Should the Middle East be redrawn?

[bigdaddy1204]

This map has been suggested. I'm not sure I agree with it though.

[bigdaddy1204]

I propose a more acceptable solution to the Middle East problem...

[hellheaven1987]

You know, this reminds me of how various Germanic entities were eventually fused into the German Empire. Today, I think I have some ground to stand on if I said that the majority of Germans see themselves as German first, rather than as part of Bavarian, Westfalian, Wurttemberg, or Prussian cultures. How long will it take the people of Iraq to see themselves as Iraqis rather than Kurds, Arabs, or whatever? Certainly in America, the majority ass themselves as American first rather than Chinese or Hispanic. There is a certain loyalty to the country that you consider home that precedes any ethnic ties.

Unfortunately Iraqi is not a culture unlike German, so "culture" conversion is impossible.

Regardless, the main issue of redrawing Middle East map is that few in Middle East want to redraw it, hence the border remains much the same since 1945 (as the failure of United Arab Republic shows). We also need to consider that, when British and French drawed those border, themselves were successful multi-ethnic society (UK had Scotland, England and Wales, France itself has southern and northern French distinction for a thousand years). Hence they might not be able to understand why so many similar cultures were be so hostile to each other and brush those issues aside when drawing the border (US also suffers this mentality too).

Only if Persian denounce Islam first.

[antaeus]

Unfortunately Iraqi is not a culture unlike German, so "culture" conversion is impossible.

How do you think cultures form? magic? Iraqi holds the same status as Austrian or Canadian or Dutch or Belgian or for that matter British. Culture and ethnicity are tricks of the light. They can definitely be constructed then become permanent, they can appear one day and vanish the next depending on the politics of the age. Iraqi could easily become a culture.

As for this topic?

Ethnicity and culture can and do change in response to political events like artificially constructed borders (all borders are artificial really). Also, the world is full of ethnic groups in a state of emergence - Brazilians and Canadians and Australians for example all contain the elements of emergent ethnic groups. They aren't fully formed yet, but will end up that way.

Many countries of the middle east may have formed on the drawing boards of British and French civil servants, but a century and 5 or 6 generations have passed and plenty of the citizens of those countries now see themselves as Jordanian or Kuwaiti or Iraqi. We're now in a situation where populations have settled into the present borders and to change them would only compound the issues that the division of the Ottoman Empire created in the first place. I.e. there are as many people who would be displaced by any change in borders now as were displaced the first time around. We would again be making a set of unhappy populations in order to make other populations happier. In the end it would be a recipe for even greater ethnic disruption than we're already seeing in Lebanon and Syria and Iraq.

Also, it's kind of ironic that we here, not in the middle east, 100 years later are discussing borders in the middle east. Didn't this kind of talk from people not in the middle east cause all this in the first place?

[hellheaven1987]

How do you think cultures form? magic? Iraqi holds the same status as Austrian or Canadian or Dutch or Belgian or for that matter British. Culture and ethnicity are tricks of the light. They can definitely be constructed then become permanent, they can appear one day and vanish the next depending on the politics of the age. Iraqi could easily become a culture.

Does Iraqi have an unique cultural trait that defines "Iraqi"? No.

[antaeus]

Does Iraqi have an unique cultural trait that defines "Iraqi"? No.

Neither did the English 1200 years ago, nor the Germans or French. None were entirely responsible for their own borders, their own names, or even many of their defining cultural traits... You make the mistake of thinking history and culture have come to a halt.

Are people who go to watch the Iraqi football team holding up Iraqi flags chanting Iraqi slogans? There's your burgeoning cultural identity in its infancy.

[Condottiere 40K]

If the Persians manage to reconquer the Fertile Crescent, they'll have to feed their new subjects and show an amazing amount of religious tolerance.

[Linke]

Just noting that through it's history, the middle east has almost always been ruled by pan national empires, beyond nation states. Thus the incredible heterogenity of regions. With population densely centred on a few fertile areas; many ethnicites were forced close to each other. In Jazira Arab villages are next to Kurdish, Assyrian and even turkmen villages in small clusters, and without natural borders. This would not be possible if they didn't coexist in an empire, wich obviously could not be nationalist. My point is that transnational imperialism is the natural state of the region. Remember also how those empires worked by decentralization. "Federalism" was not a result of weakness, but since the days of Cyrus the very policy upon wich states were founded. Anything else would have made the empires impossible to control, unless through purges and genocide.

[Love Mountain]

Regardless, the main issue of redrawing Middle East map is that few in Middle East want to redraw it, hence the border remains much the same since 1945 (as the failure of United Arab Republic shows).

One minor quip I have. I think we need to emphasize that few regimes in the Middle East want to redraw it. Or at the very least, collaboratively. I'm sure Saudi Arabia would love to redraw the map to their​ liking.

[Sar1n]

We should erase all borders within Middle East, and go for FFA. Last nation standing wins.

[Sir Adrian]

We should just split everyone into a Shia country and a Sunni country with Christians, Zoroastrians and Jews protected by law. Everyone will be happy.

[bigdaddy1204]

We should just split everyone into a Shia country and a Sunni country with Christians, Zoroastrians and Jews protected by law. Everyone will be happy.

I think the problems are:

1. The Saudi regime and its support for extremist ideology
2. Foreign meddling, causing warfare and chaos (Iraq 2003, Afghanistan 1980s and again in 2001, USA coup in Iran 1953, etc.)
3. Climate change (was probably a factor in the Syrian uprising)
4. Bad leadership in Arab countries (Saddam Hussein, Ghadafi, Assad, Mobarak, House of Saud, you name it)
5. Legacy of European colonialism (i.e. artificially created countries that were hastily and badly set up and didn't really work)
6. Population explosion: many of those countries have seen their population double, triple or even quadruple or more over the last 50 years. That tends to have severe destabilising effects
7. Mass migration from rural to cities (Turkey and Syria are just two prominent examples where this has caused political disaster but I suspect it is a problem everywhere to a greater or lesser degree).

Ideally we'd see secular states established everywhere and democracy and the rule of law. Unfortunately that's just not possible in several places due to the conditions caused by years of war, poverty, dislocation, corruption and poor education. More than anything else, the Middle East needs a long period of peace, stability and economic prosperity. Those would open the door to education, cultural progress and a better future.

Iraq and Syria have no chance of that till the war is over; Iran is going in the right direction; Egypt is probably not going anywhere due to the military dictatorship; Turkey is sliding backwards into autocracy and a new dark age under Erdogan; various other countries are doing more or less well in their own way, with some of the small ones getting rich (Kuwait, UAE, Qatar, etc.). In the long run I predict a successful Iran, a looming showdown in Turkey with Erdogan coming to a bad end; and a long period of peace in Iraq and Syria as nobody will want to go to war again once this war is over.

[Sir Adrian]

For what it's worth the golden ages of the entire region tended to coincide with a strong iran unifying it

[Condottiere 40K]

If I'm not mistaken, the Iranians invited the Mongols in.

[AnthoniusII]

Beware what you wish for.
Any border changes in any part on the planet will triger a domino effect that wont end peacefully.
Lets supose that Middle East borders change.
Then Spanish, Irish, Italian, Nederlands, Belgian, Bulgarian, Serbian, Greek, Albanian, , Russian , Ucrainian , Latvian, Polish, German and hundreds of other borders will change! We are talking of a new World War.
All changes will be asked on the basis of previus changes (Middle East) example.

[swabian]

Redrawing any borders anywhere in the world is complete hubris if there isn't a humongous amount of long term military investment backing it up. Otherwise the locals will (probably rightfully) decide to not give a rat's butt and go about their business anyway. The entire Western attitude of being in the position to actually legitimize the reorganization of quasi-national structures by simply acknowledging them has caused so much bullcrap that the stupid of the re-occuring proposal just burns.

It is simply not possible to bring peace and stability to every corner of the world. There will always be fighting and killing, why even set the standards so high so as to get upset about it pointlessly?

[bigdaddy1204]

Back on topic, which countries are you most thinking about? Is it Greece? Or are you thinking of new countries emerging, like Scotland independence from Britain or Catalan independence from Spain?

[Condottiere 40K]

The Scots aren't likely to referendii for Independence any time soon.

Baluchistan seems inclined to; surprised the Indians aren't funding that movement.

[Love Mountain]

Redrawing any borders anywhere in the world is complete hubris if there isn't a humongous amount of long term military investment backing it up. Otherwise the locals will (probably rightfully) decide to not give a rat's butt and go about their business anyway. The entire Western attitude of being in the position to actually legitimize the reorganization of quasi-national structures by simply acknowledging them has caused so much bullcrap that the stupid of the re-occuring proposal just burns.

It is simply not possible to bring peace and stability to every corner of the world. There will always be fighting and killing, why even set the standards so high so as to get upset about it pointlessly?

Many locals don't even understand the concept of borders to begin with. What difference will it make to random Afghan villages if they are under the boot of the Afghani gov. or the Pakistan gov.? Neither will affect the day-to-day life of these hamlets anyway.

Urban populations will have the biggest sway over which borders should be changed how.

[DaniCatBurger]

I think borders should not be redrawn but those of mind and heart which should always go forward in terms of ethics (practical philosophy) and what we can know about the world (science in a broder sense).