The Middle East’s ‘Shake-out’ Century?

southsiderosie

A 2008 article in Foreign Affairs notes that


"Much of the history of twentieth-century Europe, in fact, has been a painful, drawn-out process of ethnic disaggregation".

The collapse of empires in the early 20th century led to a wave of ethnic cleansing and population movement, and from the collapse of the Ottoman Empire up until the fall of the Iron Curtain, millions of people crossed borders and re-settled into their ‘ethnic’ homelands. The author argues that, while painful and ‘illiberal’, the relative peace and stability that followed both a) gave nations a sense of communal purpose that facilitated the development of social welfare policies and the post-war rebuilding process, and b) gave them the confidence to construct supra-national institutions like the EU, even if it meant giving up some sovereignty.

For me, this article (which is unfortunately behind a paywall) raised two questions:

First, I have to wonder, is the Middle East currently entering a phase of ethnic restructuring and violence that Europe itself experienced a century ago? In much of the region (and the African sub-continent), the boundaries of states and of ethnic/religious/national groups do not coincide, and much of this, too, is a hangover from imperialism. Certainly these religious and ethnic divides are behind much of the on-the-ground conflict, as well as the chess moves by different governments who support their Sunni or Shia co-religionists.

Secondly, if this is the case, should the West just stand back and let the chips (and refugees) fall where they may?

On the one hand, I do think that the West, and in particular the US, needs to disengage from the region. Yet it does not seem that the international community (or the West anyway) would stomach the kinds of ethnic cleansing and dislocation that happened in interwar and post-war Europe. Plus, immigration controls are much tighter today than they used to be, so it is not clear that these kinds of resettlements or redrawing of states would be legally possible. It seems like the best - yet most unlikely - solution would be the introduction of pluralistic, multi-national democracy, along the lines of what the Spanish established in the wake of the Franco dictatorship. But that is probably wishful thinking.

What do other people think?

ed2hands

southsiderosie wrote: »

Secondly, if this is the case, should the West just stand back and let the chips (and refugees) fall where they may?

It would seem that there is precious little time given to your question of 'should' in the Western corridors of power.
The observeable current and traditional policy is that it largely depends on if there's oil or mineral wealth underneath the ground of that given area.

The Western powerbase has been seen to selectively arm and support brutal dictatorships and current borders in the Middle East and elsewhere when it suits them, so it could be argued that they have not traditionally 'stood back' in that regard, rather they have actively taken steps in preserving current borders and regimes when it is in their financial interest. Equally, when it suits them to encourage democracy or regime change, they will do that too.
The plight of the Kurds would be an example. It had been of little importance, except of course when the opportunity arose to publicise it in the lead up to the Iraq conflict. Now it's all but forgotten again apparently.

the_syco

southsiderosie wrote: »

For me, this article (which is unfortunately behind a paywall) raised two questions

Paywall? Ooooo... challenge... and by the power of Greyskull Google I give you; http://www.piliusblog.com/iipes/academics/mullercm.pdf