Mark Collins – What to Do About the Bloody Middle East?

Further to this post,

Borders and History: The Ottomans, Turkey, Syria, the Kurds–and ISIS

some contemporary American recommendations about the post-World War I re-doing of the Ottoman Empire (nice maps, note first):

The Middle East That Might Have Been

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

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…


Poor bloody locals.  If the West is truly willing to sort things out right now, are we then willing to rule–one way or another–for some decades or so to try to ensure things work out wellish?  Triple double HAH!  Given no willingness for, or today in the West intellectual acceptance of, such a prospect, then let us just face things honestly:

The US and the Middle East: Just. Give. Up.

After all we remain none too disturbed to let millions of black Africans die in, or as the consequence of, armed conflict.

Mark Collins, a prolific Ottawa blogger, is a Fellow at the Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute; he tweets @Mark3Ds

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “Mark Collins – What to Do About the Bloody Middle East?”

  1. Further to the end of the post, an apposite point by John Schindler t twitter:

    “@20committee
    Face it: 21st century USA has astonishing military power but has totally lost its grasp on any War Termination. Better not to do it at all.”

    Mark Collins

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s