It's all the rage nowadays: Sykes-Picot borders must go. Setting aside for a moment that Sykes-Picot is not the only agreement responsible for current Arab borders, the ongoing thesis is that the borders and the very definition of Arab states is an artificial construct of colonialism. And that thus, the borders and the states must be destroyed and reconstructed. ThIis is happening in light of the Arab Spring revolutions and their truest incarnation in 2014: The Jihadi Spring. But this argument is flimsy, self contradictory, doesn't stand internal tests or comparisons with the rest of mankind, and doesn't produce a sustainable model for the development of the Arab world. At its essence, the current obsession with Sykes-Picot stems from an inability or unwillingness to face a more fundamental and critical question that has to do with the very way Muslims define Islam.
A first clue to the bullshit consistency of the argument against traditional Arab borders is that it is championed by two totally unrelated groups for two completely contradictory sets of reasons. First, there are the Western leftist and neo-con neo-orientalists with their "better understanding of what Arabs need than Arabs themselves." This set believes that current Arab borders are wrong and must be redrawn because the states that constitute the Arab world are not nation states and have no defining identity, and because every state includes some degree of ethnic, and more critically, sectarian diversity. The theory goes if the borders are redrawn and new statelets created, then ethnically and religiously pure entities can be created in the Middle East and everyone will live happily ever after. Also, as a perk, this gives the existence of Israel as a purely Jewish state a reprieve from the apartheid label and makes ethnic cleansing of Palestinians much easier. ISIL and Al-Qaeda are the other group of people who agree that the borders and national entities are an artificial construct. But they don't want to redraw the borders and create new national identities. They want to erase the borders and obliterate all national identities. Both groups of people believe that their brilliant redrawings will bring the Middle East closer to its conditions before colonialism and thus guarantee harmony and stability. Never mind that neither vision is close to pre-colonialist realities, which were never for any significant length of time stable or harmonious.
I am going to call bullshit on the argument for many reasons. One reason is that this has already been tried. One excellent example is Lebanon which was designed to be the Christian homeland in greater Syria. Lebanon today is a minority Christian nation, the largest sect in Lebanon is Shiites, and the majority of people are Muslim. Lebanon has had a civil war in which all denominations of Christians, sects of Muslims, heresies, neighbours, and world powers found themselves allied at one point or another with every single entity in the war. The war had objectives that changed with time, but they included the brilliant solution of partitioning and redrawing the map of Lebanon to create a Maronite Christian republic on an area smaller than Lichtenstein, which owing to its sectarian purity would live peacefully and harmoniously. How is this partitioning and map redrawing process supposed to end? Will the Arab states be divided, redivided, and redivided still in a recurrent fractal loop of insanity till every street is a national entity?
But let's assume for a second that you do manage to create sufficiently pure blocks of land through genocide, mass transfer, and ethnic cleansing. Would that work? One good example, even if it is not Arab is Turkey. Turkey is nearly 100% Muslim within its borders, to achieve this they had to overcome the minor obstacle of obliterating the Armenian population from their ancestral homeland through a minor scuffle known as the Armenian genocide. And it worked. The whole area between Istanbul and the oil fields in Baku became Muslim as Turkey desired. But it didn't really work, Turkey has been fighting a separatist war in its southeast with Kurds, because assuming you have achieved the necessary level of homogeneity to avoid conflict never works in the Mideast.
But again, lets assume that we manage to create absolutely pure Bantustans across the region which are ethnically and religiously pure. Does anyone seriously think that they will not go to war with each other? What then? War for unification followed by more wars for partitioning?
Besides, one of the most critical components of the map redrawing argument is that Arab national entities are fake and artificial. This is patently untrue. On the one hand some Arab countries not only are nation states, they define nation state. Egypt is a prime example, but Morocco and Yemen are not far behind. But even rather modern entities such as the emirates have managed to create a very strong national identity that is recognisable across the Arab world. In almost all countries, the culture and dialect of the capital has had a significant influence within the borders of the country, and a national culture that is more uniform than in many European countries grew. I can't see how Syria is less well defined than Germany or how Algeria is more fake than Spain. A few countries truly have a problem with finding their definition, but I can't think of any specific examples except Sudan and Lebanon.
The real solution for the Arab problem is not to keep breaking it down and redrawing its borders to try to reach an unreachable equilibrium of pure states. The solution is for the Arab world to accept some of the basic concepts that the rest of humanity has chosen to accept. First, Arabs must learn that people have the right to believe, say, and read what they want. Second, that it is not OK to kill each other over a question of dynastic succession 1500 years ago. Third that the state has to be neutral to people's beliefs. In short Arabs must accept secularism and liberalism. The apologetic leftist orientalist argument that Arabs are "special" and can't be secular and liberal is just an insulting way to encourage Arabs to dig deeper.
To be more specific, it's not Arabs who need to accept this, it's Arab Muslims. It's not Muslims, it's Arab Muslims. Because one problem of Arab Muslims is that they believe in "true Islam" and they also believe very strongly in fighting heresy and "defending Islam". Either or both of the two concepts must go. Muslims, all Muslims, believe that there is a prescribed specific form of Islam that is "true" and pure. Whether said Muslims are secular, Jihadi, mainstream, Sunni, or Shiia, they all believe in a true Islam. And whether the Muslim thinks he is practicing this form of true Islam or not, Muslims mostly believe that they have to believe in this true Islam, and that all the other Muslims who believe in the other forms of Islam are criminal because they are tarnishing the true Islam. And that it is the duty of the Muslim community to fight these heretic criminals. So either Muslims have to accept that there are many different forms of Islam, none of which is more true than the others (and there is nothing in Islamic heritage to stand against this), or they can continue to call each other apostates and heretics but refrain from killing each other for it.
A first clue to the bullshit consistency of the argument against traditional Arab borders is that it is championed by two totally unrelated groups for two completely contradictory sets of reasons. First, there are the Western leftist and neo-con neo-orientalists with their "better understanding of what Arabs need than Arabs themselves." This set believes that current Arab borders are wrong and must be redrawn because the states that constitute the Arab world are not nation states and have no defining identity, and because every state includes some degree of ethnic, and more critically, sectarian diversity. The theory goes if the borders are redrawn and new statelets created, then ethnically and religiously pure entities can be created in the Middle East and everyone will live happily ever after. Also, as a perk, this gives the existence of Israel as a purely Jewish state a reprieve from the apartheid label and makes ethnic cleansing of Palestinians much easier. ISIL and Al-Qaeda are the other group of people who agree that the borders and national entities are an artificial construct. But they don't want to redraw the borders and create new national identities. They want to erase the borders and obliterate all national identities. Both groups of people believe that their brilliant redrawings will bring the Middle East closer to its conditions before colonialism and thus guarantee harmony and stability. Never mind that neither vision is close to pre-colonialist realities, which were never for any significant length of time stable or harmonious.
I am going to call bullshit on the argument for many reasons. One reason is that this has already been tried. One excellent example is Lebanon which was designed to be the Christian homeland in greater Syria. Lebanon today is a minority Christian nation, the largest sect in Lebanon is Shiites, and the majority of people are Muslim. Lebanon has had a civil war in which all denominations of Christians, sects of Muslims, heresies, neighbours, and world powers found themselves allied at one point or another with every single entity in the war. The war had objectives that changed with time, but they included the brilliant solution of partitioning and redrawing the map of Lebanon to create a Maronite Christian republic on an area smaller than Lichtenstein, which owing to its sectarian purity would live peacefully and harmoniously. How is this partitioning and map redrawing process supposed to end? Will the Arab states be divided, redivided, and redivided still in a recurrent fractal loop of insanity till every street is a national entity?
But let's assume for a second that you do manage to create sufficiently pure blocks of land through genocide, mass transfer, and ethnic cleansing. Would that work? One good example, even if it is not Arab is Turkey. Turkey is nearly 100% Muslim within its borders, to achieve this they had to overcome the minor obstacle of obliterating the Armenian population from their ancestral homeland through a minor scuffle known as the Armenian genocide. And it worked. The whole area between Istanbul and the oil fields in Baku became Muslim as Turkey desired. But it didn't really work, Turkey has been fighting a separatist war in its southeast with Kurds, because assuming you have achieved the necessary level of homogeneity to avoid conflict never works in the Mideast.
But again, lets assume that we manage to create absolutely pure Bantustans across the region which are ethnically and religiously pure. Does anyone seriously think that they will not go to war with each other? What then? War for unification followed by more wars for partitioning?
Besides, one of the most critical components of the map redrawing argument is that Arab national entities are fake and artificial. This is patently untrue. On the one hand some Arab countries not only are nation states, they define nation state. Egypt is a prime example, but Morocco and Yemen are not far behind. But even rather modern entities such as the emirates have managed to create a very strong national identity that is recognisable across the Arab world. In almost all countries, the culture and dialect of the capital has had a significant influence within the borders of the country, and a national culture that is more uniform than in many European countries grew. I can't see how Syria is less well defined than Germany or how Algeria is more fake than Spain. A few countries truly have a problem with finding their definition, but I can't think of any specific examples except Sudan and Lebanon.
The real solution for the Arab problem is not to keep breaking it down and redrawing its borders to try to reach an unreachable equilibrium of pure states. The solution is for the Arab world to accept some of the basic concepts that the rest of humanity has chosen to accept. First, Arabs must learn that people have the right to believe, say, and read what they want. Second, that it is not OK to kill each other over a question of dynastic succession 1500 years ago. Third that the state has to be neutral to people's beliefs. In short Arabs must accept secularism and liberalism. The apologetic leftist orientalist argument that Arabs are "special" and can't be secular and liberal is just an insulting way to encourage Arabs to dig deeper.
To be more specific, it's not Arabs who need to accept this, it's Arab Muslims. It's not Muslims, it's Arab Muslims. Because one problem of Arab Muslims is that they believe in "true Islam" and they also believe very strongly in fighting heresy and "defending Islam". Either or both of the two concepts must go. Muslims, all Muslims, believe that there is a prescribed specific form of Islam that is "true" and pure. Whether said Muslims are secular, Jihadi, mainstream, Sunni, or Shiia, they all believe in a true Islam. And whether the Muslim thinks he is practicing this form of true Islam or not, Muslims mostly believe that they have to believe in this true Islam, and that all the other Muslims who believe in the other forms of Islam are criminal because they are tarnishing the true Islam. And that it is the duty of the Muslim community to fight these heretic criminals. So either Muslims have to accept that there are many different forms of Islam, none of which is more true than the others (and there is nothing in Islamic heritage to stand against this), or they can continue to call each other apostates and heretics but refrain from killing each other for it.
No comments:
Post a Comment