By Dr Ibrahim Sadiq Malazada
Introduction
The Middle East has failed
to replicate the political, social and scientific transformation that Europe
underwent in the middle ages, a process that laid the fundamental groundwork
for the French Revolution and later extended to European colonialism and the
search for new markets.
According to Norbert Elias,
the Roman Empire's collapse resulted in Europeans falling under the influence
of numerous divisions that separated the European landmass over dozens of
separate rival entities (1). These rivalries grew until they transformed into
violent confrontations. Often the aim of these confrontations was the
restoration of European unity.
During this period it was the
conflict between Europe's noble classes and its peasants that played the most
significant role in confrontations. These confrontations led to the creation of
larger entities, a process that culminated in the 1648 Westphalia treaty. Many
consider this treaty as that which gave birth to the modern international
system, a system based on the preservation of the power balance in the
international community.
In this regard, Habermas
argues that “the nation-state system in northwestern and southwestern Europe
developed in light of state regionalism as the nation-states were previously
part of the European state system, a system which was accepted and recognised
by the Westphalia treaty (2). This political and military process occurred at
the same time as the Protestant movements, the Humanism movements, the European
religious reform of the 16th century, the scientific period of the 17th Century
and the enlightenment in the 18th century.
For numerous reasons, the
Middle East was not involved in this political and military confrontation that
had engulfed Europe, as on the one hand the entirety of the Middle East, under
the authority of the Ottoman Empire, was struggling through a dark period,
which saw the Ottoman government crushing any political opposition within the
region. The Ottoman Empire was able to utilise this strict policy to ensure its
survival until the arrival of the European Colonialists.
The violent attempts of the
Soran and Baban emirates to expand their borders of influence (3), even though
they came much later, can be read as a similar conflict to that which was seen
in Europe between the noble and peasant classes. For example, In an attempt to expand his
borders of control, Prince Mohammed attacked and captured the Badinan Emirate
and Dasiny Emirate. Once he captured the cities of Kirkuk and Erbil, Prince
Mohammed then attacked the Baban Emirate. However, he failed in his attempt as
at the same time the Ottoman Empire had become alarmed at the battlefield
successes of the Soran Emirate and retaliated by attacking it. Awini Dawd explains: “After the attacks by
Prince Mohammed his authority extended to the town of Shino in Eastern
Kurdistan, to the edges of the Tigris river and to the Lesser Zab river”(4).
The Ottoman Army confronted the threat presented by Prince Mohammed by
launching an attack from Baghdad that settled in the Harir plains. The Ottoman
army’s northern front moved in from Astana and settled in the Diyan plains.
With these military manoeuvres, the Ottoman Empire surrounded the Soran
Emirate, collapsing Prince Mohammed’s attempts to expand his Emirate. If Prince
Mohammed had succeeded in his attempts, it would have been likely that today
the world would have been home to a single (or numerous) Kurdish states as had
the Soran Emirate held out until World War One then the European colonialist
would have been presented with a very different geopolitical reality on their
arrival to the region allowing for different terms in the region wide peace
agreements. Such an outcome would have given Sharif Pasha (5) a much stronger
position in foreign capitals in regards to Kurdish independence.
The continuation of the
Ottoman Empire supported religiously by the Kurdish Princes, Sheikhs, Mullahs
and peasants, allowed it to side with the Germans in the First World War
against the Allied nations. This alliance between the Ottomans and Germans
presented the Europeans with significant legitimacy to ultimately attack and
collapse the Ottoman Empire. The subsequent arrival of the Europeans to the region
and their colonisation of the nations that had previously fallen under the
influence of the Ottoman Empire worked to dismantle the hopes of the Kurdish
people among others as the Europeans set about carving nation-states out of the
region and enforcing a new Middle Eastern order on the regions population
regardless of the will of its people. With this, the Kurds of the Middle East
were partitioned and parcelled out between the three new nation-states in the
region. For the Kurds, this process led to their secondary colonisation by
their respective host nation-states (6).
Therefore it can be argued
that the arrival of colonialism and the division of the Kurdish lands coupled
with the tribal structure and the natural tribal rivalry of Kurdistan had
worked together to remove any hope of Kurdish statehood.
It is this backdrop that has
worked to create a perpetual unstable environment in the Middle East. What is
more, the formation and development of violent groups in the region are one of
the consequences of this instability. With this in mind, the military defeat of
the Islamic State in Iraq and the liberation of the city of Mosul on the 9th
December 2017 that is widely considered to have marked the end of the group,
especially considering the then Iraqi Prime Minister Heider al Abadi’s
statement claiming that his forces and defeated the Islamic State and that the
threat from them had ended (7). However, the reality is far different from the
rhetoric, as the Islamic State has not only survived the conflict, but the
local atmosphere that allowed for the initial rise of the Islamic State is at
present riper for violent Jihadism that it was in 2015. Hence, the threat from
the Islamic State persists (8). The conditions that allow for violent Jihadism,
such as that of the Islamic State can be summed up in the below three points.
1) The Political System and Region-wide
Thinking.
The Iraqi State was
established 98 years ago (9). Throughout its existence, Iraq and the other
countries of the Middle East have been plagued by the question of whether it is
an independent state or a project to serve the interests of its original
colonial designers and planners (10). Prior to (from the Ummayad Caliphate
through to Abbasid Caliphate) and after the establishment of Iraq, the regions
Sunni Muslim community have largely enjoyed hegemony in the region and over
al-Quraish (11). During this period all opposition was silenced as an absence
of law, heavy taxation on the poor and little space for political participation
was the period's markers (12). While it is true that the arrival of the Ottoman
Empire distanced the Arabs from power, Sunnism as both a theoretical and
systemised form (a system that allowed for Sultanism in the frame of the
Islamic Caliphate) was able to survive (13). It is for this reason that under
the Ottoman Empire marginalisation, the silencing of opponents, the absence of
justice and heavy taxation on the poor continued. The system worked to make the
rich richer and the poor poorer. What is more, it perpetuated the causes of
illiteracy in the region and did not allow much scope or opportunity for
cultural development (14), (15).
With the collapse of the
Ottoman Empire and the reduction of illiteracy and Turkism in the region,
European colonialism (16) was able to dominate the region and once again reject
the will of the peoples of the region by dividing the Middle East to serve
their own best interests. The subsequent formation and establishment of Iraq on
the basis of the nation-state system (17) allowed for the continuation of Sunni
power and their leadership of the Quraish. What is more, it allowed for Sunni power to resemble that which was
present in the region prior to the arrival of European power, a manner that saw
the marginalisation of other regional communities.
In this European colonial
project in the Middle East, the Kurdish people were sacrificed for the sake of
the Turks and Arabs and were parcelled out between the new nation-states of the
Middle East, an arrangement that continues until present and that is a factor
for the continued instability in the region. Moreover, it is an issue that has
been used to justify foreign interference, war and destruction.
2) Social System and
Regional Doctrine.
In continuation of the first
point that addressed the survival of the regions political system, this point
recognises that the political system carries numerous specific characteristics
which are:
1) The hegemony of the doctrine and culture of
the region’s powerful states is so deep-rooted that it is an obstacle to the
development of diversity, justice, the guaranteeing of fundamental rights
2) The hegemony of common interpretations of
religion and its mobilisation to assist in the survival of the system. Within
this frame of religious interpretation, there remains no space for any other
interpretations. What is more, within
religious 'Turas' intelligence and thought have developed in a manner that all
'Turas' are a part of religion and the rest in its shadow. This phenomenon in
the absence of awareness has become the artery of political thought and
regional culture. What is more, escape from it has become close to impossible.
3) In the frame of the second point, it has
destroyed the vision of the minority and divided peoples of the region to the
extent that these peoples continue to renew themselves and extend those dark
days, which ultimately amount to nothing and doesn’t allow them to establish
new methods.
Today, Kurdistan has
inherited these prominent Arab interpretations that dominate the political system,
and for the Shi’a Kurds, they have inherited the interpretation of the higher
Shia authorities. These non-native
interpretations of religion are not only present in religious doctrine but also
in political doctrines which enter Kurdistan. In Kurdistan, it is very rare to
witness a local political ideology take hold in the region.
3) The Lack of a solution to
the Kurdish Problem
The continuation of the
pre-nation-state political system, the political division of the Kurdish nation
and its parcelling out to the new nation-states of the Middle East worked to
turn the Kurdish nation into a political tool to be used by other nations in
their political objectives and to dispossess them of any real hope other than
that which drives them towards their own liberation. Nevertheless, this hope
remains within the confines of the prominent regional political and cultural
system.
Solving the Kurdish problem,
its continuation in its current form, the fact that colonialism has negatively
impacted the past, present and future of the Kurdish people, the extension of
instability in the region and the continuation of the failure of the Middle
Eastern nation-state system has worked to leave these states in a state of rot
and decay.
Summary
After the collapse of the
nation-state system and the enforcement of the nation-state model on the region
under the hegemony of the European colonial powers the Middle East entered a
period of instability. The system of politics, thought and society, the Middle
Eastern religious doctrine and the continuation of the Kurdish problem are
three of the main obstacles of the current state of the Middle East. In the
frame of the hegemony of the doctrine and politics of the peoples of the
region, the region is left in a perpetual state of potential conflict and
inlight of these three factors, it is highly unlikely that the region will
witness peace and stability.
References
[1] Elias,
N., & Jephcott, E. (1978). The civilizing process (Vol. 1). Oxford:
Blackwell.
[2] Habermas,
J. (1998). The European nation-state: On the past and future of sovereignty and
citizenship. Public culture, 10, 397-416.
[3] Al-Dawudi,
A. (2003, December 22). الحوار المتمدن - موبايل (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle ||
[]).push({});. Retrieved November 9, 2018, from https://bit.ly/2Dcsxh5
[4] Al-Dawudi,
A. (2003, December 22). الحوار المتمدن - موبايل (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle ||
[]).push({});. Retrieved November 9, 2018, from https://bit.ly/2Dcsxh5
[5] Diener,
A. C., & Hagen, J. (Eds.). (2010). Borderlines and Borderlands:
Political Oddities at the Edge of the Nation-state. Rowman &
Littlefield Publishers.
[6] کۆلۆنیالیزمی ناوخۆیی، تێزێكی نوسەری ئەم بابەتەیە و لەچوارچێوەی
توێژینەوەیەکدا ئامادەی چاپکردنە. مەبەستیش لەکۆلۆنیالیزمی ناوخۆیی، داگیرکاری ئەو
وڵاتانەیە کە کوردستانییان بەسەردا دابەشکراوە.
[7] شاهد: العبادي يعلن طرد عناصر "الدولة الإسلامية"
من العراق. (2017, December 9). Retrieved November 9, 2018,
from https://bit.ly/2DpEBMM
[8] Williams,
J. (2018, August 17). The Pentagon says ISIS is "well-positioned" to
make a comeback. Retrieved November 9, 2018, from https://bit.ly/2yZ56F0
[9] BBC News.
(2018, October 03). Iraq profile. Retrieved November 9, 2018, from
https://bbc.in/2yZ5nrw
[10] Beauchamp,
Z., Fisher, M., & Matthews, D. (2014, August 8). 27 maps that explain the
crisis in Iraq. Retrieved November 9, 2018, from https://bit.ly/2qAlpDE
[11] Al-Jazeera.
(n.d.). تداول السلطة في الوطن العربي منذ ظهور الإسلام إلى الدولة العثمانية.
Retrieved November 9, 2018, from https://bit.ly/2Dws2Q1
[12] Marefa.
(n.d.). شعوبية. Retrieved November 9, 2018, from https://bit.ly/2DasulS
[13] Al
Batawi, T. (2017, April 28). الحقبة العثمانية في بلاد العرب... فتح مبين أم غزو
أثيم؟. Retrieved November 9, 2018, from https://bit.ly/2OAgxbl
[14] Makled,
A. (2014, November 02). مذابح العثمانيين فى مصر. Retrieved November 9, 2018, from
https://bit.ly/2AU4jGI
[15] Riyazi,
N. (2016, January 2). الاستعمار العثماني للدول العربية...وعلاقة تركيا
الحديثة بالصهيونية. Retrieved November 9, 2018, from https://bit.ly/2PgaIoB
[16] Gale, T.
(2007). British Colonialism, Middle East. Retrieved November 9, 2018, from
https://bit.ly/2QuXroy
[17] Choueiri,
Y. M. (2002). The Middle East: Colonialism, Islam and the Nation State. Journal
of Contemporary History, 37(4), 649-663.
[18] BBC News.
(2017, October 31). Who are the Kurds? Retrieved November 9, 2018, from
https://bbc.in/2RLRRPb