Middle East Archives

The Middle East That Might Have Been the region’s borders right.

February 13, 2015 by administrator

By Nick Danforth February 13, 2015

Nearly a century ago, two Americans led a quixotic mission to get the region’s borders right.

How the King-Crane Commission envisioned the Middle East map

In 1919, President Woodrow Wilson dispatched a theologian named Henry King and a plumbing-parts magnate named Charles Crane to sort out the Middle East. Amid the collapse of the Ottoman Empire following World War I, the region’s political future was uncertain, and the two men seemed to provide the necessary combination of business acumen and biblical knowledge. King and Crane’s quest was to find out how the region’s residents wanted to be governed. It would be a major test of Wilson’s belief in national self-determination: the idea that every people should get its own state with clearly defined borders. published on http://www.theatlantic.com

After spending three weeks interviewing religious and community leaders in Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, and southern Turkey, the two men and their team proposed that the Ottoman lands be divided as shown in the map above. Needless to say, the proposals were disregarded. In accordance with the Sykes-Picot Agreement Britain and France had drafted in secret in 1916, Britain and France ultimately took over the region as so-called mandate or caretaker powers. The French-administered region would later become Lebanon and Syria, and the British region would become Israel, Jordan, and Iraq.

Today, many argue that a century of untold violence and instability—culminating in ISIS’s brutal attempt t0 erase Middle Eastern borders—might have been avoided if only each of the region’s peoples had achieved independence after World War I. But as the King-Crane Commission discovered back in 1919, ethnic and religious groups almost never divide themselves into discrete units. Nor do the members of each group necessarily share a vision of how they wish to be governed.

The King-Crane report is still a striking document—less for what it reveals about the Middle East as it might have been than as an illustration of the fundamental dilemmas involved in drawing, or not drawing, borders. Indeed, the report insisted on forcing people to live together through complicated legal arrangements that prefigure more recent proposals.

Among other things, the authors concluded that dividing Iraq into ethnic enclaves was too absurd to merit discussion. Greeks and Turks only needed one country because the “two races supplement each other.” The Muslims and Christians of Syria needed to learn to “get on together in some fashion” because “the whole lesson of modern social consciousness points to the necessity of understanding ‘the other half,’ as it can be understood only by close and living relations.”

But the commissioners also realized that simply lumping diverse ethnic or religious groups together in larger states could lead to bloody results. Their report proposed all sorts of ideas for tiered, overlapping mandates or bi-national federated states, ultimately endorsing a vision that could be considered either pre- or post-national, depending on one’s perspective. In addition to outlining several autonomous regions, they proposed that Constantinople (now Istanbul) become an international territory administered by the League of Nations, since “no one nation can be equal to the task” of controlling the city and its surrounding straits, “least of all a nation with Turkey’s superlatively bad record of misrule.” Although the authors had been tasked with drawing borders, it seems that once they confronted the many dilemmas of implementing self-determination, they developed a more fluid approach to nationhood and identity.

Disagreement among the region’s residents about their own future certainly helped the commission reach this conclusion. The commissioners traveled from city to city accepting petitions and taking testimony, compiling a rare record of Arab popular opinion from the period. This early polling exercise captured a wide range of views—some overlapping, some irreconcilable.

Some 80 percent of those interviewed favored the establishment of a “United Syria”—an outcome that, far from settling the question of what self-determination would look like, forced the commission to wrestle with the crucial issue of what should happen to minorities. Many of the Christians living in this hypothetical future state, particularly those in the Mount Lebanon region, spoke out forcefully against being part of a larger, Muslim-dominated entity. Many called for an “Independent Greater Lebanon,” whose territory would be roughly equivalent to that of the modern state of Lebanon.

The commissioners’ proposed solution was to grant Lebanon “a sufficient measure of local autonomy” so as not to “diminish the security of [its] inhabitants.” But their explanation for why this autonomy should fall short of complete independence seems to challenge the logic of self-determination: “Lebanon would be in a position to exert a stronger and more helpful influence if she were within the Syrian state, feeling its problems and needs and sharing all its life, instead of outside it, absorbed simply in her own narrow concerns.”

The broader conclusion they reached about human affairs was similarly at odds with the principle of self-determination, and it anticipated the 21st century’s recurring debates about where the Middle East’s borders really belong. “No doubt the quick mechanical solution of the problem of difficult relations is to split the people up into little independent fragments,” they wrote. “But in general, to attempt complete separation only accentuates the differences and increases the antagonism.” Even when they conceded exceptions—for instance, in the “imperative and inevitable” separation of the Turks and Armenians given the Turks’ “terrible massacres” and “cruelties horrible beyond description”—King, Crane, and their team nonetheless concluded that “a separation … involves very difficult problems” and could easily backfire.

Ultimately, the King-Crane proposal relied on European or American supervision, through the mandate system, to fudge different degrees of sovereignty and ensure minority rights in multi-national states. Placing different mandates under the same mandatory power became an easy way to separate peoples while maintaining an administrative link between them: Syria and Mesopotamia, for instance, could both be under British supervision, while Turkey and Armenia could both be overseen by the United States. There is a telling condescension to the commissioners’ insistence on foreign administration as the best way to implement “self-determination,” but it wasn’t that different from the widely shared belief at the time that oversight from a supra-national body like the League of Nations would also be necessary to ensure minority rights in the new nations of Eastern Europe.

In some ways, it also wasn’t that different from the British and French belief, evident in the Sykes-Picot Agreement, that continued imperial rule was necessary to manage local differences. There are echoes of this conviction in the anti-nationalist imperial nostalgia that exists in some quarters today. Indeed, part of the reason the British and French felt so comfortable drawing “arbitrary” borders was that they believed they would remain in a position to manage relations across them. In this sense, Anglo-French imperialism relied on controlling borders and suppressing self-determination within the region, while the King-Crane commission was more interested in trying to find a balance between them.

This balance has yet to be achieved. Today, some people argue that Iraq would be better off divided into smaller states, and that Syria might split up on its own, while others—including ISIS—have insisted that the solution is to do away entirely with borders like the one between Iraq and Syria and to create a much larger entity. But both solutions, along with the countless alternative maps proposed for the region, remain focused on redrawing borders rather than transcending them. And for what it’s worth, neither a subdivided Syria nor a union between Syria and Mesopotamia were outcomes that many locals campaigned for when King and Crane came to visit.

All of this suggests a need to look beyond the current paradigm of borders. The people of Scotland, for example, recently decided that their preferred relationship with London involved a mix of dependence and independence rather than leaving the U.K. altogether or allowing England to have total sovereignty over their affairs. And in Syria, a federated arrangement that parcels out control of the country’s territory without breaking it apart could be a faster route to peace than complete victory by any one side.

Of course, recognizing the limitations of nation-states, in the Middle East or elsewhere, does not imply that with a little more foresight the Arab world could have transitioned directly from Ottoman imperialism to post-national European modernity. Historical forces worked against implementing more flexible alternatives to the nation-state system then, and they still do today. But the current regional uncertainty may require the same kind of imagination the King-Crane commission brought to its analysis. A century later, it’s clear that the question of what political arrangements can help people “get on together in some fashion” remains just as difficult as ever.

Nick Danforth is a doctoral candidate in Turkish history at Georgetown University. He writes about Middle Eastern history, politics, and maps at midafternoonmap.com.

The Roots of ‘Crazy’ in the Middle East

February 7, 2015 by administrator

Michael Rubin – Commentary Magazine

Massoud Barzani’s eldest sons Masrour and Mansour are giving Uday’s Saddam reputation a run for its money.

When it comes to bizarre and buffoonish behavior among leaders in the world, Kim Jong-un might be the leader of the pack, but the talent is deep in Middle East: Muammar Gaddafi would rant and rave. His UN speeches were feats of endurance for the audience as much as for Gaddafi himself. He surrounded himself with female bodyguards and his physical transformation rivaled only Michael Jackson. Gaddafi’s son Hannibal was a chip off the old block: After he and his wife beat two servants in a Swiss hotel, they arrested him. The resulting vendetta culminated with Gaddafi calling for a jihad against Switzerland. published on Ekurd

Qaddafi, of course, was not alone. Saddam Hussein might have been evil, but he was not crazy: he was cold, calculating, and ruthless, but he was positively sane next to his eldest son Uday Hussein. Uday’s exploits are well-known: He was a rapist, murderer, and psychopath. When Iraq’s national soccer team lost a game, he would beat them. Torture was for him an amusing game.

President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has inherited Gaddafi’s mantle for the flamboyant and bizarre. He is unrepentantly corrupt, thin-skinned, and conspiratorial. Whereas many rulers can be dictatorial and/or adversarial, Erdoğan increasingly seems simply unhinged.

The Saudi royal family is notoriously cloistered, but some of the princes are hardly bastions of virtue behind the scenes. A single Saudi prince killed 2,100 endangered birds while on vacation in Pakistan. Heck, taking a vacation to Pakistan is hardly evidence of sound mind. And other Saudi royals stand accused of worse.

Even in Iraqi Kurdistan, normally thought of as an oasis of stability, there is quite a lot of crazy. Former President Jalal Talabani effectively exiled his eldest son Bafil to London as his behavior grew erratic, and Kurdish President Massoud Barzani’s eldest sons Masrour and Mansour are giving Uday’s reputation a run for its money. Not everyone would consider attacking a family rival in a Virginia dentist’s office wise, and even fewer would act on their impulse.

Why is it that the Middle East has become not only a region of dictatorships, but also a region of crazy? Under Saddam there was a joke about the sycophancy and the infallibility of rulers: Tariq Aziz was giving a press conference in which a reporter asked him whether elephants could fly. He answered “Of course not,” but then another journalist pointed out that Saddam said elephants could fly. Without missing a beat, Aziz said, “Ah, yes, but only very slowly.” In such a situation, Erdoğan has become Saddam’s successor as the master of flying elephants; no journalist would tell the sultan he has no clothes lest his newspaper be closed and he or his family imprisoned.

There are other reasons as well, especially when it comes to the children. As open and democratic as some leaders claim their countries to be, family remains paramount. Rulers surround themselves with sycophants who affirm their every move. To have been a Gaddafi, Barzani, or Saudi from the right line was to never have to say sorry. There were two sets of rules, mutually exclusive: That of the country and society and that of the family. Countries were mere playgrounds where even the most horrific abuse could be covered up with money. Money, power, and fame can be a volatile combination when mixed.

Leaders like Gaddafi and Barzani might consider themselves great thinkers or statesmen, but they tend to be poor fathers, allowing their children to grow up surrounded by servants who cater to their children’s every need and confuse respect for the leader with absolute deference to the child. Limits are arbitrary and ephemeral, and morality optional.

There is no hard-and-fast rule, and of course the individual matters. Qusay may have been bad, but he was not Uday; Qubad has not followed in Bafil’s footprints; and for every Saudi prince who becomes a psychopath, there are dozens who are merely massively spoiled.

An oddity of the odious is an obsession with Hollywood. Kim Jong-un, for example, is famously obsessed with Hollywood. First Lady Asma al-Assad pow-wowed with Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie. King Abdullah II of Jordan doesn’t fit the same moral mold, but he is a dictator—and a notorious trekkie. Perhaps, then, a good analogy to the crazy infusing the Middle East are Hollywood’s child stars. Being famous young and surrounded by sycophants has famously taken its toll on some child stars but not all. For every Lindsay Lohan there is a Mayim Bialik; and for every Macaulay Culkin there is a Ron Howard. Culture, upbringing, and values matter.

How tragic it is then that beyond war, terrorism, and potential recession, so much sycophancy, corruption, and impunity has transformed so many current and next generation leaders in the Middle East to the political equivalent of the cast of Different Strokes.

Read more by Michael Rubin

Asbarez, Aztag Editors Discuss Challenges for Middle East Armenians

August 25, 2014 by administrator

BY LENA BADEYAN

YEREVAN (ArmRadio)—Recent events in the Middle East suggest that motives and geopolitical goals have changed. The situation will inevitably affect the large Armenian communities formed in the Middle East in the last one hundred years since the Armenian Genocide. But all is not against Armenians, editor-in-chief of the Beirut-based Aztag daily newspaper Shahan Kandaharian and editor of Los Angeles-based Asbarez daily Apo Boghigian told reporters in Yerevan.

The ongoing instability and new developments in Middle East countries with large Armenian communities are of strategic importance for Armenians both in Armenia and the diaspora, they said.

According to Shahan Kandaharian, the trend of events has considerably changed and has grown into a struggle for resources.

“The Arab Spring has now changed its face, and the radical expressions of Islamism constitute the major threat today both for the region and the world,” he said.

Kandaharian said the situation in Lebanon is relatively calm compared to its neighboring countries. He believes Lebanon will not engage in what he called a regional war. He considers, however, that difficult days are awaiting the Armenians of the Middle East. The question refers to the migration of Armenians, who are leaving mostly in two directions – Lebanon or Armenia. Whether they move permanently or temporarily is a different question, he added.

Speaking about the American Armenian Diaspora, Asbarez editor Apo Boghigian said: “We should create a situation where we can turn the loss into some gain. The US is an environment where there is an issue of survival. The problems of assimilation and maintenance of the Armenian organizations can no longer remain unsolved. We need to search for new ways, new methods.”

Thus, the new situation is a challenge to Armenia, and particularly the Ministry of Diaspora. Major problems are the preservation of language and the availability of authentic information to avoid unnecessary panic. Apo Boghigian pointed to the Kessab events as an example of unsuccessful media coverage of an event.

-2

The Huffington Post: Aliyev clan runs Azerbaijan as personal bank account

August 13, 2014 by administrator

While Syria burns, Gaza explodes and al Qaeda captures another Iraqi town, another full-blown conflict threatens to further destabilize the Middle East, this one between Armenia and Azerbaijan. For months now, Ilham Aliyev, one of the worst dictators alive, has been indiscriminately shelling the Republic of Nagorno Karabakh, says an article in The Huffington Post.

“The Aliyev clan has run Azerbaijan as if it were its own personal bank account and backyard for the past twenty some years. Armenian leadership over the same period has not been ideal either: corrupt and megamoniacal, it has however avoided the type of morally bankrupt hereditary dictatorship that the Aliyev clan has imposed on their country. Needless to say the Aliyevs have become billionaires several times over while their own people have seen only limited benefits from its booming oil trade,” Christopher Atamian says in the piece titled “As Conflict Escalates, Dictator Ilham Aliyev Needs to Be Stopped.”

“Serzh Sargsyan, the President of Armenia, is short and squat and wily in appearance; Aliyev is tall and gangly and with an empty open stare that suggests an absence of what Agatha Christie’s famed detective Hercule used to call little grey cells. Worse than his perceived lack of intelligence, Aliyev continues to lie to his people about the causes of the ongoing Nagorno Karabakh conflict. He insists on painting the Armenians as aggressors and the Azeris as historical inhabitants of Artsakh out to innocently defend their lands; the exact opposite is the case. Aliyev, who has falsely claimed that he has triumphed over Armenia politically and economically and that he can do so militarily as well continues to watch his own soldiers die in numbers which exceed Armenian casualties. As if his own people they were mere flies, expendable in some futile attempt to regain land over which it has no legitimate claim,” Atamian says.

“Russia, which arms both Armenia and Azerbaijan, may of course be at the heart of recent hostilities. Putin may well be attempting to kill two proverbial birds with one stone, threatening the West with the possibility of a new regional conflict, while also trying to convince Armenians that they need Russian protection. Russia has never been Armenia’s true friend and it is certainly not Azerbaijan’s — if Putin had his way, he’d turn both countries back into Russian — scratch Soviet Union provinces or Republics,” the author presumes.

He goes on to say: “Azeris need to understand that Aliyev is not only a vicious dictator, but that his current policies will ultimately lead to the demise of this regime and country. The Armenians and Azeris have one mutual advantage: unlike the Israelis and the Palestinians, for example, who live in a patchwork of territories within each other’s respective lands (i.e. there are Israeli Arabs within the borders of Israel: Gaza and the West Bank as a pairing make little geographical sense), Armenia and Azerbaijan today have one neat border: Armenians on one side, Azeris on the other.”

“Azerbaijan needs to cease its hostilities towards Armenia and lift its unilateral blockade of the country (as does Turkey, but that is another not wholly unrelated story). Armenian and Azeri civil societies need to begin substantive cultural and educational exchanges. Aliyev and his henchmen need to stop their propaganda campaign against Armenia domestically and abroad: it fools few foreigners while it brainwashes its own people,” he says.

In other words, Atamian says, a true peace process needs to occur.

“The United States and Russia — or the current OSCE Minsk Group — should accelerate their efforts in this direction before it is too late. Let’s put an end to historical or territorial recriminations. They make no sense in this case. Both Azerbaijan and Armenia have enough territory to survive and prosper. And without each other, neither country will reach its true potential — economic or otherwise. If hawks such as Aliyev can be overthrown or the Azeris finally see reason, then Azerbaijan and Armenia, along with their joint neighbor Georgia can form an economic corridor that would be a shining example to the world. The alternative — war and more death — is not a pretty option to ponder. Cautious optimism may be in order since Presidents Sargsyan and Aliyev met with Putin in light of recent events on August 10 and agreed that the conflict needs to be resolved peacefully,” he says.

“Finally, as an aside, I would like to say that I am a pacifist. I do not believe in violence, which history has taught us only begets more violence. But there are facts on the ground. NKR will l never return to Azerbaijan, willingly or otherwise. It is time to build peace. Time for Armenians, Azeris, Georgians and Turks to bring prosperity to the Caucasus together. Like it or not the four countries, along with Iran to the South, share more things in common than they do differences. True courage on the part of Presidents Sargsyan and Aliyev will bring them to the negotiation table, in an earnest desire to resolve this conflict, once and for all,” the author concludes.

-2

‘We will fight colonizers in Middle East,’ Turkish FM vows ( Who Colonizers Middle East for 400 years? )

July 20, 2014 by administrator

The Neo-Ottoman dictator Ahmet Davutoğlu

ISTANBUL – Anadolu Agency

Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu. AA Photo
Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu has pledged to “work night and day to remove the colonialists” from the Middle East.

“The main opposition party leader [Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu] and some others call [the Middle East] a quagmire. But we will not let anyone call the Middle East a quagmire, as this place also includes the cave of Hira, which enlightens humanity. We will work night and day to remove the colonialists from this region. We will raise the light of civilizations in the Middle East,” Davutoğlu said, speaking at a pre-dawn Ramadan meal organized by the ruling Justice and Development Party’s (AKP) youth branches in Istanbul’s Topkapı neighborhood.

“We will never abandon the case of the Palestinians, or of Gaza, at any time. Some might say, ‘let’s be neutral.’ Some will say, ‘let’s not get involve in the Middle Eastern quagmire.’ But we consider these places to be our brothers and as sacred, honorable places,” he said, adding that “hearts are beating for Syria, Iraq and Gaza during this year’s Ramadan.”
July/20/2014

-3