An absolute layperson’s takeaways from the concept of empire
I have just completed the book “Empire” on the subject of British Empire by British historian Niall Ferguson. As a layperson who also happen to be an interested student in history , I asked myself what are the things I can take away from the system of an empire as Niall Ferguson depicts the system of British empire. These are the following points I would like to give special importance.
Why empires come into picture – There is no single cause behind the emergence of empires. Some empires come into existence because a powerful and strong leader wants to dominate others and achieve everlasting glory beyond his death. Most of the ancient empires can be categorized under this category. Hellenic empire came into being mostly because of the glory seeking by Alexander the great whereas in ancient China it was one Han emperor who conquered and thereby united all other warring tribes of China under the yoke of one united Han nation. The ancient Persian empires of Akamens and the Sassanids came into being chiefly because of the strong leaderships of men like Cyrus the great and Artaxerexes.
In the medieval world , the personal glory seeking was replaced by the zeal of spreading a faith acorss the oceans and seas. The early Islamic conquests and subsequent Islamic empires in Persia , Byzantine and Spain were based upon the main idea to propagate the faith. This tendency of creating empires based upon ideas continued in modern world also with the formation of Soviet Union. Even modern America can be considered as a sort of ideological empire based upon the concepts of Puritan beliefs.
The most common reason behind the creation of empires though is commercial. The tendency to seek raw materials as well as markets for exporting goods can be considered the most important reason over history for seeking empires. Most of the modern Western empires including the most important of them i.e. the British empire was created primarily upon these notions. In the case of the British , it was the need to compete with its European rivals like the Dutch and the Spanish in the beginning and later the French and much later the Germans that provided the basic drive for the British to seek overseas empires.
How to successfully run an empire : the art of collaboration – The British mastered this art. At the heyday of the British Raj in India only a handful (in early hundreds) of British civil servants and a relatively small British army (total approximately around 1,60000 , most of its footsoldiers were Indians) ruled hundereds of millions (around 350 million) Indian subjects. Even a formiddable foe like Adolph Hitler , was astonished by this appearent success by the British to rule so many with so few. The British had built up very useful collaborative relationships with the Indian Maharajas and Nawabs , so that these people were dependent upon the British for their existence and naturally they collaborated with the British furthering the British rule. The British also played the art of “divide and rule” masterfully by sometimes playing one tribe against another like deploying loyal Sikh and Gurkha regiments during the 1857 mutiny against the rebel Maratha and Muslim factions.The British had built up another very loyal base of support among the English-speaking and modernizing Indians in particular among the Bengali tribe. This was the group to whom , the British civil servants generally sub-contracted the job of running the day-to-day functionalities of the empire. The art of empireship here was to ensure that the native collaborators always end up with a small fraction of the revenues and other booties that come about while running the empire. The maintenance of the political status of the collaborator was also a very important task for the British. The British rulers of India ensured that the Maharajas , Nawabs and the Bengali babus were entrusted with just about enough revenues and titles which allow these important British assets in India to place themselves just above their native countrymen. As a result, these Maharajas , Nawabs and the Bengali babus accepted and cherished their subordination to the British Raj.
How to successfully run an empire : learning from past mistakes – It is one thing to build an empire and it is another thing to sustain it. The British empire sustained so long because the British were always looking for opportunities to learn from their mistakes and quickly correcting them. In the beginning of their Empire , the Dutch were the primary competitors of the British in India , the British had fought wars to dispose the Dutch but in the end failed to defeat them. They were astonished that how could a much smaller country like the Dutch ; which was basically a breakaway faction from the Spanish empire due to religious war ; could punch much above its weight. They later found out that it was the superior financial system of the Dutch whereby instead of imposing suffocating taxes upon the population the Dutch brought the necessary finances for war by borrowing money in terms of government bonds. They quickly adopted this technique and instead of fighting with the Dutch , merged their finances with them.This later helped the British to win the seven year war against the French.
Another great example of the British learning from their mistakes was that after losing her American colonies , Britain decided to allow more local autonomy to the English-speaking colonists in Canada , Australia , New Zealand and much later South Africa , all of whom were white Anglo-Saxon protestant communities. These colonies were allowed to become dominions whereby they were given a representative legislature through which they elected their own representatives through competitive elections and made their own rules instead of being dictated from London.
One of the primary reasons behind the 1857 mutiny was the missionary zeal showed by some British evangelists to spread their version of Anglizcized Christianity upon the Indians ; this threatened the traditional Indian sepoys , who feared about losing their age-old ways of life to their British masters and as a consequence they rose up in arms against the British rule in India. After suppressing the mutiny the British decided to put a stop to the missionary activities of the more-zealous missionaries. The East India company’s role of governing India was taken over by the British policymakers in London so as to ensure that no repeatation of the causes of 1857 mutiny ever takes place. The assertive , bleeding-heart missionary groups were discouraged to interfere in the body politic of India and the British left the Indians to their own conditions. This ensured that there were no major mutiny in the British Indian military for close to a century.
How to successfully run an empire : entrusting the experts – The British always did well to entrust the job of empire building to the local forces who were deployed in the areas in question. Whther it was the Buccaneers and pirates like Sir Henry Morgan or the unconventioanl generals like Robert Clive or for that matter pioneering men like Cycil Rhodes , Charles “Chinese” Gordon or T G Lawrence , the British empire was built upon the guiles and exploits of these men who were seeking glory and fortune overseas. The job of the policymakers in London was just to give them enough encouragement so that in the end, London can benefit from the exploits of these men.
Whenever the important job of decision making was entrusted to people without enough knowledge of the situation , the result was disastrous. The Boston tea party that ultimate led to Britain losing her American colonies came about as a consequence of imposing a transaction tax (although very small) on the continental colonists from faraway London without taking the consents of the people who were supposed to pay the taxes. Even during the American War of Independence , instead of depending upon the British loyalists for military leadership , the British entrusted a man from the mother country i.e. Lord Cornwalis to lead the British forces in America which ultimately led to Britain losing the War and losing her American colonies.In the initial buildup to the First World war , despite strong reservations from the experienced diplomats in the area , the British policymakers in London , led by Sir Winston Churchill decided to take unwise decisions like seizing the two Turkish state-of-the art Battleships the Reshadieh and Sultan Osman I which the Turkish government had paid for and entrusted the British to manufacture and hand over to them , leading Turkey to join forces with Kaiser’s Germany thereby expanding the theatre of what was essentially an European War and as a consequence creating more casualties and future complexities for the British to handle.
Why Empires Fall – There are two basic reasons which can be attributed to the downfall of the empires. The conflicts with their rival empires have historically brought about the downfall of the empires. The empires need to be careful to choose which wars to fight and which wars to stand down. The historians still debate whether it was wise enough for the British to participate in the two World wars which led them to confront aggressive empires like Germany and Japan who were on their ascendancy at the time. Although the British managed to end up in the winning side in both the World wars but ultimately it was the resultant drainage in terms of money and men that made it impossible for the British to continue to run their empire. This also leads us to the second most important reason behind the fall of the empires i.e. a lack of financial resources needed to run the empire. A very good example of this particular type of Empire collapse is the collapse of Soviet Union in our times. Although the Soviet Union did not have to face the humiliation of ending up in the losing side of any World War but it was the financial destitution of the Soviet economic system that ultimately led to the Soviets losing the cold war.
All the empires do possess one common characteristics , they are gigantic enterprises of men with respect to great ideas , endevors , dreams and visions. They produce colorful characters and towering leaders in their wake. Yet they are not flawless as they leave the global stage with collective scars on global human psyche like the Holocaust , Atlantic Slave trade and the genocide of the Natives in the Americas. Empires are more like individuals who want to be different than others , who want to reach the sky and fill up the stars with their glory but in the end when they leave the world , they find out that they cannot vanquish their own mortality to which his fate has consigned for him.
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
A changed World-middle east a decade after 9-11-Part-2
Introduction
A decade has passed since the twin towers were brought down by one of the most gruesome and deadliest terrorist attacks in living memory. The World that was in presence on 9/10 is no more and the past decade has seen it change in ways that
could have not been imaginable even a decade prior to it. Let us look at how the
changes affected the region of West Asia which has got most attention than any
other part of the World in the last decade following 9/11. In my previous writing,
I discussed the changes that has taken place in the West Asian region in the decade
gone by. Now in this article I would like to discuss some possible scenarios that could
emerge into the coming decade ahead.
The emergence of a new Order
The Return of the Turks
The most significant event of the decade gone by has probably been the reemergence of Turkey as an independent player in the region. Since the founding of the Turkish republic and throughout the cold war, Turkey has been largely content to follow the roles and responsibilities that it was asked to play by its Western patrons. The ruling elite of Turkey which consisted largely of the Turkish Westernized military hierarchy as well as the Western-educated sections of Turkish intelligentsia , all favored this position whereby Turkey had largely restricted and relegated itself to a small regional player.
With the election of the Justice and Development party in Turkey in 2002, things have changed significantly. This new Turkish government decided to take an independent position vis a vis the West Asian and North African region. By taking this new direction Turkey is expected to play a broader and much prominent role in the region and beyond, something that has not been seen for a long time.
At present Turkey and Israel are logged in a conflagration over the Israeli blockade over Gaza. This also has to be seen in a broader angle whereby Turkey is looking to become an important player in the Eastern Mediterranean region. The Eastern Mediterranean is said to be enriched with natural gas and other vital mineral resources. At present Greek Cypriots and Israel are said to be in collaboration for exploration of these natural gas fields. As the patron of Turkish Cypriots, Turkey is expected to become involved in the matter. If Turkey wants to play its erstwhile historical role of maintaining order and stability in the Eastern Mediterranean region, then surely it has to confront the existing interests in the region. At present, Israel with its naval blockade over Gaza, does not allow any other player to establish itself in the regime. So one can only expect the conflagration between Turkey and Israel to continue in the coming decade over the issue of maintaining stability and order in the Mediterranean region.
The Turkish-Israeli conflagration has another wider angle. Since the Turks are looking to project themselves as a new power in the region, Turks would love to be seen in the region as the strong and just Muslim warrior fighting a just cause against the unjust Israel. So this is a significantly new angle to the equation of the wider region.
The recent “Arab Spring” has given the Turks a great opportunity to strengthen its ties with the people in the region. The Turks, who have got religious and cultural as well as historical ties with the region, would welcome the opportunity to connect with new set-ups in the region whereby popular participation is given more importance. The Justice and development Party considers itself as a movement challenging existing status quo in their own country whereby it took on the power of Turkish military and socialist elite and won. Understandably it wants to see the Arabs also do the same in their own countries. Despite some initial mistakes, Turkey has been steadfastly supporting the popular movements in the Arab countries with the hope that they will overthrow the ailing, archaic regimes in these countries and a new partnership would emerge between Turks and the people of the region, leading them to a new order, much more peaceful and prosperous in nature.
The main players emerge in the new great Game
As of today there are four major players in the region. They are Turkey, Iran, Israel and Saudi Arabia. Out of all the four major powers Israel and Saudi Arabia can be at best described as status-quo powers since the basic intention of these two powers is to preserve the existing order. For Israel , the preservation of the status quo is in terms of maintaining its hold over the territories it has occupied since the six-day war in the occupied West Bank and in the Golan Heights and for Saudi Arabian ruling elite nothing is much important than the continuation of the ruling of the House of Saud in the Hejaj region.
Turkey and Iran are the players who want to change the existing status quo in the region but the two do not have a singular approach in solving the problems due to their different historical experiences. The reactions of both the two countries towards the recent popular movements in the region are also variable. The two countries have differed significantly over the issue of popular uprising in Syria. Elsewhere both countries are more or less on the same wavelength when it comes to establishment of new and more democratic regimes in Egypt, Tunisia or elsewhere in the region.
It is almost a foregone conclusion that following the toppling of autocratic regimes in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia, there will be popular movements demanding a greater say in political as well as socio-economic participation in the gulf region. The Bahrain regime recently crushed another popular movement in its territory. The fact that the gulf regimes are mindful of popular discontent in their territories is evident from two examples, the Saudi leadership announcing more grants to its religious allies in the Kingdom and the Emirati and other Gulf establishments investing a lot on “hired guns” i.e. private security companies like Blackwater (now known as Xe) since they are no longer able to trust their own troops.
Both Turkey and Iran are expected to encourage and support popular movements demanding greater political participation in these gulf kingdoms in the coming decade. This is one of their significant ways to change the status quo in the region. However, there may be some competition between the two over influencing these nascent popular movements in the gulf region.
Role of the West
So far the role of the Western states towards the “Arab spring” has been mixed bag to say the least. They were taken aback when their allies in Egypt and Tunisia were toppled but they came back quickly with their support for the Libyan opposition. However I do not expect these Western states to support any popular movement in the Gulf States which may harm the status quo.
The West and the US in particular has a lot to lose in terms of influence in the post Arab Spring-West Asia. Historically, the American support of Israel has been the biggest impediment for improving the American image in the Arab world. If the USA goes on to stop the Palestinians to form their own state then there will be strong opposition from the newly democratic and free Arab countries. There is a strong possibility that if the USA does not encourage its allies in Gulf to significantly help popular participation in their affairs, there is a strong possibility that the popular hostility towards the US will continue to grow in the coming decade.
Turkey is in the best position to reap rewards from the Arab spring. As an emerging Muslim democracy with strong economic credentials as well as closer historical and spiritual ties to the region, Turkey seems to be in the best position to be recognized as a model by the newly emerging set-ups in the region. Iran would also be in a much more strengthened position since the Arab spring would also enable Iran to influence the new set-ups in the Arab world. This is clearly evident with the willingness on the part of the new governing council in Egypt to establish ties with Iran.
For historical and geo-political reasons it is quite likely that the West in general and the Americans in particular would side with the status-quo powers of Israel and Saudi Arabia to preserve their existing interests in the region. That would increasingly ensure a conflict of interest between the West and Turkey as well as the ongoing hostility between Iran and the West.
Conclusion
The end of the decade in the West Asia has seen new possibilities and new changes some of which have been hitherto unthinkable. The constant conflict between the status quo powers and their challengers will probably be the most significant feature of the new West Asia. However no one can deny the possibility of any unthinkable event from an unexpected quarter threatening to unhinge the whole balance of the region.
A decade has passed since the twin towers were brought down by one of the most gruesome and deadliest terrorist attacks in living memory. The World that was in presence on 9/10 is no more and the past decade has seen it change in ways that
could have not been imaginable even a decade prior to it. Let us look at how the
changes affected the region of West Asia which has got most attention than any
other part of the World in the last decade following 9/11. In my previous writing,
I discussed the changes that has taken place in the West Asian region in the decade
gone by. Now in this article I would like to discuss some possible scenarios that could
emerge into the coming decade ahead.
The emergence of a new Order
The Return of the Turks
The most significant event of the decade gone by has probably been the reemergence of Turkey as an independent player in the region. Since the founding of the Turkish republic and throughout the cold war, Turkey has been largely content to follow the roles and responsibilities that it was asked to play by its Western patrons. The ruling elite of Turkey which consisted largely of the Turkish Westernized military hierarchy as well as the Western-educated sections of Turkish intelligentsia , all favored this position whereby Turkey had largely restricted and relegated itself to a small regional player.
With the election of the Justice and Development party in Turkey in 2002, things have changed significantly. This new Turkish government decided to take an independent position vis a vis the West Asian and North African region. By taking this new direction Turkey is expected to play a broader and much prominent role in the region and beyond, something that has not been seen for a long time.
At present Turkey and Israel are logged in a conflagration over the Israeli blockade over Gaza. This also has to be seen in a broader angle whereby Turkey is looking to become an important player in the Eastern Mediterranean region. The Eastern Mediterranean is said to be enriched with natural gas and other vital mineral resources. At present Greek Cypriots and Israel are said to be in collaboration for exploration of these natural gas fields. As the patron of Turkish Cypriots, Turkey is expected to become involved in the matter. If Turkey wants to play its erstwhile historical role of maintaining order and stability in the Eastern Mediterranean region, then surely it has to confront the existing interests in the region. At present, Israel with its naval blockade over Gaza, does not allow any other player to establish itself in the regime. So one can only expect the conflagration between Turkey and Israel to continue in the coming decade over the issue of maintaining stability and order in the Mediterranean region.
The Turkish-Israeli conflagration has another wider angle. Since the Turks are looking to project themselves as a new power in the region, Turks would love to be seen in the region as the strong and just Muslim warrior fighting a just cause against the unjust Israel. So this is a significantly new angle to the equation of the wider region.
The recent “Arab Spring” has given the Turks a great opportunity to strengthen its ties with the people in the region. The Turks, who have got religious and cultural as well as historical ties with the region, would welcome the opportunity to connect with new set-ups in the region whereby popular participation is given more importance. The Justice and development Party considers itself as a movement challenging existing status quo in their own country whereby it took on the power of Turkish military and socialist elite and won. Understandably it wants to see the Arabs also do the same in their own countries. Despite some initial mistakes, Turkey has been steadfastly supporting the popular movements in the Arab countries with the hope that they will overthrow the ailing, archaic regimes in these countries and a new partnership would emerge between Turks and the people of the region, leading them to a new order, much more peaceful and prosperous in nature.
The main players emerge in the new great Game
As of today there are four major players in the region. They are Turkey, Iran, Israel and Saudi Arabia. Out of all the four major powers Israel and Saudi Arabia can be at best described as status-quo powers since the basic intention of these two powers is to preserve the existing order. For Israel , the preservation of the status quo is in terms of maintaining its hold over the territories it has occupied since the six-day war in the occupied West Bank and in the Golan Heights and for Saudi Arabian ruling elite nothing is much important than the continuation of the ruling of the House of Saud in the Hejaj region.
Turkey and Iran are the players who want to change the existing status quo in the region but the two do not have a singular approach in solving the problems due to their different historical experiences. The reactions of both the two countries towards the recent popular movements in the region are also variable. The two countries have differed significantly over the issue of popular uprising in Syria. Elsewhere both countries are more or less on the same wavelength when it comes to establishment of new and more democratic regimes in Egypt, Tunisia or elsewhere in the region.
It is almost a foregone conclusion that following the toppling of autocratic regimes in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia, there will be popular movements demanding a greater say in political as well as socio-economic participation in the gulf region. The Bahrain regime recently crushed another popular movement in its territory. The fact that the gulf regimes are mindful of popular discontent in their territories is evident from two examples, the Saudi leadership announcing more grants to its religious allies in the Kingdom and the Emirati and other Gulf establishments investing a lot on “hired guns” i.e. private security companies like Blackwater (now known as Xe) since they are no longer able to trust their own troops.
Both Turkey and Iran are expected to encourage and support popular movements demanding greater political participation in these gulf kingdoms in the coming decade. This is one of their significant ways to change the status quo in the region. However, there may be some competition between the two over influencing these nascent popular movements in the gulf region.
Role of the West
So far the role of the Western states towards the “Arab spring” has been mixed bag to say the least. They were taken aback when their allies in Egypt and Tunisia were toppled but they came back quickly with their support for the Libyan opposition. However I do not expect these Western states to support any popular movement in the Gulf States which may harm the status quo.
The West and the US in particular has a lot to lose in terms of influence in the post Arab Spring-West Asia. Historically, the American support of Israel has been the biggest impediment for improving the American image in the Arab world. If the USA goes on to stop the Palestinians to form their own state then there will be strong opposition from the newly democratic and free Arab countries. There is a strong possibility that if the USA does not encourage its allies in Gulf to significantly help popular participation in their affairs, there is a strong possibility that the popular hostility towards the US will continue to grow in the coming decade.
Turkey is in the best position to reap rewards from the Arab spring. As an emerging Muslim democracy with strong economic credentials as well as closer historical and spiritual ties to the region, Turkey seems to be in the best position to be recognized as a model by the newly emerging set-ups in the region. Iran would also be in a much more strengthened position since the Arab spring would also enable Iran to influence the new set-ups in the Arab world. This is clearly evident with the willingness on the part of the new governing council in Egypt to establish ties with Iran.
For historical and geo-political reasons it is quite likely that the West in general and the Americans in particular would side with the status-quo powers of Israel and Saudi Arabia to preserve their existing interests in the region. That would increasingly ensure a conflict of interest between the West and Turkey as well as the ongoing hostility between Iran and the West.
Conclusion
The end of the decade in the West Asia has seen new possibilities and new changes some of which have been hitherto unthinkable. The constant conflict between the status quo powers and their challengers will probably be the most significant feature of the new West Asia. However no one can deny the possibility of any unthinkable event from an unexpected quarter threatening to unhinge the whole balance of the region.
A changed World-middle east a decade after 9-11-Part-1
Introduction
A decade has passed since the twin towers were brought down by one of the most gruesome and deadliest terrorist attacks in living memory. The World that was in presence on 9/10 is no more and the past decade has seen it change in ways that
could have not been imaginable even a decade prior to it. Let us look at how the
changes affected the region of West Asia which has got most attention than any
other part of the World in the last decade following 9/11.
The shattered status Quo
The World before 9/11
Prior to 9/11, the American policy in the region can be summarized in the following terms:
1. The oil-producing countries in the region should continue to sell fossil fuels to the West at a fairly acceptable market price.
2. They should not do anything that makes Israelis feel endangered.
3. None of them should do anything rash like setting up of a nuclear-industry that may endanger this status quo.
The countries in the region generally adhered to these terms and conditions as dictated by the superpower of the day. Most of the countries like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Bahrain were happy to host American troops on their soil. Countries like Egypt and Jordan had extensive peace treaties with Israel and they in general followed those peace treaties consistently. Even the regime of Saddam Hussain which wanted to create its new rules and regulations in the region , was contained through sanctions and no-fly zones.There were countries like Iran and Syria who opposed these terms and conditions but in the end they did nothing which can be categorized as substantial for changing the status quo in the region. Even these countries such as Iran and Syria restricted their opposition towards these western terms and conditions by employing only small baby steps such as deploying fierce rhetoric at the United Nations or providing support to the groups like Hezbollah and Hamas who have been resisting against Israeli policies in Lebanon or in the occupied Palestinian territories. Even this provision of support towards Hezbollah or Hamas by Iran and Syria can in no way be considered as threatening the very existence of Israel let alone challenging the status quo of American power in the region. The example of Saddam had taught the independent-minded regimes of the region to restrict their opposition towards the American-imposed order only in superficial terms.
The World since 9/11
The changed popular perception about America: Before 9/11, the “American dream” was the most popular imagination in large parts of the West Asian populations including in countries like Iran. How popular America was in Iran can be gauged by the fact that after 9/11, it was the Iranian commoners who performed candle light vigils for the victims of 9/11 and even the Iranian government which has called America “the great Satan” offered a strategic peace deal to the Bush administration which included normalization of all relations and cooperation with the United States in Afghanistan in exchange for acceptance of the Islamic system in Iran. The American concept of Individualism that supports the right of the individual to live his life according to his own wishes and free from the dictates of the powerful state was something that was cherished by a population long suffering from archaic authoritarian rule and looking for opportunities for improving their lives. Although many conservative groups in the region detested the promiscuous lifestyles of some of the American popular cultural icons but the Average man on the street certainly did not consider America as “the great Satan” as some of the regional leaders claimed it to be.
One of the major objectives of the perpetrators of 9/11 was to ensure that America is perceived by the people in the region as the greatest existential enemy fighting against the Muslims since the days of Abu Jehl , the Crusaders and the Mongol hordes of Halagu Khan. They had calculated on a harsh and disproportional response from America in the aftermath of 9/11. President Bush obliged them by first spurring the Iranian offer of strategic détente when he called Iran as part of an “axis of evil” in his state of the Union address in 2002 and then in 2003 when he decided to Invade Iraq on the premise of Weapons of mass destructions. As more and more examples of the harsh and panicked American response (often bordering on brutality) to 9/11 came into the public fore, like the depraved activities in Guantanamo bay and in the Abu Gharib prison as well as the increasingly large number of civilian casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hands of the American troops, the genuine public support that America had enjoyed in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 seemed to dissipate fast.
The increasingly hostile attitude that the Muslim communities and individuals faced in many parts of the Western world after the 9/11 events had also made a deep impact in the psyches of the people in the wider Western Asian region. The frequent and humiliating security checks at the airports, the extraordinary renditions of people and the torturous scenes from the prisons like Bagram, Guantanamo bay and Abu Gharib all have made permanent impact upon the psyches of the Muslims living in the West and elsewhere. The vicious propaganda and derogatory commentary coming from some Western intellectuals targeting Muslims also have seriously impacted in the formation of the Muslim mindset towards America and the West in general.
The persistent support that the successive administrations have provided towards Israel over the last decade even towards acts like the economic blockade of the Gazastrip, expansion of unilateral settlements in the West Bank, the operation Cast Lead and the most recent incident of Israeli killing of the Turkish peace activists in the Mavi Marmara vessel, also has created a perception of an America which is blind towards Israeli actions because of its “special relationship” with Israel.
As a result, American model and “American dream” have lost most of its hollowed ground in the minds of the people in West Asian region. A measure of this phenomenon is the surprisingly low support America has among the people of Turkey, one of the strongest pillars of American support in the region. America did not help the matters when it paraded a group of blindfolded Turkish soldiers in front of the Television cameras immediately after the Iraq invasion in 2003. It also did not help when the American leadership sat silent when Israeli soldiers gunned down Hakan Dogan , a 18-year old American citizen of Turkish descent onboard Mavi Marmara.
A new beginning for Turkey: The decade saw the emergence of a new beginning in Turkish foreign policy. Hitherto Turkey was content to play the role of the contractor
of Western policies in the region. But since the rise of the ruling Justice and Development Party from 2002, the Turkish policies have been set on a new course which wants to see the region from its own viewpoint and not from the eyes of its Western patrons. This apparently independent-looking Turkish policy, pioneered by Ahmet Dovutoglu, the foreign minister of Turkey, has been referred to as “Zero problem with the neighbors”. As a part of its independent foreign policy, Turkey has decided to expand and nurture more extensive political and economic ties to all of its neighbors including Iran and Syria, raising quite a lot of concerned-looking eyebrows in the Western capitals.
The aspect of Turkish foreign policy which has raised most concern in the Western World is the increasingly confrontational attitude Turkey has projected towards Israel, its erstwhile strong alley in the region. The Turkish spat with Israel started when the prime minister of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdogan walked out from the Davos forum in 2009 in protest of Israel’s operation cast lead on Gaza which has lead to a lot of civilian deaths in Gaza. The difference of opinion between Israel and Turkey turned to open hostility when an Israeli raid upon the Turkish vessel Mavi Marmara killed a number of Turkish peace activists including an 18-year old American from Turkish origin. Recently after the UN Palmer commission report on the incident, Turkey has decided to suspend all of its defense ties with Israel and has recalled its ambassador from Tel Aviv.
The influence of Iran grows: The US-invasion of Iraq removed the biggest thorn on the side of the Islamic republic, the regime of Saddam Hussain. The US also had removed another regional rival of Iran, Taliban from power in Afghanistan, only a year and half ago. Although there have been lots of speculations among pundits about the exact set of reasons behind President Bush’s decision to invade Iraq but surely allowing the Islamic republic to play a major role in the post-war political efforts in that country was not one of them. But this has been exactly the outcome of the US-led invasion in the country. Following both the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, parties with strong ties to Iran have come to power in Iran.
The rise of Hezbollah in Lebanon following the 2006 Israeli war in Lebanon and the victory of Hamas in Palestinian elections as late as in 2009 also has enabled Iran to influence events very close to the borders of its arch-foe, Israel.
The recent toppling of the secular regimes in Egypt and Libya would also enable Iran to build relations with the nascent popular movements in these countries. The Islamic republic has long sought to portray the secular pro-Western regimes in these countries as obstacles hindering an unified regional effort against Israel , so naturally it is no surprise that Iran is trying to foster stronger links with these post-Arab Spring set ups in the regions. The recent opening of the Suez Canal by the Egyptian authorities to allow two Iranian navy ships to pass through the passage is an indication of this changed approach.
The seculars fall, the religious rise up: The popular spontaneous movements that swept the Arab world for demanding change have seen secular governments being toppled in Tunisia, Egypt and in Libya. With the fall of these regimes, one can see the rise of religious-leaning groups like Al-Nahda in Tunisia and Muslim brotherhood in Egypt coming into prominence. The fall of the secular regimes have seen widespread chaos and uncertainty in the region; the religious parties can hope for more support from the masses in near future since they are the only ones with a strong organizational base as well as a consistent and coherent message and policy to solve the many problems that the people of the region suffer from. So clearly, the coming decade could see the religious parties rise in influence in most of these post-secular countries in the region.
A decade has passed since the twin towers were brought down by one of the most gruesome and deadliest terrorist attacks in living memory. The World that was in presence on 9/10 is no more and the past decade has seen it change in ways that
could have not been imaginable even a decade prior to it. Let us look at how the
changes affected the region of West Asia which has got most attention than any
other part of the World in the last decade following 9/11.
The shattered status Quo
The World before 9/11
Prior to 9/11, the American policy in the region can be summarized in the following terms:
1. The oil-producing countries in the region should continue to sell fossil fuels to the West at a fairly acceptable market price.
2. They should not do anything that makes Israelis feel endangered.
3. None of them should do anything rash like setting up of a nuclear-industry that may endanger this status quo.
The countries in the region generally adhered to these terms and conditions as dictated by the superpower of the day. Most of the countries like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Bahrain were happy to host American troops on their soil. Countries like Egypt and Jordan had extensive peace treaties with Israel and they in general followed those peace treaties consistently. Even the regime of Saddam Hussain which wanted to create its new rules and regulations in the region , was contained through sanctions and no-fly zones.There were countries like Iran and Syria who opposed these terms and conditions but in the end they did nothing which can be categorized as substantial for changing the status quo in the region. Even these countries such as Iran and Syria restricted their opposition towards these western terms and conditions by employing only small baby steps such as deploying fierce rhetoric at the United Nations or providing support to the groups like Hezbollah and Hamas who have been resisting against Israeli policies in Lebanon or in the occupied Palestinian territories. Even this provision of support towards Hezbollah or Hamas by Iran and Syria can in no way be considered as threatening the very existence of Israel let alone challenging the status quo of American power in the region. The example of Saddam had taught the independent-minded regimes of the region to restrict their opposition towards the American-imposed order only in superficial terms.
The World since 9/11
The changed popular perception about America: Before 9/11, the “American dream” was the most popular imagination in large parts of the West Asian populations including in countries like Iran. How popular America was in Iran can be gauged by the fact that after 9/11, it was the Iranian commoners who performed candle light vigils for the victims of 9/11 and even the Iranian government which has called America “the great Satan” offered a strategic peace deal to the Bush administration which included normalization of all relations and cooperation with the United States in Afghanistan in exchange for acceptance of the Islamic system in Iran. The American concept of Individualism that supports the right of the individual to live his life according to his own wishes and free from the dictates of the powerful state was something that was cherished by a population long suffering from archaic authoritarian rule and looking for opportunities for improving their lives. Although many conservative groups in the region detested the promiscuous lifestyles of some of the American popular cultural icons but the Average man on the street certainly did not consider America as “the great Satan” as some of the regional leaders claimed it to be.
One of the major objectives of the perpetrators of 9/11 was to ensure that America is perceived by the people in the region as the greatest existential enemy fighting against the Muslims since the days of Abu Jehl , the Crusaders and the Mongol hordes of Halagu Khan. They had calculated on a harsh and disproportional response from America in the aftermath of 9/11. President Bush obliged them by first spurring the Iranian offer of strategic détente when he called Iran as part of an “axis of evil” in his state of the Union address in 2002 and then in 2003 when he decided to Invade Iraq on the premise of Weapons of mass destructions. As more and more examples of the harsh and panicked American response (often bordering on brutality) to 9/11 came into the public fore, like the depraved activities in Guantanamo bay and in the Abu Gharib prison as well as the increasingly large number of civilian casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hands of the American troops, the genuine public support that America had enjoyed in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 seemed to dissipate fast.
The increasingly hostile attitude that the Muslim communities and individuals faced in many parts of the Western world after the 9/11 events had also made a deep impact in the psyches of the people in the wider Western Asian region. The frequent and humiliating security checks at the airports, the extraordinary renditions of people and the torturous scenes from the prisons like Bagram, Guantanamo bay and Abu Gharib all have made permanent impact upon the psyches of the Muslims living in the West and elsewhere. The vicious propaganda and derogatory commentary coming from some Western intellectuals targeting Muslims also have seriously impacted in the formation of the Muslim mindset towards America and the West in general.
The persistent support that the successive administrations have provided towards Israel over the last decade even towards acts like the economic blockade of the Gazastrip, expansion of unilateral settlements in the West Bank, the operation Cast Lead and the most recent incident of Israeli killing of the Turkish peace activists in the Mavi Marmara vessel, also has created a perception of an America which is blind towards Israeli actions because of its “special relationship” with Israel.
As a result, American model and “American dream” have lost most of its hollowed ground in the minds of the people in West Asian region. A measure of this phenomenon is the surprisingly low support America has among the people of Turkey, one of the strongest pillars of American support in the region. America did not help the matters when it paraded a group of blindfolded Turkish soldiers in front of the Television cameras immediately after the Iraq invasion in 2003. It also did not help when the American leadership sat silent when Israeli soldiers gunned down Hakan Dogan , a 18-year old American citizen of Turkish descent onboard Mavi Marmara.
A new beginning for Turkey: The decade saw the emergence of a new beginning in Turkish foreign policy. Hitherto Turkey was content to play the role of the contractor
of Western policies in the region. But since the rise of the ruling Justice and Development Party from 2002, the Turkish policies have been set on a new course which wants to see the region from its own viewpoint and not from the eyes of its Western patrons. This apparently independent-looking Turkish policy, pioneered by Ahmet Dovutoglu, the foreign minister of Turkey, has been referred to as “Zero problem with the neighbors”. As a part of its independent foreign policy, Turkey has decided to expand and nurture more extensive political and economic ties to all of its neighbors including Iran and Syria, raising quite a lot of concerned-looking eyebrows in the Western capitals.
The aspect of Turkish foreign policy which has raised most concern in the Western World is the increasingly confrontational attitude Turkey has projected towards Israel, its erstwhile strong alley in the region. The Turkish spat with Israel started when the prime minister of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdogan walked out from the Davos forum in 2009 in protest of Israel’s operation cast lead on Gaza which has lead to a lot of civilian deaths in Gaza. The difference of opinion between Israel and Turkey turned to open hostility when an Israeli raid upon the Turkish vessel Mavi Marmara killed a number of Turkish peace activists including an 18-year old American from Turkish origin. Recently after the UN Palmer commission report on the incident, Turkey has decided to suspend all of its defense ties with Israel and has recalled its ambassador from Tel Aviv.
The influence of Iran grows: The US-invasion of Iraq removed the biggest thorn on the side of the Islamic republic, the regime of Saddam Hussain. The US also had removed another regional rival of Iran, Taliban from power in Afghanistan, only a year and half ago. Although there have been lots of speculations among pundits about the exact set of reasons behind President Bush’s decision to invade Iraq but surely allowing the Islamic republic to play a major role in the post-war political efforts in that country was not one of them. But this has been exactly the outcome of the US-led invasion in the country. Following both the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, parties with strong ties to Iran have come to power in Iran.
The rise of Hezbollah in Lebanon following the 2006 Israeli war in Lebanon and the victory of Hamas in Palestinian elections as late as in 2009 also has enabled Iran to influence events very close to the borders of its arch-foe, Israel.
The recent toppling of the secular regimes in Egypt and Libya would also enable Iran to build relations with the nascent popular movements in these countries. The Islamic republic has long sought to portray the secular pro-Western regimes in these countries as obstacles hindering an unified regional effort against Israel , so naturally it is no surprise that Iran is trying to foster stronger links with these post-Arab Spring set ups in the regions. The recent opening of the Suez Canal by the Egyptian authorities to allow two Iranian navy ships to pass through the passage is an indication of this changed approach.
The seculars fall, the religious rise up: The popular spontaneous movements that swept the Arab world for demanding change have seen secular governments being toppled in Tunisia, Egypt and in Libya. With the fall of these regimes, one can see the rise of religious-leaning groups like Al-Nahda in Tunisia and Muslim brotherhood in Egypt coming into prominence. The fall of the secular regimes have seen widespread chaos and uncertainty in the region; the religious parties can hope for more support from the masses in near future since they are the only ones with a strong organizational base as well as a consistent and coherent message and policy to solve the many problems that the people of the region suffer from. So clearly, the coming decade could see the religious parties rise in influence in most of these post-secular countries in the region.
Saturday, September 10, 2011
The day that de-Americanized America
I remember very clearly an ad on CNN, just days after 9/11. The ad said something like this; “do not forget it is not PLA, it is not Al-Qaida , it is not Hezbollah or Hamas that we are fighting ; what we are fighting is hatred” , then the announcer of the ad stopped a little bit and then added “and it is winning…”
At the time of 9/11, I was just another 19-year old just about to start my life in college; but that particular ad had remained fixated in my memory and as I start to write this just two hours before the 10-th anniversary on 9/11 would commence, the message of that ad still remains fresh in my mind.
Leaders of America had the support of the whole world behind them after 9/11, so much shocked and horrified the World was at those attacks that even the Islamic republic of Iran , the avowed enemy of America ; had offered them cooperation and a permanent end to hostilities in exchange of equal treatment.
What was the reaction of President Bush? Instead of accepting the gratitude of the World, he acted with a mindset to remake the World. He declared Iran as part of an “axis of evil” and followed up with sanctions and covert operations for “regime change”. America would remake the World into her own democratic image, he thundered to the World in his now famous 2002 “axis of evil” address. Maybe it was the outburst of that quintessential American attitude called “American exceptionalism” which always considers itself as part of a divine mission to outdo all wrongs in the World as well as converting the whole World into America’s image.
But what about the American people? What about the average American? Why did he not come to the same understanding the rest of the World had about some of the policies that his leaders were taking on his name? 9/11 not only changed America but it also changed the average American. The average American went into a retreat into a make believe world where he restricts his education about the world to the posts in social networking sites and demagogic websites. In the end, the average American did not bother much when Iraq was invaded on false pretexts, when those obscenities from Abu Gharib shocked the World, when those who caused the global economic recession in 2008 went home with their compensations intact. In the end, in the land of consumerism and individualism, the average American converted himself from a citizen into a consumer and individual. And the reason why it happened? It was the same old reason as shown in that ad after 9/11, it was the sense of hatred; it was the sense of fear; it was the sense of “being wronged” ; it was this sense which did not allow America to become normal and has not allowed her to become normal ever since. The primitive sense of taking revenge and the more primitive sense of existential fear had overpowered the average American so much that he remains stuck to his viewpoint about a cruel World coming to destroy his beloved America.
America was always considered a land of abundant opportunities for the worthy to take; it was the land where you can think about taking your chances in life that you want to take. America believed about opening herself to the World. Now what has happened ever since that fateful day? America did not allow its ports to be operated by Dubai Port City because it feared that terrorists might snick in; America closed its doors to the people of Gaza when they elected Hamas in a democratic election in 2006; President Bush is alleged to have even threatened to bomb the Al-Jazeera offices because he was not happy with the news.
In short, 9/11 was a day that made America stop being America. It was the day that de-Americanized America.
At the time of 9/11, I was just another 19-year old just about to start my life in college; but that particular ad had remained fixated in my memory and as I start to write this just two hours before the 10-th anniversary on 9/11 would commence, the message of that ad still remains fresh in my mind.
Leaders of America had the support of the whole world behind them after 9/11, so much shocked and horrified the World was at those attacks that even the Islamic republic of Iran , the avowed enemy of America ; had offered them cooperation and a permanent end to hostilities in exchange of equal treatment.
What was the reaction of President Bush? Instead of accepting the gratitude of the World, he acted with a mindset to remake the World. He declared Iran as part of an “axis of evil” and followed up with sanctions and covert operations for “regime change”. America would remake the World into her own democratic image, he thundered to the World in his now famous 2002 “axis of evil” address. Maybe it was the outburst of that quintessential American attitude called “American exceptionalism” which always considers itself as part of a divine mission to outdo all wrongs in the World as well as converting the whole World into America’s image.
But what about the American people? What about the average American? Why did he not come to the same understanding the rest of the World had about some of the policies that his leaders were taking on his name? 9/11 not only changed America but it also changed the average American. The average American went into a retreat into a make believe world where he restricts his education about the world to the posts in social networking sites and demagogic websites. In the end, the average American did not bother much when Iraq was invaded on false pretexts, when those obscenities from Abu Gharib shocked the World, when those who caused the global economic recession in 2008 went home with their compensations intact. In the end, in the land of consumerism and individualism, the average American converted himself from a citizen into a consumer and individual. And the reason why it happened? It was the same old reason as shown in that ad after 9/11, it was the sense of hatred; it was the sense of fear; it was the sense of “being wronged” ; it was this sense which did not allow America to become normal and has not allowed her to become normal ever since. The primitive sense of taking revenge and the more primitive sense of existential fear had overpowered the average American so much that he remains stuck to his viewpoint about a cruel World coming to destroy his beloved America.
America was always considered a land of abundant opportunities for the worthy to take; it was the land where you can think about taking your chances in life that you want to take. America believed about opening herself to the World. Now what has happened ever since that fateful day? America did not allow its ports to be operated by Dubai Port City because it feared that terrorists might snick in; America closed its doors to the people of Gaza when they elected Hamas in a democratic election in 2006; President Bush is alleged to have even threatened to bomb the Al-Jazeera offices because he was not happy with the news.
In short, 9/11 was a day that made America stop being America. It was the day that de-Americanized America.
A changed World-middle east a decade after 9-11-Part-2
Introduction
A decade has passed since the twin towers were brought down by one of the most gruesome and deadliest terrorist attacks in living memory. The World that was in presence on 9/10 is no more and the past decade has seen it change in ways that
could have not been imaginable even a decade prior to it. Let us look at how the
changes affected the region of West Asia which has got most attention than any
other part of the World in the last decade following 9/11. In my previous writing,
I discussed the changes that has taken place in the West Asian region in the decade
gone by. Now in this article I would like to discuss some possible scenarios that could emerge into the coming decade ahead.
The Return of the Turks
The most significant event of the decade gone by has probably been the reemergence of Turkey as an independent player in the region. Since the founding of the Turkish republic and throughout the cold war, Turkey has been largely content to follow the roles and responsibilities that it was asked to play by its Western patrons. The ruling elite of Turkey which consisted largely of the Turkish Westernized military hierarchy as well as the Western-educated sections of Turkish intelligentsia , all favored this position whereby Turkey had largely restricted and relegated itself to a small regional player.
With the election of the Justice and Development party in Turkey in 2002, things have changed significantly. This new Turkish government decided to take an independent position vis a vis the West Asian and North African region. By taking this new direction Turkey is expected to play a broader and much prominent role in the region and beyond, something that has not been seen for a long time.
At present Turkey and Israel are logged in a conflagration over the Israeli blockade over Gaza. This also has to be seen in a broader angle whereby Turkey is looking to become an important player in the Eastern Mediterranean region. The Eastern Mediterranean is said to be enriched with natural gas and other vital mineral resources. At present Greek Cypriots and Israel are said to be in collaboration for exploration of these natural gas fields. As the patron of Turkish Cypriots, Turkey is expected to become involved in the matter. If Turkey wants to play its erstwhile historical role of maintaining order and stability in the Eastern Mediterranean region, then surely it has to confront the existing interests in the region. At present, Israel with its naval blockade over Gaza, does not allow any other player to establish itself in the regime. So one can only expect the conflagration between Turkey and Israel to continue in the coming decade over the issue of maintaining stability and order in the Mediterranean region.
The Turkish-Israeli conflagration has another wider angle. Since the Turks are looking to project themselves as a new power in the region, Turks would love to be seen in the region as the strong and just Muslim warrior fighting a just cause against the unjust Israel. So this is a significantly new angle to the equation of the wider region.
The recent “Arab Spring” has given the Turks a great opportunity to strengthen its ties with the people in the region. The Turks, who have got religious and cultural as well as historical ties with the region, would welcome the opportunity to connect with new set-ups in the region whereby popular participation is given more importance. The Justice and development Party considers itself as a movement challenging existing status quo in their own country whereby it took on the power of Turkish military and socialist elite and won. Understandably it wants to see the Arabs also do the same in their own countries. Despite some initial mistakes, Turkey has been steadfastly supporting the popular movements in the Arab countries with the hope that they will overthrow the ailing, archaic regimes in these countries and a new partnership would emerge between Turks and the people of the region, leading them to a new order, much more peaceful and prosperous in nature.
The main players emerge in the new great Game
As of today there are four major players in the region. They are Turkey, Iran, Israel and Saudi Arabia. Out of all the four major powers Israel and Saudi Arabia can be at best described as status-quo powers since the basic intention of these two powers is to preserve the existing order. For Israel , the preservation of the status quo is in terms of maintaining its hold over the territories it has occupied since the six-day war in the occupied West Bank and in the Golan Heights and for Saudi Arabian ruling elite nothing is much important than the continuation of the ruling of the House of Saud in the Hejaj region.
Turkey and Iran are the players who want to change the existing status quo in the region but the two do not have a singular approach in solving the problems due to their different historical experiences. The reactions of both the two countries towards the recent popular movements in the region are also variable. The two countries have differed significantly over the issue of popular uprising in Syria. Elsewhere both countries are more or less on the same wavelength when it comes to establishment of new and more democratic regimes in Egypt, Tunisia or elsewhere in the region.
It is almost a foregone conclusion that following the toppling of autocratic regimes in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia, there will be popular movements demanding a greater say in political as well as socio-economic participation in the gulf region. The Bahrain regime recently crushed another popular movement in its territory. The fact that the gulf regimes are mindful of popular discontent in their territories is evident from two examples, the Saudi leadership announcing more grants to its religious allies in the Kingdom and the Emirati and other Gulf establishments investing a lot on “hired guns” i.e. private security companies like Blackwater (now known as Xe) since they are no longer able to trust their own troops.
Both Turkey and Iran are expected to encourage and support popular movements demanding greater political participation in these gulf kingdoms in the coming decade. This is one of their significant ways to change the status quo in the region. However, there may be some competition between the two over influencing these nascent popular movements in the gulf region.
Role of the West
So far the role of the Western states towards the “Arab spring” has been mixed bag to say the least. They were taken aback when their allies in Egypt and Tunisia were toppled but they came back quickly with their support for the Libyan opposition. However I do not expect these Western states to support any popular movement in the Gulf States which may harm the status quo.
The West and the US in particular has a lot to lose in terms of influence in the post Arab Spring-West Asia. Historically, the American support of Israel has been the biggest impediment for improving the American image in the Arab world. If the USA goes on to stop the Palestinians to form their own state then there will be strong opposition from the newly democratic and free Arab countries. There is a strong possibility that if the USA does not encourage its allies in Gulf to significantly help popular participation in their affairs, there is a strong possibility that the popular hostility towards the US will continue to grow in the coming decade.
Turkey is in the best position to reap rewards from the Arab spring. As an emerging Muslim democracy with strong economic credentials as well as closer historical and spiritual ties to the region, Turkey seems to be in the best position to be recognized as a model by the newly emerging set-ups in the region. Iran would also be in a much more strengthened position since the Arab spring would also enable Iran to influence the new set-ups in the Arab world. This is clearly evident with the willingness on the part of the new governing council in Egypt to establish ties with Iran.
For historical and geo-political reasons it is quite likely that the West in general and the Americans in particular would side with the status-quo powers of Israel and Saudi Arabia to preserve their existing interests in the region. That would increasingly ensure a conflict of interest between the West and Turkey as well as the ongoing hostility between Iran and the West.
Conclusion
The end of the decade in the West Asia has seen new possibilities and new changes some of which have been hitherto unthinkable. The constant conflict between the status-quo powers and their challengers will probably be the most significant feature of the new West Asia. However no one can deny the possibility of any unthinkable event from an unexpected quarter threatening to unhinge the whole balance of the region.
A decade has passed since the twin towers were brought down by one of the most gruesome and deadliest terrorist attacks in living memory. The World that was in presence on 9/10 is no more and the past decade has seen it change in ways that
could have not been imaginable even a decade prior to it. Let us look at how the
changes affected the region of West Asia which has got most attention than any
other part of the World in the last decade following 9/11. In my previous writing,
I discussed the changes that has taken place in the West Asian region in the decade
gone by. Now in this article I would like to discuss some possible scenarios that could emerge into the coming decade ahead.
The Return of the Turks
The most significant event of the decade gone by has probably been the reemergence of Turkey as an independent player in the region. Since the founding of the Turkish republic and throughout the cold war, Turkey has been largely content to follow the roles and responsibilities that it was asked to play by its Western patrons. The ruling elite of Turkey which consisted largely of the Turkish Westernized military hierarchy as well as the Western-educated sections of Turkish intelligentsia , all favored this position whereby Turkey had largely restricted and relegated itself to a small regional player.
With the election of the Justice and Development party in Turkey in 2002, things have changed significantly. This new Turkish government decided to take an independent position vis a vis the West Asian and North African region. By taking this new direction Turkey is expected to play a broader and much prominent role in the region and beyond, something that has not been seen for a long time.
At present Turkey and Israel are logged in a conflagration over the Israeli blockade over Gaza. This also has to be seen in a broader angle whereby Turkey is looking to become an important player in the Eastern Mediterranean region. The Eastern Mediterranean is said to be enriched with natural gas and other vital mineral resources. At present Greek Cypriots and Israel are said to be in collaboration for exploration of these natural gas fields. As the patron of Turkish Cypriots, Turkey is expected to become involved in the matter. If Turkey wants to play its erstwhile historical role of maintaining order and stability in the Eastern Mediterranean region, then surely it has to confront the existing interests in the region. At present, Israel with its naval blockade over Gaza, does not allow any other player to establish itself in the regime. So one can only expect the conflagration between Turkey and Israel to continue in the coming decade over the issue of maintaining stability and order in the Mediterranean region.
The Turkish-Israeli conflagration has another wider angle. Since the Turks are looking to project themselves as a new power in the region, Turks would love to be seen in the region as the strong and just Muslim warrior fighting a just cause against the unjust Israel. So this is a significantly new angle to the equation of the wider region.
The recent “Arab Spring” has given the Turks a great opportunity to strengthen its ties with the people in the region. The Turks, who have got religious and cultural as well as historical ties with the region, would welcome the opportunity to connect with new set-ups in the region whereby popular participation is given more importance. The Justice and development Party considers itself as a movement challenging existing status quo in their own country whereby it took on the power of Turkish military and socialist elite and won. Understandably it wants to see the Arabs also do the same in their own countries. Despite some initial mistakes, Turkey has been steadfastly supporting the popular movements in the Arab countries with the hope that they will overthrow the ailing, archaic regimes in these countries and a new partnership would emerge between Turks and the people of the region, leading them to a new order, much more peaceful and prosperous in nature.
The main players emerge in the new great Game
As of today there are four major players in the region. They are Turkey, Iran, Israel and Saudi Arabia. Out of all the four major powers Israel and Saudi Arabia can be at best described as status-quo powers since the basic intention of these two powers is to preserve the existing order. For Israel , the preservation of the status quo is in terms of maintaining its hold over the territories it has occupied since the six-day war in the occupied West Bank and in the Golan Heights and for Saudi Arabian ruling elite nothing is much important than the continuation of the ruling of the House of Saud in the Hejaj region.
Turkey and Iran are the players who want to change the existing status quo in the region but the two do not have a singular approach in solving the problems due to their different historical experiences. The reactions of both the two countries towards the recent popular movements in the region are also variable. The two countries have differed significantly over the issue of popular uprising in Syria. Elsewhere both countries are more or less on the same wavelength when it comes to establishment of new and more democratic regimes in Egypt, Tunisia or elsewhere in the region.
It is almost a foregone conclusion that following the toppling of autocratic regimes in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia, there will be popular movements demanding a greater say in political as well as socio-economic participation in the gulf region. The Bahrain regime recently crushed another popular movement in its territory. The fact that the gulf regimes are mindful of popular discontent in their territories is evident from two examples, the Saudi leadership announcing more grants to its religious allies in the Kingdom and the Emirati and other Gulf establishments investing a lot on “hired guns” i.e. private security companies like Blackwater (now known as Xe) since they are no longer able to trust their own troops.
Both Turkey and Iran are expected to encourage and support popular movements demanding greater political participation in these gulf kingdoms in the coming decade. This is one of their significant ways to change the status quo in the region. However, there may be some competition between the two over influencing these nascent popular movements in the gulf region.
Role of the West
So far the role of the Western states towards the “Arab spring” has been mixed bag to say the least. They were taken aback when their allies in Egypt and Tunisia were toppled but they came back quickly with their support for the Libyan opposition. However I do not expect these Western states to support any popular movement in the Gulf States which may harm the status quo.
The West and the US in particular has a lot to lose in terms of influence in the post Arab Spring-West Asia. Historically, the American support of Israel has been the biggest impediment for improving the American image in the Arab world. If the USA goes on to stop the Palestinians to form their own state then there will be strong opposition from the newly democratic and free Arab countries. There is a strong possibility that if the USA does not encourage its allies in Gulf to significantly help popular participation in their affairs, there is a strong possibility that the popular hostility towards the US will continue to grow in the coming decade.
Turkey is in the best position to reap rewards from the Arab spring. As an emerging Muslim democracy with strong economic credentials as well as closer historical and spiritual ties to the region, Turkey seems to be in the best position to be recognized as a model by the newly emerging set-ups in the region. Iran would also be in a much more strengthened position since the Arab spring would also enable Iran to influence the new set-ups in the Arab world. This is clearly evident with the willingness on the part of the new governing council in Egypt to establish ties with Iran.
For historical and geo-political reasons it is quite likely that the West in general and the Americans in particular would side with the status-quo powers of Israel and Saudi Arabia to preserve their existing interests in the region. That would increasingly ensure a conflict of interest between the West and Turkey as well as the ongoing hostility between Iran and the West.
Conclusion
The end of the decade in the West Asia has seen new possibilities and new changes some of which have been hitherto unthinkable. The constant conflict between the status-quo powers and their challengers will probably be the most significant feature of the new West Asia. However no one can deny the possibility of any unthinkable event from an unexpected quarter threatening to unhinge the whole balance of the region.
A changed World-middle east a decade after 9-11-Part-1
Introduction
A decade has passed since the twin towers were brought down by one of the most gruesome and deadliest terrorist attacks in living memory. The World that was in presence on 9/10 is no more and the past decade has seen it change in ways that
could have not been imaginable even a decade prior to it. Let us look at how the
changes affected the region of West Asia which has got most attention than any
other part of the World in the last decade following 9/11.
The shattered status Quo
The World before 9/11
Prior to 9/11, the American policy in the region can be summarized in the following terms:
1. The oil-producing countries in the region should continue to sell fossil fuels to the West at a fairly acceptable market price.
2. They should not do anything that makes Israelis feel endangered.
3. None of them should do anything rash like setting up of a nuclear-industry that may endanger this status quo.
The countries in the region generally adhered to these terms and conditions as dictated by the superpower of the day. Most of the countries like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Bahrain were happy to host American troops on their soil. Countries like Egypt and Jordan had extensive peace treaties with Israel and they in general followed those peace treaties consistently. Even the regime of Saddam Hussain which wanted to create its new rules and regulations in the region , was contained through sanctions and no-fly zones.There were countries like Iran and Syria who opposed these terms and conditions but in the end they did nothing which can be categorized as substantial for changing the status quo in the region. Even these countries such as Iran and Syria restricted their opposition towards these western terms and conditions by employing only small baby steps such as deploying fierce rhetoric at the United Nations or providing support to the groups like Hezbollah and Hamas who have been resisting against Israeli policies in Lebanon or in the occupied Palestinian territories. Even this provision of support towards Hezbollah or Hamas by Iran and Syria can in no way be considered as threatening the very existence of Israel let alone challenging the status quo of American power in the region. The example of Saddam had taught the independent-minded regimes of the region to restrict their opposition towards the American-imposed order only in superficial terms.
The World since 9/11
The changed popular perception about America: Before 9/11, the “American dream” was the most popular imagination in large parts of the West Asian populations including in countries like Iran. How popular America was in Iran can be gauged by the fact that after 9/11, it was the Iranian commoners who performed candle light vigils for the victims of 9/11 and even the Iranian government which has called America “the great Satan” offered a strategic peace deal to the Bush administration which included normalization of all relations and cooperation with the United States in Afghanistan in exchange for acceptance of the Islamic system in Iran. The American concept of Individualism that supports the right of the individual to live his life according to his own wishes and free from the dictates of the powerful state was something that was cherished by a population long suffering from archaic authoritarian rule and looking for opportunities for improving their lives. Although many conservative groups in the region detested the promiscuous lifestyles of some of the American popular cultural icons but the Average man on the street certainly did not consider America as “the great Satan” as some of the regional leaders claimed it to be.
One of the major objectives of the perpetrators of 9/11 was to ensure that America is perceived by the people in the region as the greatest existential enemy fighting against the Muslims since the days of Abu Jehl , the Crusaders and the Mongol hordes of Halagu Khan. They had calculated on a harsh and disproportional response from America in the aftermath of 9/11. President Bush obliged them by first spurring the Iranian offer of strategic détente when he called Iran as part of an “axis of evil” in his state of the Union address in 2002 and then in 2003 when he decided to Invade Iraq on the premise of Weapons of mass destructions. As more and more examples of the harsh and panicked American response (often bordering on brutality) to 9/11 came into the public fore, like the depraved activities in Guantanamo bay and in the Abu Gharib prison as well as the increasingly large number of civilian casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hands of the American troops, the genuine public support that America had enjoyed in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 seemed to dissipate fast.
The increasingly hostile attitude that the Muslim communities and individuals faced in many parts of the Western world after the 9/11 events had also made a deep impact in the psyches of the people in the wider Western Asian region. The frequent and humiliating security checks at the airports, the extraordinary renditions of people and the torturous scenes from the prisons like Bagram, Guantanamo bay and Abu Gharib all have made permanent impact upon the psyches of the Muslims living in the West and elsewhere. The vicious propaganda and derogatory commentary coming from some Western intellectuals targeting Muslims also have seriously impacted in the formation of the Muslim mindset towards America and the West in general.
The persistent support that the successive administrations have provided towards Israel over the last decade even towards acts like the economic blockade of the Gazastrip, expansion of unilateral settlements in the West Bank, the operation Cast Lead and the most recent incident of Israeli killing of the Turkish peace activists in the Mavi Marmara vessel, also has created a perception of an America which is blind towards Israeli actions because of its “special relationship” with Israel.
As a result, American model and “American dream” have lost most of its hollowed ground in the minds of the people in West Asian region. A measure of this phenomenon is the surprisingly low support America has among the people of Turkey, one of the strongest pillars of American support in the region. America did not help the matters when it paraded a group of blindfolded Turkish soldiers in front of the Television cameras immediately after the Iraq invasion in 2003. It also did not help when the American leadership sat silent when Israeli soldiers gunned down Hakan Dogan , a 18-year old American citizen of Turkish descent onboard Mavi Marmara.
A new beginning for Turkey:
The decade saw the emergence of a new beginning in Turkish foreign policy. Hitherto Turkey was content to play the role of the contractor
of Western policies in the region. But since the rise of the ruling Justice and Development Party from 2002, the Turkish policies have been set on a new course which wants to see the region from its own viewpoint and not from the eyes of its Western patrons. This apparently independent-looking Turkish policy, pioneered by Ahmet Dovutoglu, the foreign minister of Turkey, has been referred to as “Zero problem with the neighbors”. As a part of its independent foreign policy, Turkey has decided to expand and nurture more extensive political and economic ties to all of its neighbors including Iran and Syria, raising quite a lot of concerned-looking eyebrows in the Western capitals.
The aspect of Turkish foreign policy which has raised most concern in the Western World is the increasingly confrontational attitude Turkey has projected towards Israel, its erstwhile strong alley in the region. The Turkish spat with Israel started when the prime minister of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdogan walked out from the Davos forum in 2009 in protest of Israel’s operation cast lead on Gaza which has lead to a lot of civilian deaths in Gaza. The difference of opinion between Israel and Turkey turned to open hostility when an Israeli raid upon the Turkish vessel Mavi Marmara killed a number of Turkish peace activists including an 18-year old American from Turkish origin. Recently after the UN Palmer commission report on the incident, Turkey has decided to suspend all of its defense ties with Israel and has recalled its ambassador from Tel Aviv.
The influence of Iran grows:
The US-invasion of Iraq removed the biggest thorn on the side of the Islamic republic, the regime of Saddam Hussain. The US also had removed another regional rival of Iran, Taliban from power in Afghanistan, only a year and half ago. Although there have been lots of speculations among pundits about the exact set of reasons behind President Bush’s decision to invade Iraq but surely allowing the Islamic republic to play a major role in the post-war political efforts in that country was not one of them. But this has been exactly the outcome of the US-led invasion in the country. Following both the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, parties with strong ties to Iran have come to power in Iran.
The rise of Hezbollah in Lebanon following the 2006 Israeli war in Lebanon and the victory of Hamas in Palestinian elections as late as in 2009 also has enabled Iran to influence events very close to the borders of its arch-foe, Israel.
The recent toppling of the secular regimes in Egypt and Libya would also enable Iran to build relations with the nascent popular movements in these countries. The Islamic republic has long sought to portray the secular pro-Western regimes in these countries as obstacles hindering an unified regional effort against Israel , so naturally it is no surprise that Iran is trying to foster stronger links with these post-Arab Spring set ups in the regions. The recent opening of the Suez Canal by the Egyptian authorities to allow two Iranian navy ships to pass through the passage is an indication of this changed approach.
The seculars fall, the religious rise up:
The popular spontaneous movements that swept the Arab world for demanding change have seen secular governments being toppled in Tunisia, Egypt and in Libya. With the fall of these regimes, one can see the rise of religious-leaning groups like Al-Nahda in Tunisia and Muslim brotherhood in Egypt coming into prominence. The fall of the secular regimes have seen widespread chaos and uncertainty in the region; the religious parties can hope for more support from the masses in near future since they are the only ones with a strong organizational base as well as a consistent and coherent message and policy to solve the many problems that the people of the region suffer from. So clearly, the coming decade could see the religious parties rise in influence in most of these post-secular countries in the region.
A decade has passed since the twin towers were brought down by one of the most gruesome and deadliest terrorist attacks in living memory. The World that was in presence on 9/10 is no more and the past decade has seen it change in ways that
could have not been imaginable even a decade prior to it. Let us look at how the
changes affected the region of West Asia which has got most attention than any
other part of the World in the last decade following 9/11.
The shattered status Quo
The World before 9/11
Prior to 9/11, the American policy in the region can be summarized in the following terms:
1. The oil-producing countries in the region should continue to sell fossil fuels to the West at a fairly acceptable market price.
2. They should not do anything that makes Israelis feel endangered.
3. None of them should do anything rash like setting up of a nuclear-industry that may endanger this status quo.
The countries in the region generally adhered to these terms and conditions as dictated by the superpower of the day. Most of the countries like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Bahrain were happy to host American troops on their soil. Countries like Egypt and Jordan had extensive peace treaties with Israel and they in general followed those peace treaties consistently. Even the regime of Saddam Hussain which wanted to create its new rules and regulations in the region , was contained through sanctions and no-fly zones.There were countries like Iran and Syria who opposed these terms and conditions but in the end they did nothing which can be categorized as substantial for changing the status quo in the region. Even these countries such as Iran and Syria restricted their opposition towards these western terms and conditions by employing only small baby steps such as deploying fierce rhetoric at the United Nations or providing support to the groups like Hezbollah and Hamas who have been resisting against Israeli policies in Lebanon or in the occupied Palestinian territories. Even this provision of support towards Hezbollah or Hamas by Iran and Syria can in no way be considered as threatening the very existence of Israel let alone challenging the status quo of American power in the region. The example of Saddam had taught the independent-minded regimes of the region to restrict their opposition towards the American-imposed order only in superficial terms.
The World since 9/11
The changed popular perception about America: Before 9/11, the “American dream” was the most popular imagination in large parts of the West Asian populations including in countries like Iran. How popular America was in Iran can be gauged by the fact that after 9/11, it was the Iranian commoners who performed candle light vigils for the victims of 9/11 and even the Iranian government which has called America “the great Satan” offered a strategic peace deal to the Bush administration which included normalization of all relations and cooperation with the United States in Afghanistan in exchange for acceptance of the Islamic system in Iran. The American concept of Individualism that supports the right of the individual to live his life according to his own wishes and free from the dictates of the powerful state was something that was cherished by a population long suffering from archaic authoritarian rule and looking for opportunities for improving their lives. Although many conservative groups in the region detested the promiscuous lifestyles of some of the American popular cultural icons but the Average man on the street certainly did not consider America as “the great Satan” as some of the regional leaders claimed it to be.
One of the major objectives of the perpetrators of 9/11 was to ensure that America is perceived by the people in the region as the greatest existential enemy fighting against the Muslims since the days of Abu Jehl , the Crusaders and the Mongol hordes of Halagu Khan. They had calculated on a harsh and disproportional response from America in the aftermath of 9/11. President Bush obliged them by first spurring the Iranian offer of strategic détente when he called Iran as part of an “axis of evil” in his state of the Union address in 2002 and then in 2003 when he decided to Invade Iraq on the premise of Weapons of mass destructions. As more and more examples of the harsh and panicked American response (often bordering on brutality) to 9/11 came into the public fore, like the depraved activities in Guantanamo bay and in the Abu Gharib prison as well as the increasingly large number of civilian casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hands of the American troops, the genuine public support that America had enjoyed in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 seemed to dissipate fast.
The increasingly hostile attitude that the Muslim communities and individuals faced in many parts of the Western world after the 9/11 events had also made a deep impact in the psyches of the people in the wider Western Asian region. The frequent and humiliating security checks at the airports, the extraordinary renditions of people and the torturous scenes from the prisons like Bagram, Guantanamo bay and Abu Gharib all have made permanent impact upon the psyches of the Muslims living in the West and elsewhere. The vicious propaganda and derogatory commentary coming from some Western intellectuals targeting Muslims also have seriously impacted in the formation of the Muslim mindset towards America and the West in general.
The persistent support that the successive administrations have provided towards Israel over the last decade even towards acts like the economic blockade of the Gazastrip, expansion of unilateral settlements in the West Bank, the operation Cast Lead and the most recent incident of Israeli killing of the Turkish peace activists in the Mavi Marmara vessel, also has created a perception of an America which is blind towards Israeli actions because of its “special relationship” with Israel.
As a result, American model and “American dream” have lost most of its hollowed ground in the minds of the people in West Asian region. A measure of this phenomenon is the surprisingly low support America has among the people of Turkey, one of the strongest pillars of American support in the region. America did not help the matters when it paraded a group of blindfolded Turkish soldiers in front of the Television cameras immediately after the Iraq invasion in 2003. It also did not help when the American leadership sat silent when Israeli soldiers gunned down Hakan Dogan , a 18-year old American citizen of Turkish descent onboard Mavi Marmara.
A new beginning for Turkey:
The decade saw the emergence of a new beginning in Turkish foreign policy. Hitherto Turkey was content to play the role of the contractor
of Western policies in the region. But since the rise of the ruling Justice and Development Party from 2002, the Turkish policies have been set on a new course which wants to see the region from its own viewpoint and not from the eyes of its Western patrons. This apparently independent-looking Turkish policy, pioneered by Ahmet Dovutoglu, the foreign minister of Turkey, has been referred to as “Zero problem with the neighbors”. As a part of its independent foreign policy, Turkey has decided to expand and nurture more extensive political and economic ties to all of its neighbors including Iran and Syria, raising quite a lot of concerned-looking eyebrows in the Western capitals.
The aspect of Turkish foreign policy which has raised most concern in the Western World is the increasingly confrontational attitude Turkey has projected towards Israel, its erstwhile strong alley in the region. The Turkish spat with Israel started when the prime minister of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdogan walked out from the Davos forum in 2009 in protest of Israel’s operation cast lead on Gaza which has lead to a lot of civilian deaths in Gaza. The difference of opinion between Israel and Turkey turned to open hostility when an Israeli raid upon the Turkish vessel Mavi Marmara killed a number of Turkish peace activists including an 18-year old American from Turkish origin. Recently after the UN Palmer commission report on the incident, Turkey has decided to suspend all of its defense ties with Israel and has recalled its ambassador from Tel Aviv.
The influence of Iran grows:
The US-invasion of Iraq removed the biggest thorn on the side of the Islamic republic, the regime of Saddam Hussain. The US also had removed another regional rival of Iran, Taliban from power in Afghanistan, only a year and half ago. Although there have been lots of speculations among pundits about the exact set of reasons behind President Bush’s decision to invade Iraq but surely allowing the Islamic republic to play a major role in the post-war political efforts in that country was not one of them. But this has been exactly the outcome of the US-led invasion in the country. Following both the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, parties with strong ties to Iran have come to power in Iran.
The rise of Hezbollah in Lebanon following the 2006 Israeli war in Lebanon and the victory of Hamas in Palestinian elections as late as in 2009 also has enabled Iran to influence events very close to the borders of its arch-foe, Israel.
The recent toppling of the secular regimes in Egypt and Libya would also enable Iran to build relations with the nascent popular movements in these countries. The Islamic republic has long sought to portray the secular pro-Western regimes in these countries as obstacles hindering an unified regional effort against Israel , so naturally it is no surprise that Iran is trying to foster stronger links with these post-Arab Spring set ups in the regions. The recent opening of the Suez Canal by the Egyptian authorities to allow two Iranian navy ships to pass through the passage is an indication of this changed approach.
The seculars fall, the religious rise up:
The popular spontaneous movements that swept the Arab world for demanding change have seen secular governments being toppled in Tunisia, Egypt and in Libya. With the fall of these regimes, one can see the rise of religious-leaning groups like Al-Nahda in Tunisia and Muslim brotherhood in Egypt coming into prominence. The fall of the secular regimes have seen widespread chaos and uncertainty in the region; the religious parties can hope for more support from the masses in near future since they are the only ones with a strong organizational base as well as a consistent and coherent message and policy to solve the many problems that the people of the region suffer from. So clearly, the coming decade could see the religious parties rise in influence in most of these post-secular countries in the region.
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
The rejection
The impact of small, obscure events in History sometimes leave a lot of impact with them that very few among us can either understand at the time or long afterwards. Sometimes even very small and seemingly without any particular significance can have big impacts upon the turn of events in history.
Sometimes even a very small and trivial thing like say a failed meeting can affect the history in a big way.
The scene is in the small desert town of Yaathrib in Arabia around 640 AD. There is a meeting going on in one of the small houses in the town. A middle-aged Arab was meeting with some of the residents of the town.
The man’s voice was measured and confident. He never spoke a word in hurry but always spoke softly and with a tone that others found the man to be deeply convinced about his views. His eyes radiated with energy and a sense of calmness that some people in the area thought reflected the way Prophets would look. He never hurried in his tone or in his gesture while presenting his viewpoint but always found enough time to organize his words in way that others did not need to think too much to understand his viewpoint. Indeed he was a man whom everybody in the town looked for guidance when in trouble and he knew how to shoulder that responsibility.
Talking with the man was a group of bearded , elderly men who looked confused and sometimes bitterly disappointed. Some of them hushed among themselves “oh by the name of Abraham, how can a man from the tribe of Ishmael talk about the same way the prophets did“. Some of the eyes of the men rolled around in disbelief “how could this man speak truth the same way our holy books say the Prophets spoke truth in their times”.
The man in question looked on at his bearded counterparts and he continued to assert his case. He was introducing himself as the last messenger of God and was constantly asking the rest of the men in room to accept him as such. But most importantly his voice was sure and confident when he talked about his grand plan. He wanted to create a unified community of those who worship the God of Abraham in the city and then propagate the same idea all over the World. He wanted the rest of the men in the room to accept his plan and help him implementing it. His eyes were beaming with great expectations and hope as he spoke.
The other men in the room started to look increasingly concerned. Some of them started to open their holy books and scurry through chapters, it seemed that they were not confident enough with what they themselves were thinking and just needed the holy book to support their views amidst their confusion.
The man increasingly understood the combative nature of the debate. His eyes which were shining brightly with hope of a genius who has just performed his masterpiece, now suddenly began to become sober with sudden realization that his ideas might not have appealed to his audience the way he would have believed in the beginning. Suddenly one of the bearded men looked at the man and said with a voice which seemed to have been coming from a long way away, “By the name of the God of Abraham, we know you are the prophet, by the God of Abraham, we also know we are not going to acknowledge your prophet hood because if we accept today that prophet hood can be bestowed upon a man from the children of Ishmael , then we will lose the status of being the only chosen people of the God of Abraham”. The man after hearing all these words, looked at those who had rejected him, his demeanor did not change, the colors and lines in his face did not darken and the glow that was radiating from his face continued to shine as he spoke with the same confident and unrushed voice which this time had also added a touch of sobriety to itself. The man said “I know I have been bestowed Prophethood by the God of Abraham, it is now my duty to spread his message throughout the World, even if you reject me today.”
“I know I am the last of the messengers that the God of Abraham has sent to the World. The angels of the very same God have told me so. And they also told me that you will never accept the truth. But irrespective of what you people say, I will continue to spread the message that has been bestowed upon me by the God of Abraham till eternity and no one can stop me from doing that.” He left the room as he finished his words.
So this was the story of the most significant rejection of History. This was the story that could probably have changed the World had the turn of events have resulted in an acceptance and not rejection. But ultimately it was the rejection and prejudice that won the day. The consequences that started from that rejection is there for all of us to see even after all these centuries have passed since that rejection took place.
Sometimes even a very small and trivial thing like say a failed meeting can affect the history in a big way.
The scene is in the small desert town of Yaathrib in Arabia around 640 AD. There is a meeting going on in one of the small houses in the town. A middle-aged Arab was meeting with some of the residents of the town.
The man’s voice was measured and confident. He never spoke a word in hurry but always spoke softly and with a tone that others found the man to be deeply convinced about his views. His eyes radiated with energy and a sense of calmness that some people in the area thought reflected the way Prophets would look. He never hurried in his tone or in his gesture while presenting his viewpoint but always found enough time to organize his words in way that others did not need to think too much to understand his viewpoint. Indeed he was a man whom everybody in the town looked for guidance when in trouble and he knew how to shoulder that responsibility.
Talking with the man was a group of bearded , elderly men who looked confused and sometimes bitterly disappointed. Some of them hushed among themselves “oh by the name of Abraham, how can a man from the tribe of Ishmael talk about the same way the prophets did“. Some of the eyes of the men rolled around in disbelief “how could this man speak truth the same way our holy books say the Prophets spoke truth in their times”.
The man in question looked on at his bearded counterparts and he continued to assert his case. He was introducing himself as the last messenger of God and was constantly asking the rest of the men in room to accept him as such. But most importantly his voice was sure and confident when he talked about his grand plan. He wanted to create a unified community of those who worship the God of Abraham in the city and then propagate the same idea all over the World. He wanted the rest of the men in the room to accept his plan and help him implementing it. His eyes were beaming with great expectations and hope as he spoke.
The other men in the room started to look increasingly concerned. Some of them started to open their holy books and scurry through chapters, it seemed that they were not confident enough with what they themselves were thinking and just needed the holy book to support their views amidst their confusion.
The man increasingly understood the combative nature of the debate. His eyes which were shining brightly with hope of a genius who has just performed his masterpiece, now suddenly began to become sober with sudden realization that his ideas might not have appealed to his audience the way he would have believed in the beginning. Suddenly one of the bearded men looked at the man and said with a voice which seemed to have been coming from a long way away, “By the name of the God of Abraham, we know you are the prophet, by the God of Abraham, we also know we are not going to acknowledge your prophet hood because if we accept today that prophet hood can be bestowed upon a man from the children of Ishmael , then we will lose the status of being the only chosen people of the God of Abraham”. The man after hearing all these words, looked at those who had rejected him, his demeanor did not change, the colors and lines in his face did not darken and the glow that was radiating from his face continued to shine as he spoke with the same confident and unrushed voice which this time had also added a touch of sobriety to itself. The man said “I know I have been bestowed Prophethood by the God of Abraham, it is now my duty to spread his message throughout the World, even if you reject me today.”
“I know I am the last of the messengers that the God of Abraham has sent to the World. The angels of the very same God have told me so. And they also told me that you will never accept the truth. But irrespective of what you people say, I will continue to spread the message that has been bestowed upon me by the God of Abraham till eternity and no one can stop me from doing that.” He left the room as he finished his words.
So this was the story of the most significant rejection of History. This was the story that could probably have changed the World had the turn of events have resulted in an acceptance and not rejection. But ultimately it was the rejection and prejudice that won the day. The consequences that started from that rejection is there for all of us to see even after all these centuries have passed since that rejection took place.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)