Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Blood Borders: How A Better Middle East Would Look

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Blood Borders: How A Better Middle East Would Look

    BLOOD BORDERS: HOW A BETTER MIDDLE EAST WOULD LOOK
    By Ralph Peters

    Kurdish Media, UK
    July 4 2006

    International borders are never completely just. But the degree of
    injustice they inflict upon those whom frontiers force together or
    separate makes an enormous difference - often the difference between
    freedom and oppression, tolerance and atrocity, the rule of law and
    terrorism, or even peace and war.

    The most arbitrary and distorted borders in the world are in Africa
    and the Middle East. Drawn by self-interested Europeans (who have had
    sufficient trouble defining their own frontiers), Africa's borders
    continue to provoke the deaths of millions of local inhabitants. But
    the unjust borders in the Middle East - to borrow from Churchill -
    generate more trouble than can be consumed locally.

    While the Middle East has far more problems than dysfunctional borders
    alone - from cultural stagnation through scandalous inequality
    to deadly religious extremism - the greatest taboo in striving to
    understand the region's comprehensive failure isn't Islam but the
    awful-but-sacrosanct international boundaries worshipped by our
    own diplomats.

    Of course, no adjustment of borders, however draconian, could make
    every minority in the Middle East happy. In some instances, ethnic
    and religious groups live intermingled and have intermarried.

    Elsewhere, reunions based on blood or belief might not prove quite as
    joyous as their current proponents expect. The boundaries projected
    in the maps accompanying this article redress the wrongs suffered by
    the most significant "cheated" population groups, such as the Kurds,
    Baluch and Arab Shia, but still fail to account adequately for Middle
    Eastern Christians, Bahais, Ismailis, Naqshbandis and many another
    numerically lesser minorities. And one haunting wrong can never be
    redressed with a reward of territory: the genocide perpetrated against
    the Armenians by the dying Ottoman Empire.

    Yet, for all the injustices the borders re-imagined here leave
    unaddressed, without such major boundary revisions, we shall never
    see a more peaceful Middle East.

    Even those who abhor the topic of altering borders would be well-served
    to engage in an exercise that attempts to conceive a fairer, if still
    imperfect, amendment of national boundaries between the Bosporus
    and the Indus. Accepting that international statecraft has never
    developed effective tools - short of war - for readjusting faulty
    borders, a mental effort to grasp the Middle East's "organic" frontiers
    nonetheless helps us understand the extent of the difficulties we face
    and will continue to face. We are dealing with colossal, man-made
    deformities that will not stop generating hatred and violence until
    they are corrected.

    As for those who refuse to "think the unthinkable," declaring that
    boundaries must not change and that's that, it pays to remember that
    boundaries have never stopped changing through the centuries. Borders
    have never been static, and many frontiers, from Congo through Kosovo
    to the Caucasus, are changing even now (as ambassadors and special
    representatives avert their eyes to study the shine on their wingtips).

    Oh, and one other dirty little secret from 5,000 years of history:
    Ethnic cleansing works.

    Begin with the border issue most sensitive to American readers:
    For Israel to have any hope of living in reasonable peace with its
    neighbors, it will have to return to its pre-1967 borders - with
    essential local adjustments for legitimate security concerns. But
    the issue of the territories surrounding Jerusalem, a city stained
    with thousands of years of blood, may prove intractable beyond our
    lifetimes. Where all parties have turned their god into a real-estate
    tycoon, literal turf battles have a tenacity unrivaled by mere greed
    for oil wealth or ethnic squabbles. So let us set aside this single
    overstudied issue and turn to those that are studiously ignored.

    The most glaring injustice in the notoriously unjust lands between the
    Balkan Mountains and the Himalayas is the absence of an independent
    Kurdish state. There are between 27 million and 36 million Kurds living
    in contiguous regions in the Middle East (the figures are imprecise
    because no state has ever allowed an honest census). Greater than the
    population of present-day Iraq, even the lower figure makes the Kurds
    the world's largest ethnic group without a state of its own. Worse,
    Kurds have been oppressed by every government controlling the hills
    and mountains where they've lived since Xenophon's day.

    The U.S. and its coalition partners missed a glorious chance to begin
    to correct this injustice after Baghdad's fall. A Frankenstein's
    monster of a state sewn together from ill-fitting parts, Iraq should
    have been divided into three smaller states immediately. We failed from
    cowardice and lack of vision, bullying Iraq's Kurds into supporting the
    new Iraqi government - which they do wistfully as a quid pro quo for
    our good will. But were a free plebiscite to be held, make no mistake:
    Nearly 100 percent of Iraq's Kurds would vote for independence.

    As would the long-suffering Kurds of Turkey, who have endured decades
    of violent military oppression and a decades-long demotion to "mountain
    Turks" in an effort to eradicate their identity. While the Kurdish
    plight at Ankara's hands has eased somewhat over the past decade, the
    repression recently intensified again and the eastern fifth of Turkey
    should be viewed as occupied territory. As for the Kurds of Syria and
    Iran, they, too, would rush to join an independent Kurdistan if they
    could. The refusal by the world's legitimate democracies to champion
    Kurdish independence is a human-rights sin of omission far worse
    than the clumsy, minor sins of commission that routinely excite our
    media. And by the way: A Free Kurdistan, stretching from Diyarbakir
    through Tabriz, would be the most pro-Western state between Bulgaria
    and Japan.

    A just alignment in the region would leave Iraq's three Sunni-majority
    provinces as a truncated state that might eventually choose to unify
    with a Syria that loses its littoral to a Mediterranean-oriented
    Greater Lebanon: Phoenecia reborn. The Shia south of old Iraq would
    form the basis of an Arab Shia State rimming much of the Persian
    Gulf. Jordan would retain its current territory, with some southward
    expansion at Saudi expense. For its part, the unnatural state of
    Saudi Arabia would suffer as great a dismantling as Pakistan.

    A root cause of the broad stagnation in the Muslim world is the Saudi
    royal family's treatment of Mecca and Medina as their fiefdom. With
    Islam's holiest shrines under the police-state control of one of the
    world's most bigoted and oppressive regimes - a regime that commands
    vast, unearned oil wealth - the Saudis have been able to project
    their Wahhabi vision of a disciplinarian, intolerant faith far beyond
    their borders. The rise of the Saudis to wealth and, consequently,
    influence has been the worst thing to happen to the Muslim world as
    a whole since the time of the Prophet, and the worst thing to happen
    to Arabs since the Ottoman (if not the Mongol) conquest.

    While non-Muslims could not effect a change in the control of Islam's
    holy cities, imagine how much healthier the Muslim world might become
    were Mecca and Medina ruled by a rotating council representative of
    the world's major Muslim schools and movements in an Islamic Sacred
    State - a sort of Muslim super-Vatican - where the future of a great
    faith might be debated rather than merely decreed. True justice -
    which we might not like - would also give Saudi Arabia's coastal
    oil fields to the Shia Arabs who populate that subregion, while a
    southeastern quadrant would go to Yemen. Confined to a rump Saudi
    Homelands Independent Territory around Riyadh, the House of Saud
    would be capable of far less mischief toward Islam and the world.

    Iran, a state with madcap boundaries, would lose a great deal of
    territory to Unified Azerbaijan, Free Kurdistan, the Arab Shia State
    and Free Baluchistan, but would gain the provinces around Herat
    in today's Afghanistan - a region with a historical and linguistic
    affinity for Persia. Iran would, in effect, become an ethnic Persian
    state again, with the most difficult question being whether or not
    it should keep the port of Bandar Abbas or surrender it to the Arab
    Shia State.

    What Afghanistan would lose to Persia in the west, it would gain in
    the east, as Pakistan's Northwest Frontier tribes would be reunited
    with their Afghan brethren (the point of this exercise is not to
    draw maps as we would like them but as local populations would
    prefer them). Pakistan, another unnatural state, would also lose
    its Baluch territory to Free Baluchistan. The remaining "natural"
    Pakistan would lie entirely east of the Indus, except for a westward
    spur near Karachi.

    The city-states of the United Arab Emirates would have a mixed fate
    - as they probably will in reality. Some might be incorporated in
    the Arab Shia State ringing much of the Persian Gulf (a state more
    likely to evolve as a counterbalance to, rather than an ally of,
    Persian Iran). Since all puritanical cultures are hypocritical, Dubai,
    of necessity, would be allowed to retain its playground status for
    rich debauchees. Kuwait would remain within its current borders,
    as would Oman.

    In each case, this hypothetical redrawing of boundaries reflects ethnic
    affinities and religious communalism - in some cases, both. Of course,
    if we could wave a magic wand and amend the borders under discussion,
    we would certainly prefer to do so selectively. Yet, studying the
    revised map, in contrast to the map illustrating today's boundaries,
    offers some sense of the great wrongs borders drawn by Frenchmen and
    Englishmen in the 20th century did to a region struggling to emerge
    from the humiliations and defeats of the 19th century.

    Correcting borders to reflect the will of the people may be
    impossible. For now. But given time - and the inevitable attendant
    bloodshed - new and natural borders will emerge. Babylon has fallen
    more than once.

    Meanwhile, our men and women in uniform will continue to fight for
    security from terrorism, for the prospect of democracy and for access
    to oil supplies in a region that is destined to fight itself. The
    current human divisions and forced unions between Ankara and Karachi,
    taken together with the region's self-inflicted woes, form as perfect
    a breeding ground for religious extremism, a culture of blame and the
    recruitment of terrorists as anyone could design. Where men and women
    look ruefully at their borders, they look enthusiastically for enemies.

    >>From the world's oversupply of terrorists to its paucity of energy
    supplies, the current deformations of the Middle East promise a
    worsening, not an improving, situation. In a region where only
    the worst aspects of nationalism ever took hold and where the most
    debased aspects of religion threaten to dominate a disappointed faith,
    the U.S., its allies and, above all, our armed forces can look for
    crises without end. While Iraq may provide a counterexample of hope -
    if we do not quit its soil prematurely - the rest of this vast region
    offers worsening problems on almost every front.

    If the borders of the greater Middle East cannot be amended to reflect
    the natural ties of blood and faith, we may take it as an article of
    faith that a portion of the bloodshed in the region will continue to
    be our own.

    ~U ~U ~U

    WHO WINS, WHO LOSES

    Winners -

    Afghanistan

    Arab Shia State

    Armenia

    Azerbaijan

    Free Baluchistan

    Free Kurdistan

    Iran

    Islamic Sacred State

    Jordan

    Lebanon

    Yemen

    Losers -

    Afghanistan

    Iran

    Iraq

    Israel

    Kuwait

    Pakist an

    Qatar

    Saudi Arabia

    Syria

    Turkey

    United Arab Emirates

    West Bank

    For maps: http://www.kurdmedia.com/news.asp?id=12770
Working...
X