The rights of small nations

It's a sign of the cynicism induced by an expectation that King George needs some warmongering in 2006 that we can't take a seemingly good article in Monday's Wall Street Journal at face value. The article (subs. req'd) by Frederic Grare and Georges Perkovich discusses the unhappy state of the Pakistani province of Baluchistan, the least well-known of the country's four provinces and the one which has the strongest case that it is exploited by the central government:

The government replies that Baluchistan's resources are national property and has made only nominal concessions. The conflict, it says, is the fault of a few greedy obscurantist tribal leaders opposed to the development of the province.

This argument resembles that which the Punjabi-dominated central government made in the early 1970s toward East Pakistanis before massive violence and war with India erupted, leading to the creation of Bangladesh.

Now while the authors argue that this means that the US should push for democratization in Pakistan, one complication with agitating for Baluchi rights in Pakistan is that they are also across the border in Iran. And aside from ethnic differences with Persians, there are also religious differences since most Baluchi are Sunni.

And what does a war, or at least lots of talking about war, need more than the adoption of a minority group as part of the cause? It doesn't help that sitting on the opposite page is the American Enterprise Institute's Michael Rubin, Lincoln PR cash-recipient, arguing explicitly for action against Iran. Sometimes bad causes drive out good ones.