Tweet
Caliphate--A Century, Compact and Simple
By Garen Yegparian on August 22, 2014
http://www.armenianweekly.com/2014/08/22/caliphate-century-compact-simple/
We often forget that the Islamic Caliphate last resided in
Constantinople in the person of the ruling sultan of the Ottoman
Empire. With Ataturk's abolition of the Ottoman monarch and state, the
caliphate, too, disappeared, only to "reappear" a few weeks ago in the
proclamation of the (Sunni) "Islamic State" as the latter's murderous
minions swept out of the territories they had occupied in Syria and
"conquered" a significant segment of Iraq.
How did all this happen? What are the precedents? What connects these
two caliphates? Who shares responsibility for these developments? How
is all this connected, or relevant, to Armenian concerns (beyond the
obvious immediate threat to the lives of those Armenians who fall
under the rule of the "Islamic State")?
A century ago, as its dying act, the last caliphate liquidated the
Armenian population under its control. Far more than any other
massacre of Christians by Muslims (or even vice-versa), this was a
precedent-setting policy. It screamed, "From now on, states may
eradicate human beings as suits their needs." Thus was modern genocide
born. No longer sufficed the slow-moving, decades- or centuries-long
process of decimating the native populations of the Congo or Americas,
nor the ancient "tradition" of wiping out the population and physical
existence of city-states (think of what Rome did to Carthage), nor
even the Mongol/Turkish tradition of conquest-by-carnage.
Unfortunately, the winners of World War I were still in a colonialist
mindset and created artificial states over the ruins of the Ottoman
Empire to suit their divide-and-conquer needs. Not only did the
Armenians get shafted, but so did the Kurds, Arabs, and everyone else.
I suspect part of the reason that Armenians were treated relatively
well in the Arab countries was the budding Arab nationalism and its
attendant decency. It was a non-religious movement, but a threat to
European colonialists who set up monarchies and pseudo-democracies in
countries constructed to maintain mutual tension. One need only look
at Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq to see this reality. Then came Israel,
established (at least partially) as atonement for the genocide Jews
had just suffered.
After some three-quarters of a century of triple indignity, Arab
populations have had enough. First, their legitimate national
aspirations were perverted, strangled, and/or subverted through the
bogus state boundaries created to divide them. Second, they were
subjected to misrule in those states by tyrants (often successive,
where a revolution promising liberation was co-opted by darker forces)
who were often puppets of one or more of the great powers. Third, they
perceived the creation of Israel (rightly or wrongly is not relevant
at this point) as a dagger in their heart.
In tandem, Iran's people experienced similar disappointments. The
pre-World War I constitutional revolution (in which Yeprem Khan, an
ARF member, played a key role) ultimately was subverted with any
progress/modernization made by the Pahlavi dynasty being rendered
meaningless by the 1953 American-British engineered coup that toppled
Prime Minister Mosaddegh. This ultimately led to religious forums
becoming the venue and source of hope for liberation, as people saw
nowhere else to turn, leading to the creation of an Islamic republic.
Similar religion-oriented ferment was present in the Arab world,
probably inspired to some degree by the "progress" made in Iran
through religion. In the Arab case, the most extreme ideologies had
the most financial support because of the oil wealth of the countries
hosting them (e.g., Saudi Arabia and its Wahhabis). Plus, the less
extreme Muslim Brotherhood was brutally and repeatedly "contained" in
Egypt and Syria. Add to this the context of the Cold War in which the
West saw an advantage to using radical Islamists as proxies against
the Soviet Union (primarily in Afghanistan), and you get a perfect
storm developing.
People's frustration (failure of Arab nationalism, despotic rulers,
aborted "Arab Spring"), battlefront experience (Afghanistan, Iraq, and
Syria), ideological context (decades of religion-based inspiration),
financial support (Arab Gulf states), and rivalries among Arab states
plus between Shias and Sunnis (and, in parallel, with Iran) led to the
mess in Syria. Of course, Turkey, with its reborn Ottomanism (starting
in the days of Prime Minister Turgut Ozal) being implemented as policy
over the past decade by the AKP's Erdogan and Davutoglu, had its
fingers in the Syrian pie. It supported the Islamist radicals (think
Kessab) and probably has a good relationship with them, much as it may
be diplomatically convenient to pretend otherwise.
Now, we have Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi anointing himself as caliph. His
forces are doing rather well, using the same murderous terror tactics
(might we be witnessing the beginning of a genocide of Christians?) as
the last caliphate (Ottoman) did to spread and maintain its control.
Erdogan is president of Turkey, and likely will be for the next
decade. How far can a rapprochement between Turkey and the "Islamic
State" go? Consider that the latter is also fighting the Kurds who are
also the Turkish regime's perceived enemy (regardless of recent
improvements and ongoing negotiations with jailed PKK leader Apo
Ocalan).
If the West and current Arab leadership don't wake up to this danger,
there's a good chance the latter will be wiped out and a new monster
empowered by oil wealth, Turkey, and sheer enthusiasm born of ongoing
victories will be pounding at the gates of Kurdistan, Israel, probably
Iran, and possibly even further. The new caliphate's overt and covert
supporters will live to regret their support of the Ottoman Empire's
new heirs, and Armenians will continue to be "collateral damage" in
the Middle East, and may even confront some problems on our twin
republics' borders as a result of this resurgent religious extremism.
Let's start getting the word out before it's too late for all concerned.
By Garen Yegparian on August 22, 2014
http://www.armenianweekly.com/2014/08/22/caliphate-century-compact-simple/
We often forget that the Islamic Caliphate last resided in
Constantinople in the person of the ruling sultan of the Ottoman
Empire. With Ataturk's abolition of the Ottoman monarch and state, the
caliphate, too, disappeared, only to "reappear" a few weeks ago in the
proclamation of the (Sunni) "Islamic State" as the latter's murderous
minions swept out of the territories they had occupied in Syria and
"conquered" a significant segment of Iraq.
How did all this happen? What are the precedents? What connects these
two caliphates? Who shares responsibility for these developments? How
is all this connected, or relevant, to Armenian concerns (beyond the
obvious immediate threat to the lives of those Armenians who fall
under the rule of the "Islamic State")?
A century ago, as its dying act, the last caliphate liquidated the
Armenian population under its control. Far more than any other
massacre of Christians by Muslims (or even vice-versa), this was a
precedent-setting policy. It screamed, "From now on, states may
eradicate human beings as suits their needs." Thus was modern genocide
born. No longer sufficed the slow-moving, decades- or centuries-long
process of decimating the native populations of the Congo or Americas,
nor the ancient "tradition" of wiping out the population and physical
existence of city-states (think of what Rome did to Carthage), nor
even the Mongol/Turkish tradition of conquest-by-carnage.
Unfortunately, the winners of World War I were still in a colonialist
mindset and created artificial states over the ruins of the Ottoman
Empire to suit their divide-and-conquer needs. Not only did the
Armenians get shafted, but so did the Kurds, Arabs, and everyone else.
I suspect part of the reason that Armenians were treated relatively
well in the Arab countries was the budding Arab nationalism and its
attendant decency. It was a non-religious movement, but a threat to
European colonialists who set up monarchies and pseudo-democracies in
countries constructed to maintain mutual tension. One need only look
at Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq to see this reality. Then came Israel,
established (at least partially) as atonement for the genocide Jews
had just suffered.
After some three-quarters of a century of triple indignity, Arab
populations have had enough. First, their legitimate national
aspirations were perverted, strangled, and/or subverted through the
bogus state boundaries created to divide them. Second, they were
subjected to misrule in those states by tyrants (often successive,
where a revolution promising liberation was co-opted by darker forces)
who were often puppets of one or more of the great powers. Third, they
perceived the creation of Israel (rightly or wrongly is not relevant
at this point) as a dagger in their heart.
In tandem, Iran's people experienced similar disappointments. The
pre-World War I constitutional revolution (in which Yeprem Khan, an
ARF member, played a key role) ultimately was subverted with any
progress/modernization made by the Pahlavi dynasty being rendered
meaningless by the 1953 American-British engineered coup that toppled
Prime Minister Mosaddegh. This ultimately led to religious forums
becoming the venue and source of hope for liberation, as people saw
nowhere else to turn, leading to the creation of an Islamic republic.
Similar religion-oriented ferment was present in the Arab world,
probably inspired to some degree by the "progress" made in Iran
through religion. In the Arab case, the most extreme ideologies had
the most financial support because of the oil wealth of the countries
hosting them (e.g., Saudi Arabia and its Wahhabis). Plus, the less
extreme Muslim Brotherhood was brutally and repeatedly "contained" in
Egypt and Syria. Add to this the context of the Cold War in which the
West saw an advantage to using radical Islamists as proxies against
the Soviet Union (primarily in Afghanistan), and you get a perfect
storm developing.
People's frustration (failure of Arab nationalism, despotic rulers,
aborted "Arab Spring"), battlefront experience (Afghanistan, Iraq, and
Syria), ideological context (decades of religion-based inspiration),
financial support (Arab Gulf states), and rivalries among Arab states
plus between Shias and Sunnis (and, in parallel, with Iran) led to the
mess in Syria. Of course, Turkey, with its reborn Ottomanism (starting
in the days of Prime Minister Turgut Ozal) being implemented as policy
over the past decade by the AKP's Erdogan and Davutoglu, had its
fingers in the Syrian pie. It supported the Islamist radicals (think
Kessab) and probably has a good relationship with them, much as it may
be diplomatically convenient to pretend otherwise.
Now, we have Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi anointing himself as caliph. His
forces are doing rather well, using the same murderous terror tactics
(might we be witnessing the beginning of a genocide of Christians?) as
the last caliphate (Ottoman) did to spread and maintain its control.
Erdogan is president of Turkey, and likely will be for the next
decade. How far can a rapprochement between Turkey and the "Islamic
State" go? Consider that the latter is also fighting the Kurds who are
also the Turkish regime's perceived enemy (regardless of recent
improvements and ongoing negotiations with jailed PKK leader Apo
Ocalan).
If the West and current Arab leadership don't wake up to this danger,
there's a good chance the latter will be wiped out and a new monster
empowered by oil wealth, Turkey, and sheer enthusiasm born of ongoing
victories will be pounding at the gates of Kurdistan, Israel, probably
Iran, and possibly even further. The new caliphate's overt and covert
supporters will live to regret their support of the Ottoman Empire's
new heirs, and Armenians will continue to be "collateral damage" in
the Middle East, and may even confront some problems on our twin
republics' borders as a result of this resurgent religious extremism.
Let's start getting the word out before it's too late for all concerned.