1. US Armed Forces Journal (original)
http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2006/06/1833899
2. The Dawn (Pakistan)
http://dawn.com/2006/08/27/top11.htm
Both articles quoted in entirety below:
(1) From The US Armed Forces Journal
Blood borders
How a better Middle East would look
By Ralph Peters
International borders are never completely just. But the degree of injustice
they inflict upon those whom frontiers force together or separate makes an
enormous difference — often the difference between freedom and oppression,
tolerance and atrocity, the rule of law and terrorism, or even peace and
war.
The most arbitrary and distorted borders in the world are in Africa and the
Middle East. Drawn by self-interested Europeans (who have had sufficient
trouble defining their own frontiers), Africa's borders continue to provoke
the deaths of millions of local inhabitants. But the unjust borders in the
Middle East — to borrow from Churchill — generate more trouble than can be
consumed locally.
While the Middle East has far more problems than dysfunctional borders
alone — from cultural stagnation through scandalous inequality to deadly
religious extremism — the greatest taboo in striving to understand the
region's comprehensive failure isn't Islam but the awful-but-sacrosanct
international boundaries worshipped by our own diplomats.
Of course, no adjustment of borders, however draconian, could make every
minority in the Middle East happy. In some instances, ethnic and religious
groups live intermingled and have intermarried. Elsewhere, reunions based on
blood or belief might not prove quite as joyous as their current proponents
expect. The boundaries projected in the maps accompanying this article
redress the wrongs suffered by the most significant "cheated" population
groups, such as the Kurds, Baluch and Arab Shia, but still fail to account
adequately for Middle Eastern Christians, Bahais, Ismailis, Naqshbandis and
many another numerically lesser minorities. And one haunting wrong can never
be redressed with a reward of territory: the genocide perpetrated against
the Armenians by the dying Ottoman Empire.
Yet, for all the injustices the borders re-imagined here leave unaddressed,
without such major boundary revisions, we shall never see a more peaceful
Middle East.
Even those who abhor the topic of altering borders would be well-served to
engage in an exercise that attempts to conceive a fairer, if still
imperfect, amendment of national boundaries between the Bosporus and the
Indus. Accepting that international statecraft has never developed effective
tools — short of war — for readjusting faulty borders, a mental effort to
grasp the Middle East's "organic" frontiers nonetheless helps us understand
the extent of the difficulties we face and will continue to face. We are
dealing with colossal, man-made deformities that will not stop generating
hatred and violence until they are corrected.
As for those who refuse to "think the unthinkable," declaring that
boundaries must not change and that's that, it pays to remember that
boundaries have never stopped changing through the centuries. Borders have
never been static, and many frontiers, from Congo through Kosovo to the
Caucasus, are changing even now (as ambassadors and special representatives
avert their eyes to study the shine on their wingtips).
Oh, and one other dirty little secret from 5,000 years of history: Ethnic
cleansing works.
Begin with the border issue most sensitive to American readers: For Israel
to have any hope of living in reasonable peace with its neighbors, it will
have to return to its pre-1967 borders — with essential local adjustments
for legitimate security concerns. But the issue of the territories
surrounding Jerusalem, a city stained with thousands of years of blood, may
prove intractable beyond our lifetimes. Where all parties have turned their
god into a real-estate tycoon, literal turf battles have a tenacity
unrivaled by mere greed for oil wealth or ethnic squabbles. So let us set
aside this single overstudied issue and turn to those that are studiously
ignored.
The most glaring injustice in the notoriously unjust lands between the
Balkan Mountains and the Himalayas is the absence of an independent Kurdish
state. There are between 27 million and 36 million Kurds living in
contiguous regions in the Middle East (the figures are imprecise because no
state has ever allowed an honest census). Greater than the population of
present-day Iraq, even the lower figure makes the Kurds the world's largest
ethnic group without a state of its own. Worse, Kurds have been oppressed by
every government controlling the hills and mountains where they've lived
since Xenophon's day.
The U.S. and its coalition partners missed a glorious chance to begin to
correct this injustice after Baghdad's fall. A Frankenstein's monster of a
state sewn together from ill-fitting parts, Iraq should have been divided
into three smaller states immediately. We failed from cowardice and lack of
vision, bullying Iraq's Kurds into supporting the new Iraqi government —
which they do wistfully as a quid pro quo for our good will. But were a free
plebiscite to be held, make no mistake: Nearly 100 percent of Iraq's Kurds
would vote for independence.
As would the long-suffering Kurds of Turkey, who have endured decades of
violent military oppression and a decades-long demotion to "mountain Turks"
in an effort to eradicate their identity. While the Kurdish plight at
Ankara's hands has eased somewhat over the past decade, the repression
recently intensified again and the eastern fifth of Turkey should be viewed
as occupied territory. As for the Kurds of Syria and Iran, they, too, would
rush to join an independent Kurdistan if they could. The refusal by the
world's legitimate democracies to champion Kurdish independence is a
human-rights sin of omission far worse than the clumsy, minor sins of
commission that routinely excite our media. And by the way: A Free
Kurdistan, stretching from Diyarbakir through Tabriz, would be the most
pro-Western state between Bulgaria and Japan.
A just alignment in the region would leave Iraq's three Sunni-majority
provinces as a truncated state that might eventually choose to unify with a
Syria that loses its littoral to a Mediterranean-oriented Greater Lebanon:
Phoenecia reborn. The Shia south of old Iraq would form the basis of an Arab
Shia State rimming much of the Persian Gulf. Jordan would retain its current
territory, with some southward expansion at Saudi expense. For its part, the
unnatural state of Saudi Arabia would suffer as great a dismantling as
Pakistan.
A root cause of the broad stagnation in the Muslim world is the Saudi royal
family's treatment of Mecca and Medina as their fiefdom. With Islam's
holiest shrines under the police-state control of one of the world's most
bigoted and oppressive regimes — a regime that commands vast, unearned oil
wealth — the Saudis have been able to project their Wahhabi vision of a
disciplinarian, intolerant faith far beyond their borders. The rise of the
Saudis to wealth and, consequently, influence has been the worst thing to
happen to the Muslim world as a whole since the time of the Prophet, and the
worst thing to happen to Arabs since the Ottoman (if not the Mongol)
conquest.
While non-Muslims could not effect a change in the control of Islam's holy
cities, imagine how much healthier the Muslim world might become were Mecca
and Medina ruled by a rotating council representative of the world's major
Muslim schools and movements in an Islamic Sacred State — a sort of Muslim
super-Vatican — where the future of a great faith might be debated rather
than merely decreed. True justice — which we might not like — would also
give Saudi Arabia's coastal oil fields to the Shia Arabs who populate that
subregion, while a southeastern quadrant would go to Yemen. Confined to a
rump Saudi Homelands Independent Territory around Riyadh, the House of Saud
would be capable of far less mischief toward Islam and the world.
Iran, a state with madcap boundaries, would lose a great deal of territory
to Unified Azerbaijan, Free Kurdistan, the Arab Shia State and Free
Baluchistan, but would gain the provinces around Herat in today's
Afghanistan — a region with a historical and linguistic affinity for Persia.
Iran would, in effect, become an ethnic Persian state again, with the most
difficult question being whether or not it should keep the port of Bandar
Abbas or surrender it to the Arab Shia State.
What Afghanistan would lose to Persia in the west, it would gain in the
east, as Pakistan's Northwest Frontier tribes would be reunited with their
Afghan brethren (the point of this exercise is not to draw maps as we would
like them but as local populations would prefer them). Pakistan, another
unnatural state, would also lose its Baluch territory to Free Baluchistan.
The remaining "natural" Pakistan would lie entirely east of the Indus,
except for a westward spur near Karachi.
The city-states of the United Arab Emirates would have a mixed fate — as
they probably will in reality. Some might be incorporated in the Arab Shia
State ringing much of the Persian Gulf (a state more likely to evolve as a
counterbalance to, rather than an ally of, Persian Iran). Since all
puritanical cultures are hypocritical, Dubai, of necessity, would be allowed
to retain its playground status for rich debauchees. Kuwait would remain
within its current borders, as would Oman.
In each case, this hypothetical redrawing of boundaries reflects ethnic
affinities and religious communalism — in some cases, both. Of course, if we
could wave a magic wand and amend the borders under discussion, we would
certainly prefer to do so selectively. Yet, studying the revised map, in
contrast to the map illustrating today's boundaries, offers some sense of
the great wrongs borders drawn by Frenchmen and Englishmen in the 20th
century did to a region struggling to emerge from the humiliations and
defeats of the 19th century.
Correcting borders to reflect the will of the people may be impossible. For
now. But given time — and the inevitable attendant bloodshed — new and
natural borders will emerge. Babylon has fallen more than once.
Meanwhile, our men and women in uniform will continue to fight for security
from terrorism, for the prospect of democracy and for access to oil supplies
in a region that is destined to fight itself. The current human divisions
and forced unions between Ankara and Karachi, taken together with the
region's self-inflicted woes, form as perfect a breeding ground for
religious extremism, a culture of blame and the recruitment of terrorists as
anyone could design. Where men and women look ruefully at their borders,
they look enthusiastically for enemies.
From the world's oversupply of terrorists to its paucity of energy supplies,
the current deformations of the Middle East promise a worsening, not an
improving, situation. In a region where only the worst aspects of
nationalism ever took hold and where the most debased aspects of religion
threaten to dominate a disappointed faith, the U.S., its allies and, above
all, our armed forces can look for crises without end. While Iraq may
provide a counterexample of hope — if we do not quit its soil prematurely —
the rest of this vast region offers worsening problems on almost every
front.
If the borders of the greater Middle East cannot be amended to reflect the
natural ties of blood and faith, we may take it as an article of faith that
a portion of the bloodshed in the region will continue to be our own.
• • •
WHO WINS, WHO LOSES
Winners —
Afghanistan
Arab Shia State
Armenia
Azerbaijan
Free Baluchistan
Free Kurdistan
Iran
Islamic Sacred State
Jordan
Lebanon
Yemen
•
Losers —
Afghanistan
Iran
Iraq
Israel
Kuwait
Pakistan
Qatar
Saudi Arabia
Syria
Turkey
United Arab Emirates
West Bank
-----------------------------------------------
Ralph Peters is the author of the new book "Never Quit the Fight," to be
published on July 4th.
=========================================
(2) From The Dawn (Pakistan)
New map proposes changes in Pakistan, Middle East
By Anwar Iqbal
WASHINGTON, Aug 26: The US State Department has rejected suggestions that
Washington is planning to redraft the boundaries of the greater Middle East,
including Pakistan, along ethnic and religious lines.
The purported plan appeared recently in the US Armed Forces Journal along
with two maps showing the new boundaries.
The article, by Ralph Peters, was the work of an individual and did not
reflect the views of the US government, State Department spokesman Sean
McCormack said.
"We are working very hard for a new Middle East that is a free democratic
Middle East where people can realise a better way of life, a more
prosperous, better educated way of life . but there's no question of
redrawing the maps," he said. The call for changes in the Middle East, he
said, was not generated by the US. "This is a call that comes from the
Middle East itself, from the people of the Middle East. So our vision for
the Middle East is a vision that is coming from the Middle East itself and
that is for a more free, democratic and prosperous Middle East."
In the article, titled 'Blood borders,' Mr Peters argues that borders in the
Middle East and Africa were "the most arbitrary and distorted" in the world
and need restructuring. Four countries - Pakistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and
Turkey - are singled out for major re-adjustments. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia
are also defined as "unnatural states".
The author argues that such adjustments were necessary to redress the
grievances of ethnic and religious minorities living inside large Muslim
states.
"The boundaries projected in the maps accompanying this article redress the
wrongs suffered by the most significant 'cheated' population groups, such as
the Kurds, Baloch and Arab Shia, but still fail to account adequately for
Middle Eastern Christians, Bahais, Ismailis, Naqshbandis and many another
numerically lesser minorities."
The author also argues that for Israel to have any hope of living in
reasonable peace with its neighbours, it will have to return to its pre-1967
borders - with essential local adjustments for legitimate security concerns.
But he admits that the issue of the territories surrounding Jerusalem, a
city stained with thousands of years of blood, "may prove intractable beyond
our lifetimes."
According to him, "the most glaring injustice in the notoriously unjust
lands between the Balkan Mountains and the Himalayas" is the absence of an
independent Kurdish state. There are between 27 million and 36 million Kurds
living in contiguous regions in the Middle East, greater than the population
of present-day Iraq, which makes the Kurds the world's largest ethnic group
without a state of its own.
While pleading for the creation of an independent Kurdistan, the author says
that such a state, stretching from Diyarbakir through Tabriz, "would be the
most pro-Western state between Bulgaria and Japan."
A just alignment in the region would leave Iraq's three Sunni-majority
provinces as a truncated state that might eventually choose to unify with
Syria that loses its littoral to a Mediterranean-oriented Greater Lebanon.
The Shia south of old Iraq would form the basis of an Arab Shia state
rimming much of the Gulf. Jordan would retain its current territory, with
some southward expansion at Saudi expense. "For its part, the unnatural
state of Saudi Arabia would suffer as great a dismantling as Pakistan."
The author suggests the holy cities of Makkah and Madina be ruled by a
rotating council representative of the world's major Muslim schools and
movements in an Islamic Sacred State - a sort of Muslim super-Vatican -
'where the future of a great faith might be debated rather than merely
decreed.'
"True justice - which we might not like - would also give Saudi Arabia's
coastal oil fields to the Shia Arabs who populate that sub-region, while a
south-eastern quadrant would go to Yemen.
The Saudi family is to be given a small Saudi Homelands Independent
Territory around Riyadh.
Iran would lose a great deal of territory to Unified Azerbaijan, Free
Kurdistan, the Arab Shia State and Free Balochistan, but would gain the
provinces around Herat in today's Afghanistan - a region with a historical
and linguistic affinity for Persia. Iran would, in effect, become an ethnic
Persian state again, with the most difficult question being whether or not
it should keep the port of Bandar Abbas or surrender it to the Arab Shia
State.
What Afghanistan would lose to Persia in the west, it would gain in the
east, as Pakistan's Northwest Frontier tribes would be reunited with the
Afghans. Pakistan would also lose its Baloch territory to Free Balochistan.
The remaining "natural" Pakistan would lie entirely east of the Indus,
except for a westward spur near Karachi.
The city-states of the United Arab Emirates would have a mixed fate - as
they probably will in reality. Some might be incorporated in the Arab Shia
State ringing much of the Persian Gulf (a state more likely to evolve as a
counterbalance to, rather than an ally of, Persian Iran). Since all
puritanical cultures are hypocritical, "Dubai, of necessity, would be
allowed to retain its playground status for rich debauchees. Kuwait would
remain within its current borders, as would Oman."
----------------------------------------------------------
© DAWN Group of Newspapers, 2006
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
.
|
