And I think we're into that sort of a situation in the Middle East. There's no boundary anymore between, say, Syria and Iraq. It may exist on a map on paper but not in reality. So we have identities now that don't in any way line up with where the formal borders are. So what we have to do is preserve those areas, as you say, where we have friends, where we have real interest, where we see some reason to believe that American involvement would pay off. "
Haass compared the Thirty Years War (1618-1648) which ended with Peace of Westphalia to the current fighting in the Middle East. The Thirty Years War significantly impacted Thomas Hobbes and Leviathan was his vision of the way forward for England and Europe.
The link to this course are the issues at hand in the Middle East such as sovereignty, ideas, interests, and borders. First, the Middle East has deep-rooted religious differences between Jews, Christians, Sunnis, and Shiites. Religion is even more important because it plays a critical role in the identity for each of these nations. Israel's identity is associated with being the Jewish homeland. Iraq had a Sunni government under Saddam Hussein ruling while the majority of the people are Shia. Assad's Allawite regime is a minority ruling a country where Sunnis are the predominate religious group. Iran is basically a Persian Shia Islamic state where the Supreme Leader is the head of state and highest ranking religious authority.
The Middle East has borders created by Britain and France after World War I that create serious tensions in these countries. Haass is essentially saying that it will not be possible for Iraq to maintain itself as one sovereign state with Sunnis, Shiites, and Kurds peacefully co-existing. ISIS also presents a challenge to the existing border of Iraq and Syria.
Only time will tell if Haass is correct with his point of view. I do agree that the Middle East has some serious issues to resolve, and the future does not look peaceful. It will be interesting to see how the current Middle Eastern internal power struggles in Iraq, Syria, and Egypt affect the overall global world order.
You bring up important points, Mike. Two items:
ReplyDelete1) I wonder about the various moments of Pan-Arabism in the 50s and 60s, leading to short-lived countries like the "Arab Federation" (Jordan & Iraq) or the "United Arab Republic (Egypt & Syria). I suppose this is not necessarily unlike the short-lived territorial changes in Europe during the time period mentioned by Haass.
2) I also wonder about the concept of "ungoverned spaces" used by various diplomats and military personnel (I recall AFRICOM General Rodriguez using that term). Borders, in this "paradigm", do not really matter anyway. Seems as if different entities have already begun to adapt to managing such areas (and perhaps have done so for quite some time).
Dr. Rancatore,
DeleteWith regard to your second point, I agree. However, I think that what we call "ungoverned spaces" is really "under governed spaces." There are many places in Africa where the central government cannot exert its authority because it lacks the capacity and infrastructure. I think it is also quite common for individuals of a nation view their identity in terms of tribe, religion, or ethnicity and not necessarily as citizens of the state.
I also think that the term "failed state" tends to be overused. A few years back there was an assessment by the US government that stated the possibility of Mexico and Pakistan becoming failed states.