Tweet
Gulf News (United Arab Emirates)
October 16, 2014 Thursday
From empires to statelets
by Joseph A. Kechichian | Senior Writer
A few weeks ago, voters in Scotland rejected independence by 55 per
cent to 45 per cent, after a bitter campaign that aimed to end what
many perceived as one of the longest occupations in human history. To
avoid a similar outcome, the leader of Spain's Catalonia region, Artur
Mas, called off a referendum on independence from Spain scheduled for
November 9, with news that Esquerra Republicana de Catalunya, the
pro-independence party, offered to look for alternative ways to
consult Catalans. Belgium, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, among so many
countries, faced similar challenges as sustained efforts to split
manufactured states, republics, constitutional monarchies,
federations, kleptocracies, confederations, to name just a few
systems, gained momentum.
What appeared as relatively harmonious nation-states -- 206 at last
count, although only 193 were formal members in the United Nations,
while two (Vatican and Palestine) enjoyed observer status and 11 fell
in the undetermined category (Abkhazia, Cook Islands, Kosovo,
Nagorno-Karabagh, Niue, Northern Cyprus, Sahrawi Arab Democratic
Republic, Somaliland, South Ossetia, Taiwan and Transnistria) -- were,
in fact, under duress. Is the world likely to see an explosion in the
number of new independent states or, on the contrary, will we return
to pre-Second World War dimensions?
Harmonious coexistence is of course a lofty goal, though human beings
have had a whale of a time to date. With rare exceptions --
Czechoslovakia (1918-1993) broke up in 1993 into the Slovak and Czech
republics somewhat peacefully -- most of the divisions were bloody
affairs that tore nations apart and perpetuated violence. India and
Pakistan, Sudan and South Sudan, the two Koreas, China (Taiwan, Tibet,
Hong Kong and other entities), a myriad of African nation-states with
mixed opposing tribes, and even major powers like Brazil, Russia, the
US and Mexico were all products of serious confrontations that
resulted in deaths and mayhem galore.
Such divisions gained momentum in the 19th and 20th centuries when the
Austro-Hungarian, Ottoman, Russian, French and British empires
collapsed, to give rise to numerous states ostensibly committed to
peace. Often, major powers drafted secret agreements to redraw maps,
create artificial statelets and secure allies when they knew all too
well the latter's unreliability. It was convenient and, in the race of
nations, amply justifiable though it now looks that the experiments
were premature. The schemes eroded over time as nationalism settled
and, with increased education as well as denied opportunities, the
preference was to seek political divorces if possible. Alternatively,
nations opted to fight for independence when all else failed and that,
in our part of the world, led to catastrophes.
Of course, sectarian clashes and civil wars, like the ones we now have
in Iraq and Syria -- with a soft variety in Lebanon -- threatened to
divide these countries into three or more entities. Consequently, we
should not be surprised when cultural differences translate into
contradictory political visions, which are often camouflaged under
religious rhetoric since the latter is a far better rallying point
among gullible populations.
Regrettably, Iraq and Syria seem programmed to implode unless
effective federal systems are created, while Lebanon is most likely
impossible to save in its present form because its citizens feel no
compunction to allow foreign powers to pile on their domestic woes. To
be sure, Beirut was a relatively successful democratising entity that
created wealth and allowed all of its citizens to thrive and while
significant injustices led to profound psychological splits, the
country has not recovered from the festering 1975-1990 civil war.
Still, current uncertainties were more of an elite struggle for power
than a concrete illustration of popular resentment and, for all of
their shortcomings, the Lebanese were willing to coexist even if few
were willing to empower existing institutions to impose law and order.
There is a reverse phenomenon worthy of attention too. Namely, the
decision by several independent states to form a union, a project that
was partially fulfilled in Europe and was under discussion by the
conservative Arab Gulf states. With the exception of Oman, that voiced
its opposition to such a scheme, the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC)
union plan proposed to join forces and protect member-states from
perceived foreign incursions on the Arabian Peninsula. According to
the Kuwaiti thinker, Abdullah Al Nafisi, the very survival of the GCC
states could only be assured if the six independent countries
integrated into a single political entity with Madinah, in Saudi
Arabia, as its capital. Though this is not a done deal by any stretch
of the imagination, Al Nafisi's ideas are not as far-fetched as many
assume, given the regional challenges. Of course, the GCC is a unique
case because of so many similarities amongst its populations and
systems of government, even if global trend goes the other way.
The chief argument made by governments confronted with the
independence conundrum hovered around the notion that no single group
should make decisions on sovereignty that could potentially affect an
entire society. Rather, the preference was on referenda or
consultations between nascent parties that sought independence with
ruling parties. That was certainly correct because the need for
popular backing was imperative, even if a referendum contained the
risk of rejection -- as was the case in Scotland or may have been the
situation in Catalonia.
Nevertheless, citizens who feel ostracised in their own countries push
for disassociations from existing political systems, which is also a
valid proposition. Under the circumstances -- and with eroding
confidence that authority can be implemented with justice -- the world
is likely to experience an explosion of new states that, for better or
worse, promise to change the international system as we know it today.
That, too, should come as no surprise.
Dr Joseph A. Kechichian is the author of the forthcoming Iffat Al
Thunayan: An Arabian Queen, London: Sussex Academic Press, 2015.
http://gulfnews.com/opinions/columnists/from-empires-to-statelets-1.1399346
October 16, 2014 Thursday
From empires to statelets
by Joseph A. Kechichian | Senior Writer
A few weeks ago, voters in Scotland rejected independence by 55 per
cent to 45 per cent, after a bitter campaign that aimed to end what
many perceived as one of the longest occupations in human history. To
avoid a similar outcome, the leader of Spain's Catalonia region, Artur
Mas, called off a referendum on independence from Spain scheduled for
November 9, with news that Esquerra Republicana de Catalunya, the
pro-independence party, offered to look for alternative ways to
consult Catalans. Belgium, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, among so many
countries, faced similar challenges as sustained efforts to split
manufactured states, republics, constitutional monarchies,
federations, kleptocracies, confederations, to name just a few
systems, gained momentum.
What appeared as relatively harmonious nation-states -- 206 at last
count, although only 193 were formal members in the United Nations,
while two (Vatican and Palestine) enjoyed observer status and 11 fell
in the undetermined category (Abkhazia, Cook Islands, Kosovo,
Nagorno-Karabagh, Niue, Northern Cyprus, Sahrawi Arab Democratic
Republic, Somaliland, South Ossetia, Taiwan and Transnistria) -- were,
in fact, under duress. Is the world likely to see an explosion in the
number of new independent states or, on the contrary, will we return
to pre-Second World War dimensions?
Harmonious coexistence is of course a lofty goal, though human beings
have had a whale of a time to date. With rare exceptions --
Czechoslovakia (1918-1993) broke up in 1993 into the Slovak and Czech
republics somewhat peacefully -- most of the divisions were bloody
affairs that tore nations apart and perpetuated violence. India and
Pakistan, Sudan and South Sudan, the two Koreas, China (Taiwan, Tibet,
Hong Kong and other entities), a myriad of African nation-states with
mixed opposing tribes, and even major powers like Brazil, Russia, the
US and Mexico were all products of serious confrontations that
resulted in deaths and mayhem galore.
Such divisions gained momentum in the 19th and 20th centuries when the
Austro-Hungarian, Ottoman, Russian, French and British empires
collapsed, to give rise to numerous states ostensibly committed to
peace. Often, major powers drafted secret agreements to redraw maps,
create artificial statelets and secure allies when they knew all too
well the latter's unreliability. It was convenient and, in the race of
nations, amply justifiable though it now looks that the experiments
were premature. The schemes eroded over time as nationalism settled
and, with increased education as well as denied opportunities, the
preference was to seek political divorces if possible. Alternatively,
nations opted to fight for independence when all else failed and that,
in our part of the world, led to catastrophes.
Of course, sectarian clashes and civil wars, like the ones we now have
in Iraq and Syria -- with a soft variety in Lebanon -- threatened to
divide these countries into three or more entities. Consequently, we
should not be surprised when cultural differences translate into
contradictory political visions, which are often camouflaged under
religious rhetoric since the latter is a far better rallying point
among gullible populations.
Regrettably, Iraq and Syria seem programmed to implode unless
effective federal systems are created, while Lebanon is most likely
impossible to save in its present form because its citizens feel no
compunction to allow foreign powers to pile on their domestic woes. To
be sure, Beirut was a relatively successful democratising entity that
created wealth and allowed all of its citizens to thrive and while
significant injustices led to profound psychological splits, the
country has not recovered from the festering 1975-1990 civil war.
Still, current uncertainties were more of an elite struggle for power
than a concrete illustration of popular resentment and, for all of
their shortcomings, the Lebanese were willing to coexist even if few
were willing to empower existing institutions to impose law and order.
There is a reverse phenomenon worthy of attention too. Namely, the
decision by several independent states to form a union, a project that
was partially fulfilled in Europe and was under discussion by the
conservative Arab Gulf states. With the exception of Oman, that voiced
its opposition to such a scheme, the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC)
union plan proposed to join forces and protect member-states from
perceived foreign incursions on the Arabian Peninsula. According to
the Kuwaiti thinker, Abdullah Al Nafisi, the very survival of the GCC
states could only be assured if the six independent countries
integrated into a single political entity with Madinah, in Saudi
Arabia, as its capital. Though this is not a done deal by any stretch
of the imagination, Al Nafisi's ideas are not as far-fetched as many
assume, given the regional challenges. Of course, the GCC is a unique
case because of so many similarities amongst its populations and
systems of government, even if global trend goes the other way.
The chief argument made by governments confronted with the
independence conundrum hovered around the notion that no single group
should make decisions on sovereignty that could potentially affect an
entire society. Rather, the preference was on referenda or
consultations between nascent parties that sought independence with
ruling parties. That was certainly correct because the need for
popular backing was imperative, even if a referendum contained the
risk of rejection -- as was the case in Scotland or may have been the
situation in Catalonia.
Nevertheless, citizens who feel ostracised in their own countries push
for disassociations from existing political systems, which is also a
valid proposition. Under the circumstances -- and with eroding
confidence that authority can be implemented with justice -- the world
is likely to experience an explosion of new states that, for better or
worse, promise to change the international system as we know it today.
That, too, should come as no surprise.
Dr Joseph A. Kechichian is the author of the forthcoming Iffat Al
Thunayan: An Arabian Queen, London: Sussex Academic Press, 2015.
http://gulfnews.com/opinions/columnists/from-empires-to-statelets-1.1399346