that they like to put that freedom candy for their Own benefit in Khzestan;hope not.   Maziar



by benross on

The discussion is not about the cultural component. It's about the process. For me, if you are born in Iran or from parents born in Iran, you are Iranian. You may be a reactionary bastard, but you are Iranian anyway! If you are not born in Iran but you have Norooz, you are one of us also. As simple as that!

Even if you want to separate pure Kiaani Iran from the rest, you need a democratic process. That's what I'm talking about. It's very important the process is being laid out for free Iran, so that now, we could concentrate on unity and achieving that free Iran.

The Phantom Of The Opera


by The Phantom Of The Opera on


The Pahlavis, all mullahs, and all public figures associated with the Green Movement  must disclose the source and the amount of their wealth/income.


"Iranian" territorial integrity is only relevant so long as

by SamSamIIII on


 "Ir-an-ian" cultural integrity is present & accounted for regarding the true concept behind that sacred union, established, by her Kiaani founders . Any & all major diversions from that set of concept & principles shall naturally brand the original concept behind that idea null ,void and subject to modification and at extreme, separation from the union. The current masters of that real estate have done exactly that in un-gluing the chain of concepts that held this ancient union together by rearranging and removing those tested patriotic bonds with imported ommatie spare parts . The damage is already done and I,m afraid un-assembling it post-IRI will not be a mere walk in the park with short fixes. It,s 2 generations deep . Time will tell .

Cheers Ben!!!

btw* an example of the violation of that set of concepts can be seen in the case of Kurds . The Median Kurds did not sign up to be 2nd class sunni citizens to their Persian/Azari/Gilak..etc cousins in their time tested original kiaani union of Iran. The same can be said about others such as Balouch  or native Khooz/Arab minority subjects of the said union .

Path of Kiaan Resurrection of True Iran Hoisting Drafshe Kaviaan //iranianidentity.blogspot.com //www.youtube.com/user/samsamsia


This is what I said

by benross on

These are discussions of after IRI and establishing total freedom. I don't recognize anything happening during IRI as democratic. For the time I'm talking about, your vote will be one among others.

In the meantime, if you really want to abort foreign influence on Iranian issues, don't give them the excuse! This is exactly what I mean by saying facing the issue head on.


As for a precedent for my %66, %50 formula, no there is none. The Quebec experience -although stimulating- but doesn't fit to this, although it could take advantage of it and solve its problem once and for all. The Quebec example is not much relevant to this case for two main reasons: the foundation of Canada was based on well digested democratic values, in new continent. So they didn't think %50 would be insufficient, since as the residents of the new continent, they are keen to define their country from scratch. In practical sense, they realized it is not a formula that can resolve the crisis and worse, it made the crisis chronic. There was some timid attempts to put forward a 'clarity clause' to define the terms of secession but it was too little too late.

On the other hand, we are coming from a land with 6000 years of history. We can not define it from scratch -not for lack of trying though!- so it is less a matter of defining the country, and more a matter of setting up a reasonable and viable process to do with what we got.

Actually I do believe that the %66,%50 formula has a lot of potential... all the way to the UN for conflict resolution.

The Phantom Of The Opera

It is worth having its own blog and, repeating...

by The Phantom Of The Opera on

Is there any other constitution in the world with a formula (be it pre-emptive or, not) for the breakup of the mainland. Can you, please, either explain again or, move your comment about the Canadian model here?

The Pahlavis, all mullahs, and all public figures associated with the Green Movement  must disclose the source and the amount of their wealth/income.