In this post, I will address Lecture 13 on weak or failed states, specifically our subsequent class discussion about the critique of colonialism and whether it is to blame for many failed states. I will argue that colonialism and colonial borders are not in fact the cause of much of the conflict in the Middle East.
Proponents of the colonialist critique in the Middle East argue that the Sykes-Picot deal was designed in a manner that fulfilled the interest of the West based on the ground realities that existed at the time (1916) and that it was a solution that was far from optimal in establishing a stable long-term existence in the Middle East. However, I argue that that better borders, drawn with careful attention to the region’s ethnic and religious diversity, would not have spared the Middle East a century’s worth of violence, and even that better borders did not exist. Specifically, in class we discussed a case-study of Iraq. Looking at present-day borders reveals a few similarities with the local Ottoman boundaries in place before the French and British arrived. The three separate provinces -- Mosul, Baghdad and Basra -- that were joined to make Iraq, for example, were often treated as a coherent economic and military area by the Ottoman government. And of course, the region’s geographic unity going back to the origins of human civilization, had long been recognized in the term “Mesopotamia.” To the West, Mount Lebanon had been carved out as a special administrative unit following religious violence there in the 1800’s. The only country in the area for which no ancient borders existed was Jordan -- it was formed in 1922 from some undesirable bits of arid land as something for Britain’s ally, Abdullah, to rule over. (It should be noted that the country with the most arbitrary borders, Jordan, has had the most peaceful history.) At best, creating more countries would have just meant more borders to fight over, while fewer large countries would have turned regular wars into civil ones.
I would argue that creating smaller independent states would only have prefigured the conflicts dividing Iraq today. A predominantly Kurdish state built around the old Ottoman province of Mosul would inevitability have become ensnared in the ongoing conflict between the Republic of Turkey and its own Kurdish minority. Similarly, Shiite Iran would have had religious grounds to try to incorporate a small Shiite state based around Basra, whereas a state based around the central province of Baghdad would have hated to sit back and watch its neighbors grow rich off oil deposits that it lacked.
While I certainly believe that certain ethnic and/or religious differences have played significant roles in the violence in the Middle East, I reject the critique that colonialism and its arbitrary borders doomed these states to weakness or failure. When closely examined, a better alternative is unclear and violence seems almost inevitable. The militarization of these ethnic and religious identities, rather than the failure of perfectly placed state borders to alleviate tension between them, explains much of violence in the Middle East today. It should also be noted that in some cases, especially in Africa, colonialism can be identified as the cause of weak or failed states, and my argument applies only to the region of the Middle East.
This is very insightful. It seems that you know a lot about the relationship between political boundaries and ethnic boundaries in the Middle East. I think many people take the colonialism argument for granted. However, I much prefer your style of educated skepticism. History can usually reveal flaw in theories that sound plausible, but seem faulty when looked at for causality.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that there is a incorrect emphasis placed on drawing the "right" borders, but that the "right" borders don't always exist. The cause of the conflict isn't always the border itself, but fighting over the border is a subsequent exacerbation of the original conflict. Such was the case of the Sykes Picot Agreement. When the British and French gained control of Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Jordan, they separated them into smaller independent states and people still critique the actions of this as a root cause of the conflicts in the Middle East today. Thinking this way is naïve, however, because even if Britain and France had created one big Arab state out of the region, they still would not be able to fix the fact that there are Christian, Shiite, and Kurdish minorities present in the state. Maybe a lot of work and diplomacy could possibly fix this problem, but certainly not just a mere border.
ReplyDeleteThe sole presence of these minorities, along with a myriad of other factors, is more likely to be the cause of this conflict, and so it is irrational to try to push the blame onto Britain and France.
I want to start by saying that I agree with your argument that there does not seem to be a definitive solution through which to solve the border conflicts in the Middle East. I especially agree with your point that simply making smaller regions based on ethnic groups would increase "traditional" forms of war and larger countries would likely cause more civil war. All of this stems from the reality that for most people, religious and cultural beliefs and identities are very deep. As a result, when someone directly opposes your core values, the concept of cooperation between the two becomes next to impossible, and this seems to be the overarching issue in the Middle East today.
ReplyDeleteI do have one question that I would pose to you as I do not have a definitive answer myself. If in fact, the Middle East had been divided into smaller nations in the beginning, based most specifically on religious and cultural identity, while this would have inevitably caused conflict, do you think it could potentially have had a better outcome in the long run?
I ask because the contingency that comes to my mind is the idea that, if there were nations organized in this way, it seems to take away the major source of conflict in the region. Obviously this transition would not be easy and undoubtably would have lead to conflict in the beginning, but in the long run, is it possible that with a major issue resolved that better stability could have come to the region as time continued on and people began to settle into regions with like minded people?