A Middle East without borders?
http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/03/201134154351741689....
A Middle East without borders?
The nation state is ripe for change and people power offers new opportunities for mapping the future of the region.
Mohammed Khan? Last Modified: 05 Mar 2011 15:00 GMT
Email Article
?
Could the short-lived United Arab Republic serve as an example of cross-border union? [GALLO/GETTY]
The modern geography of the Middle East was carved out by British and French colonialists whose sole interest was in sharing the spoils of war between themselves and in maintaining their supremacy over the region in the early part of the 20th century.
The contours of the region, with its immaculately straight lines (see maps of Algeria, Libya, Egypt and Sudan) are much the same today as when they were first drawn up, despite decades of cross-border encroachment and conflict.
Never has an imported concept been so jealously guarded by ruling families and political elites in the Middle East as that of the nation state, together with the holy grail of international relations theory, state sovereignty.
The artificialness of the borders in question is not in doubt. Take a look at any map of the Middle East prior to the 1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement between Britain and France (when the division of the region was finalised with no consideration for the thoughts of the people that lived in it) and you will be hard pressed to find many physical boundaries between, say, Syria to the north-east and Morocco to the west.
What you may find, however, are free-flowing train routes spanning the region. A relic of the old Hejaz Railway, which connected Damascus to Medina, still stands (dilapidated) in the centre of the Syrian capital. It once transported pilgrims to the Muslim holy city in modern-day Saudi Arabia without the need for cumbersome visas and frustrating bureaucrats. But that was obviously some time ago.
Trial and error
Over the course of recent history, Arab leaders have attempted to foster closer unity in the Arab world whether in the form of the 22-member Arab League - "to safeguard the independence and sovereignty [of Arab states]" - or the six-state Gulf Co-operation Council (GCC) - as a political, economic and security union in response to the Islamic revolution in Iran.
However, the sanctity of the state itself, and its borders, has been absolute within these blocs.
Possibly the greatest experiment in cross-border union, one which admittedly lasted barely three years, began in 1958, when under a wave of Nasserism sweeping the region, Egypt and Syria (and for a very short period, Iraq) established the United Arab Republic (UAR).
Gamal Abdel-Nasser's demagoguery and penchant for power, however, and the subsequent economic tumult felt in Syria, soon saw an end to that project in 1961.
Theoretically, Egypt and Syria became one, as part of the UAR. Under a single leadership (with devolved power), the UAR was supposed to foster a spirit of togetherness and spur other countries in the region to join up and expand the union.
That the project failed was in no way a reflection of the Egyptian and Syrian peoples' desire to forge a single alliance. Together with the then Yemen Arab Republic, the formation of a United Arab States was also mooted.
That was the last we heard of a pan-Arab national project.
Arguably, the 1990s and the 2000s were the decades of cross-border post-nationalism, especially with the rise of Islamic movements as major political actors whose ideology was premised on Islamic ideals that transcended national borders.
Analyse closely the manifestos of some of these movements, however, and also consider their specific origins, and it soon becomes clear that their political ambitions were, and are, ingrained firmly in the states in which they emerged.
As such, the Islamic Salvation Front was a dominant actor in Algeria and Algeria alone, while the Muslim Brotherhood's focus is on political reformation in Egypt. The Brotherhood's offshoots are similarly specifically state-centric.
These movements may well have ideological underpinnings that aim to replicate the glory days of the early Caliphates or the Ottoman Empire, but realism has dictated that they focus their energies within specific national confines. This is unlikely to change anytime soon.
All for one
Given this recent history, then, is the idea of a borderless Middle East still viable? It may well be when you consider that the globalised nature of the world, in its present form, has thrown up possibilities in the region that would have been inconceivable barely a few years back.
More precisely, the political convulsions that the region is undergoing right now have revealed glaringly the extent to which the problems and, potentially, the solutions to the Arab world's ills are remarkably similar. The political, economic and social suffocation that the people of Tunisia and Egypt have endured, before popular revolutions swept the countries' dictators from power, were near identical. The political, economic and social ailments suffered in Libya, Algeria, Bahrain, Yemen and now Oman are of the same vein.
Obviously, the causes of political unrest across these states are much more nuanced and cannot be reduced to generalisations. However, the future, unsurprisingly, is with the youth, the very demographic that is taking the lead in battling corruption and autocracy and one that is communicating, encouraging and helping others across borders in the spirit and language of togetherness.
Sure, this does not by itself denote that borders are now irrelevant. What it does suggest, however, is that political and economic issues and opportunities cannot be dealt with simply within the confines of borders any longer. The pent-up frustrations of the Arab youth, the economic inequalities, the demands for better representation extend across the entire region. A single voice is emerging in search of a single value: Freedom.
A single political authority is certainly not about to emerge out of the current political turmoil. But such an authority is not necessary. An appropriate governance model for the Arab world to emulate would be that of the European Union (EU). The 27-nation political and economic union is borderless in the sense that its people can live, work and travel in member countries without much hindrance.
Sovereignty is still paramount in the EU but the federalisation of political and economic power is to the benefit of hundreds of millions of Europeans. Granted, the recent economic and financial crisis has called into question the viability of the EU, or more specifically, the single European currency, but the political will remains resolute in defence of the union.
We can probably find a plethora of reasons why a real political and economic union would not work in the Arab world. Take a look at the GCC, for example, a bloc of around 40 million people: After a decade of trying, it is still unable to form a currency union. How are we then to expect over 200 million people to agree on a federally-based political and economic union?
But, this would be to dismiss the thrust towards a common set of goals in the Arab world. Borders are increasingly irrelevant in this new equation. The means of mass communication, interdependency, pan-regional media, ease of access through improved infrastructure, the identification with a cause rather than a country, all suggest that the political awakening in the region may be conducive to a completely different set of political and economic realities.
The nation state as we know it, as it was imposed on the region by colonial powers, is ripe for change. The unleashing of people power has now opened up new possibilities for mapping the Arab world's future. While protesters across the region have been waving their respective national flags, the cause for which they are fighting and risking their lives extends well beyond their immediate borders.
Mohammed Khan is a political analyst based in the UAE.
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.
My pleasure.
I agree, Yemen isn't safe,RPGs and AK47s are at disposal plus a very high illiteracy rate, you guess the rest :(
Thank you hamadaCZ. I will follow the link.
The National Geographic article indicated that many Yemeni locals viewed the Synagogues and ancient Jewish cultures as sources of pride. Most did not want to leave, but they had legitimate concerns for their safety in light of recent threats. Given what has happened since then, I think anyone who wants to leave Yemen for the safety of the U.S. cannot be blamed for their decision.
Here is a link to Medina's constitution for the hungry minds :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Medina
Many Synagogues in Yemen,Tehran,Cairo,Iraq and Tunisia are remained untouched. In fact there is a Synagogue 400 m from Tehrir Square in Cairo,despite the unrest, no one has even bothered to touch.
Many Arabian tribes like Kinana, Kinda,Gazam and others have converted to Islam willingly, some didn't and reminaed, some took sides with enemies , so they were asked to leave and compensated monetary by Oman bin Al Khatab for their assets.
ES--they were largely driven out and in turn gave the Israeli gov an excuse to drive out more Palestinians. It's vicious circle.
Of course it is a bit more complicated that, in that many Jews don't want to leave and many are not accepted in Israel. Quite a few move to the US.
Below is an interesting, sad article from the Guardian on the subject of the last Jews from Yemen:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/07/yemen-jews-exodus-arab-countries
National Geographic had an article a while back too, which had some beautiful photographs of the ancient synagogues in Yemen, but I cannot seem to find it.
Jews were either expelled out of Arabia or have converted, yet many have remained, in Yemen and in Bahrain .Currently there is a Jewish woman in the House of parliament in Bahrain, but I can't remember her name.
There are many Jews still today in Morocco,Yemen and Tunisia who have preferred to remain in their home countries despite the temptations.
There were/are many notable Christians and Jews in he Arab world, although things have changed after 1948.For example the first PM of Syria was Christian (Al Khoury)in 1950s, one of Morocco best known writers, Al Maleh ,who passed away last year was Jewish, he died in Morocco, it's also known that the Moroccan king Mohamed V has refused to handover the Jews to the Nazis,some of Egypt professional/businessmen are Christians like Sir Magdi Yakub and Naguib Sawairis
I wouldn't say the relationship between Muslims and Non-Muslims have always been rosy and cosy, incidents were there too.
So what happened to all the Christains and Jews in the Gulf? DId they all convert?
How did the muslims lose their way after such a promising start?
EXCELLENT article watuwant
great job
exiled saint will still find loopholes , wont he?
anyway at least sane people can see the truth
Interesting comments, Maza.
"Maza said The concept of the 'nation' state is alien to muslims and was imposed on the muslims/arabs by the french and british primarily after WW1...
however it does not mean nations were forced to become muslims; the system of Islam was applied; those who remained non muslims were able to do so; their citizen ship was confirmed through the payment of the Jizya; the state guaranteed their security and safety as a matter of duty..."
A letter from Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) preserved in ST. CATHERINE MONASTERY ,Egypt.
In 628 C.E. Prophet Muhammad (s) granted a Charter of Privileges to the monks of St. Catherine Monastery in Mt. Sinai. It consisted of several clauses covering all aspects of human rights including such topics as the protection of Christians, freedom of worship and movement, freedom to appoint their own judges and to own and maintain their property, exemption from military service, and the right to protection in war. English translation of the letter.''This is a message from Muhammad ibn Abdullah, as a covenant to those who adopt Christianity, near and far, we are with them.Verily I, the servants, the helpers, and my followers defend them, because Christians are my citizens; and by Allah! I hold out against anything that displeases them.No compulsion is to be on them.Neither are their judges to be removed from their jobs nor their monks from their monasteries.No one is to destroy a house of their religion, to damage it, or to carry anything from it to the Muslims' houses.Should anyone take any of these, he would spoil God's covenant and disobey His Prophet. Verily, they are my allies and have my secure charter against all that they hate.No one is to force them to travel or to oblige them to fight.The Muslims are to fight for them.If a female Christian is married to a Muslim, it is not to take place without her approval. She is not to be prevented from visiting her church to pray.Their churches are to be respected. They are neither to be prevented from repairing them nor the sacredness of their covenants.No one of the nation (Muslims) is to disobey the covenant till the Last Day (end of the world)''
.this letter is still hanged on the wall of Church....
Wasn't this kinda a long time ago?
Mandi
Sword ? it took Muslims more than 600 years in Egypt to constitute the vast majority, no one was forced to convert and btw Jeezya is less than Zakat.
So the Muslims invaders attacked other people to bring them low taxes!
Back in those days and it's the same for the christain colonial eta Islam was spread by the sword. Nothing to be ashamed of just the facts of history
thank hamadacz and maza for ur comments with so much valuable informations
exiled saint u dont like justice do u?
u prefer to loot people - a tax as high as 50%
thats news for me and such a grave injustice!!
Many Muslim ambassadors/messengers were tortured and killed by Persians and Romans, that's why Armies were sent to designated areas. Copts, barbers and Amazigh in North Africa didn't fight Muslims.
Why not Yemen ? Oman ? Indonesia ? The Christians in Najran ?
Muslims conquered Egypt with 4,000 men only, not because they were 'supermen', but because the Copts and bedouin of the Sinai were helping , the Copts were sick of the Romans.
Egyptians under Islamic rule have enjoyed a religious freedom that was rare to find anywhere else on Earth at that time,something the Romans never allowed them.Amro bin Al Aas has granted Pope Benjamin of Alexandria safety and freedom to resume his work.
Women,children,monasteries,churches,poor,old and sick men were exempted from Jeezya.
So written by a Muslim who ruled over them and saying they were happy. You do realise propaganda was not an invention of the 20 century?
Answer me this. Why did the Muslims feel the need to attack and invade other countries?
[People here seem to be going a little off topic from the actual subject!
Mod]
Right okkkkkkkkkkk then :-/
Exiled..the point is that i am taxed without choice..it is part of the economic system...the same in the Islam.. it has its sources of funds...
As for the distinction: then of course it is different because the Islamic State is not a secular state like the western capitalist states...the rules of Islam are applied and the rules regarding Zakat are clear: Zakat for Muslims and Jizya for non-muslim citizens...simple.
By the way the west system does discriminate..the poor always pay more than the rich!
"Christians and Jews prefer Moslem rule.
Abu-Hafs ad-Dimashki from Sa'id ibn-'Abd-al-'Aziz: -When Heraclius massed his troops against the Moslems and the Moslems heard that they were coming to meet them at al-Yarmuk, the Moslems refunded to the inhabitants of Hims the karaj [tribute] they had taken from them saying, "We are too busy to support and protect you. Take care of yourselves." But the people of Hims replied, "We like your rule and justice far better than the state of oppression and tyrannv in which we were. The army of Heraclius we shall indeed, with your 'amil's' help, repulse from the citv." The Jews rose and said, "We swear b the Torah, no governor of Heraclius shall enter the city of Hims unless we are first vanquished and exhausted!" Saving this, they closed the gates of the city and guarded them. The inhabitants of the other cities - Christian and Jew - that had capitulated to the Moslems, did the same, saying, "If Heraclius and his followers win over the Moslems we would return to our previous condition, otherwise we shall retain our present state so long as numbers are with the Moslems." When by Allah's help the "unbelievers" were defeated and the Moslems won, they opened the gates of their cities, went out with the singers and music players who began to play, and paid the kharaj.
from., The Origins of the Islamic State, being a translation from the Arabic of the Kitab Futuh al-Buldha of Ahmad ibn-Jabir al-Baladhuri, trans. by P. K. Hitti and F. C. Murgotten, Studies in History, Economics and Public Law, LXVIII (New York, Columbia University Press,1916 and 1924), I, 207-211......"
cabbage
do you have any idea of how savage the romans/byzantines and persians were when they ruled these people? if you knew then you would never have asked the question..
However the tax you pay now is not based on your religious orientation is it? Everyone pays the same and its based on your income so it does not discriminate.
As for your view on history, please believe the muslims armies were welcomed everywhere because they were just so nice. Killing with a smile!
Sorry, can you tell me why you consider the Romans, Byzantians and Persians scum?
I am going to simplify it for you non-muslims:
1. Zakat: Muslims must pay if they meet criteria; It is a religious obligation like praying. (2.5% on Zakatable income/assets after you have held the minimum amount (around 750 gbp) for 1 year)
2. Jizya: A tax paid by non-muslims if they can afford to pay it; in economic terms this is less than what Muslims have to pay in Zakat. If non-muslims are too poor to pay then the State pays it!
I pay tax (income, VAT, sales, etc) which is imposed on me in the west. It works out to be around 50% of my income!!!!!!
Yes, the non-muslims wanted the muslims to conquer them and liberate them from the scum that ruled over them like the Romans, Byzantians, Persians..these people lived in misery; had little or no security; and were treated like rubbish.
Read real history and not that orientalist nonsense and learn the truth.
The muslim armies smashed the Roman, Byzantine and Persian empires together..the people embraced Islam in nations...it seems that process will now repeat itself very soon.
Did these people ask for protection rawda before the muslim armies invaded their countries?
Peter King.. google??? LOL... not stephen king
p.s. he's not a book writer.. but he sure is a Muslim hater!
yes we know archiecomics
he is doing deliberatly
yes yes exiled saint if my dear u think that muslims have done a grave injustice to non muslims
by taking tax from them and
then humiliating them by offering protection
then we r ready to do this a thousand more times
wat say ?
we believe in imposing justice whether u like it or not!!!
Love this bit!
"and you know what.. discrimination was minimal compared to the discrimination of the catholic church before the Islamic conquest..'
So that bought peace and love to the countries they conquered after they killed all those resisting....
Sounds like the American argument for invading Iraq, we got rid your dictator and gave you democracy you should be thankful....
you all are wasting time here explaining him..he is deliberately trying to twist the things...so that we get angry and frustrated...so ignore this rodent
Stephen King!
my God.. please please.. go educate yourself.. I can't argue with you about ever single thing..
Zakat and Jezya were put in the "house of money" for Muslims and used for the same purpose... they had different names because zakat meant.. alms giving.. which is part of the 5 pillars of Islam.. they couldn't possibly say zakat for non muslims.. because newsflash.. they are not a muslim..
and you know what.. discrimination was minimal compared to the discrimination of the catholic church before the Islamic conquest.. and it sure is minimal compared to the discrimination that muslims suffer right now in Europe and the U.S..
again.. pick up a good book of history.. and not by peter king or his clones please!
So as per your own words only the non-muslims are taxed against their will so they can be 'protected' in an Islamic state.
Does that sound very fair to you?
ha ha wat a fool u r exiled saint
and wat adamancy u have !!!!
i pity ur state of mind really
yes dear zakat means charity
and jizya means tax
zakat is compusory for a muslim
it is one of the pillar of islam obligatory pillar
whether they like it or not - compulsory charity
whereas jizya a tax - imposed on non muslims - inreturn for???/
do u know???
ah why will u bother?
u like to potray non muslims a puppets
and about injustice to non muslims in the islamic era!!!
ok so lets see how unjust muslims were to their nonmuslim counter parts during that time
WHEN u bring islam...make sure u bring correct facts...dont act like an idiot..just bluffing...u cant bluff when it comes to islam
Zakat is different, if it was the same it would be the same name for both parties, but the non-muslims in muslim conquered countries were discriminated against.
Its the same as in the countries that the Europeans colonised, they held all the positions of power and kept all the wealth. Same for the muslim leaders, they controlled and dominated the countries they succesfully invaded.
Remember Prophet Mohd had a sword and so did Abu Bakr. It wasn't for cutting meat my friends....
do job wantuwant
thanks for ur information
exiled saint furnishes only half the infiormation all the time
AND IS PROVED A STUPID EVERY TIME
in case you didn't know.. Muslims paid that tax too.. it was just called another name(zakat) it was obligatory for Muslims, too.. And it was of the same amount the non muslims paid.. 2.5% of income.. so Muslims paid zakat 2.5% of income.. and non-Muslims paid jezyah.. 2.5% of income...
I know we paid up to 35% of income for taxes in the U.S!
So you could stay a non-muslim after your country was invaded as long as you paid for the privilge through a special religious tax.
No wonder so many converted for convience reasons.
1. you didn't have to pay this tax (Jizya)
2. you then had access to better jobs and influence.
The concept of the 'nation' state is alien to muslims and was imposed on the muslims/arabs by the french and british primarily after WW1; just review the old maps..
The first muslims were from the arabian peninsula and Islam spread from their through conquest (Jihad) by armies dispatched by the Caliph, one after the other,; however it does not mean nations were forced to become muslims; the system of Islam was applied; those who remained non muslims were able to do so; their citizen ship was confirmed through the payment of the Jizya; the state guaranteed their security and safety as a matter of duty.
Hence non-muslism thrived under the Islamic rule; so much so that when the european cursaders staggered into Al-sham; they were shocked to see that their fellow christian bretheren were ready to fight against them on the side of the muslims...
It is true that the Islamic state had moments of turbulence due to the shortcomings of some of the muslims; however it was insignificant compared to the advancements being made both culturally and scientifically; the Islamic Civilization was centuries ahead of the europeans who were living in the dark ages *(literally!).
It was thus natural for the Islamic state to grow and expand until it extended from Portugal, to Russia to China to India. The remarkable expansion is down to the fact that the conquered people became the conquerors hence the Islamic Army was made up of all types of people who shared a common belief and vision.
Through slackness of the muslims and the hatred harboured by the west manifested in its attempt to weaken and destroy the Islamic State; the muslims suffered decline and over the last 2-3 centuries the muslim lost ground both geopgraphically and intellectually to the west.
The concepts of nationalism, arabism were sewn in the minds of the muslims and over time these seeds flourished leading to the arab revolts against the Ottaman Caliphs/Sultans. These revolts were engineered by the british and french who yearned to break the strength of the muslims and Islam. They adopted a divide a rule policy.
The Ottoman Caliphate was weak ; a sick man of Europe, through neglect and mismanagement and this allowed the west to colonise the muslim world directly and forcibly. The Russians did the same on the northern fronts. The Ottomans through their hat in with Germany in WW1 hoping that alliance will be able to save them but it was not to be.
The British and French rejoiced and took the spoils of war; imposed their own agents as rulers over the muslims lands and created new states across the muslim world.
Very little from Europe, but I understand Germany still gives them lots of support, that's what guilt does for you....
However the US gives a lot, but more interestingly since Honsi left the US has offered more to Egypt than it gives to Israel.
I agree with you , an economic free trade zone will help the region.
Not to divert away from the main topic, but how much does that advanced Israeli economy suck from the taxpayers in North America and Europe annually ?
A caliphate is not really needed or necessary. An economic free trade zone would be much more likely to suceed and would help all Arab nations. Hey, why not let Israel join too? They have the most advanced economy in the region.
There are pros and cons to everything in life. It's a matter of finding what's best for a particular situation eg. at the material time of a particular country's stage of development.
If not yet fully developed, it cannot afford to have no borders to protect itself, as it can get taken advantage of by others. A country's leaders' duty is primarily to protect its own people.
while I'm all for this neo-arab revolution, None of the people of Egypt, Tunisia or Libya now wants a united Arab state( and those countries share borders). While we all share the same language , we have different dialects & traditions. What people of this region wants now is social justice and an all western democracy( via constitution & election)
Andre has a red flag, Chiang Ching's is blue
They all have hills to fly them on except for Lin Tai Yu
Dressing up in costumes, playing silly games
Hiding out in tree-tops shouting out rude names
-Whistling tunes we hide in the dunes by the seaside
-Whistling tunes we piss on the goons in the jungle
It's a knockout
If looks could kill they probably will
In games without frontiers-wars without tears
If looks could kill they probably will
In games without frontiers-war without tears
Games without frontiers-war without tears
is israel an arab state...
If there is one thing clear from these events in this region, it is that as a political force - arab nationalism and Islam are dead.
smash the state
All countries need borders. It gives them a feeling of security and also sovereignty.
Arabs uniting...THAT I want to see!
Well, on second thought, it could work...IF they unite against a common enemy.
Didn't work with Israel though.
hate+ignorance=QL
in some places natives were exterminated,no one left,all goneeeeee and see who are here today to lecture us!
I really think you should pick up a good book about Islamic history.. you are sooooo misinformed!
I've read numurous posts by you.... yet you never fail to disapoint me!
sorry :( didn't mean to post it several times!!
like it or not...Arabs share a lot with each other.. language, religion, culture and much more.. they are very eligible for being a union... however, uniting the Arabs or Muslim world is a far fetched goal! not to mention Israel.. which is located right in the middle!
sad but true!
optimism.. where are you??
like it or not...Arabs share a lot with each other.. language, religion, culture and much more.. they are very eligible for being a union... however, uniting the Arabs or Muslim world is a far fetched goal! not to mention Israel.. which is located right in the middle!
sad but true!
optimism.. where are you??
like it or not...Arabs share a lot with each other.. language, religion, culture and much more.. they are very eligible for being a union... however, uniting the Arabs or Muslim world is a far fetched goal! not to mention Israel.. which is located right in the middle!
sad but true!
optimism.. where are you??
segregation is a good thing.
i couldn't imagine a world without racial stereotyping, sexual discrimination and varying religious or political views.
What's theislamic state? You mean the conquered lands by the Arabs. The people in north Africa or the levant did not speak Arabic until they were invaded by the Arab armies.
A project like this is a non starter. Qatar will never give up it's money to share with a greater Arab state
Huh?
SO you are angry at UK and France for drawing out your borders so you use USA's policy to design your borders???
Oh dear lord.
Greater Middle East according to the US's Greater Middle East Initiative (now playing out in an Arab country near you!).
Besides..these lands were alaways part of the Islamic State at one time or other before the carving knives came out!
"The contours of the region, with its immaculately straight lines (see maps of Algeria, Libya, Egypt and Sudan) are much the same today as when they were first drawn up, despite decades of cross-border encroachment and conflict."
Algeria, Libya, Egypt & Sudan are part of the Middle East???
Then what's there in North Africa, a vacuum??