The new Arab nations are finding it too difficult to live up to their artificial identities founded on European precepts. But their animosity built around the Shia-Sunni schism must see some reasonable end. Else one after another versions of ISIS would continue their adventures over the millions of ordinary people of the region
The Sykes-Picot Agreement, which led to the foundation of the modern Arab States, completed a century last month. This historic agreement was concluded secretly even before the conclusion of the First World War for divvying up the region. How the Ottoman Empire was summarily dismantled by the lesser known European statesmen without realising the potential sources of future conflicts could be easily gauged from this conversation: “Tell me what you want”, France’s George Clemenceau said to Britain’s David lloyd George as he strolled in the French embassy in london. “I want Mosul”, the British Prime Minister replied.
“You shall have it. Anything elseIJ” Clemenceau asked. This was the state of mind of the colonial masters and they did what they wanted with the occupied territories without realising the future impact on its very people and the lands. Though the Ottoman Empire was a multilingual, multi-religious one, the Europeans, while reconstructing it, brought the new States on the lines of their own. But the new Arab States neither could grow beyond the clutches of the monarchs nor from the iron-fisted rules of the autocrats who are often supported by one or the other sect of Islam.
Many would feel that the simmering crisis in the region is less a clash of civilisations than a clash within a civilisation. Increasingly, the Arabs are becoming a nation of refugees, exiles and migrants who are finding their sense of security and nationhood in borrowed hands like that of America and now gradually in Russia and China. Except for oil monarchies that built glittering cities like Dubai, most Arab monarchies have miserably failed to deliver lasting prosperity beyond their oil wealth. It has been observed that their State-led model could not reap the benefits of globalisation as they solely banked on their deep oil wells which may dry up in near future. The rising consciousness in the young Deputy Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, Mohammed bin Salman, for restructuring the oil-dependent economy of the country is a welcome step. As he is nicknamed “Mr Everything” by the diplomats, he is hoped to recharge the economy with alternative sources of revenue, looking at the aspirations of the new generations of the country. Now such measures detached from the traditional oil economy needs to be harnessed for longer, better and sustainable development of most of the oil-rich nations of the Gulf.
Another significant development in the region was that belatedly many of the countries have tried to copy the Chinese-style authoritarian model of relative economic liberalism. But this finally ended up with an upside down version of the former Soviet Union’s. As a result what the international community has witnessed is that Russia has gone down in history with cronyism with a new version of authoritarianism, but the Arab States have started crumbling for their hasty steps in partial liberalism, first with cronyism and then popular uprisings bringing down authoritarian States. Ironically, what must be noted here is that almost all the monarchies have till date saved their seats of power, but long-held turfs of authoritarian statesmen have largely faced the ire of the Arab Spring. It can be rightly said that monarchies have stood up better to the crisis than the so-called republics. Again the rentier economic system based on natural resources is slowly facing the crisis not only in oil-rich States but across West Asia. And further, Islam, the Sunni variety in particular, is largely fighting their bloodiest battles ever in their history led by Islamic State (ISIS) over the place of religion in politics, stressing the long role of jehad. Finally, the traditional hegemonic role of America across the region has come under challenge and its own allies are now either looking for new partners or preparing to fight on their own. Arguably, these States must fight their enemies as many of them are solely responsible for creating the same with the active support from the western powers, particularly the US.
Starting from Saddam Hussein and many others, these rulers had tried to achieve legitimacy through muscle power of their so-called centres of strength known as the “Mukhabarat” or the secret police State. They never bothered to resort to democratic means for establishing their rule of law. In fact, the secret police in many of these States used to be, even now, regarded as the most organised organ of the State machinery. It is stated that the Arab Spring may be regarded as the replay of the democratisation that followed the fall of the East European countries wherein it left no permanent solution till date. Today, starting from Tunisia to libya, all are facing the crisis of governance or at its worst case, simply no governance at all. To some extent, Egypt is still fine as it has once again regained the control over the army, but popular uprisings could hardly provide anything but chaos. Nevertheless, Egypt under Sisi is heading for more crisis and one day it would lead for a more violent uprising than what the Egyptians had seen in the historic Tahrir Square six years ago.
The six oil producing States of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) can only survive on money which comes mainly from oil. For saving their family fiefdom, throughout the Arab Spring, these monarchies were splurging out, raising salaries and launching new projects to bring home the fact that the interest of their people are taken care of. So a revolution to bring better rule is not required, but then how long they can maintain this flow of fund and fool around their young generation who are increasingly open to globalised information and technology unless the regimes crack down on the social media like that in China. Further these GCC States enjoy strong diplomatic support from the West for their survival. But the rest of the States like Jordan has adapted well with the changing times.
The Arab world is facing the worst crisis of its legitimacy since its creation under the Sykes-Picot Agreement. Today many experts on West Asia argue that the current mess is the latest phase in the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. Its European provinces broke away in the 19th century, the Arab ones in the 20th, and the resulting Arab States are now crumbling in the 21st. Arabs today are still confronted with the same questions as their forefathers during the Ottoman times as they grappled with the same modernity and European supremacy: “why has a world of glorious, cosmopolitan Islamic empire become so abjectIJ” (The Economist, May 14, 2016).
It is well argued that the new Arab nations are finding it too difficult to live up to their artificial identities founded on European precepts. Hence the fallout is becoming more appalling and it might lead to a total disaster in the years to come. On the other hand, it should be brought to light that how long these rulers would blame the Sykes-PicotIJ The system created by the agreement has been tested for the remaining years and they must find their own regional solutions as they are well aware that restructuring the boundaries would bring almost a near end to many of these States. First of all, their animosity built around the Shia-Sunni divide must see some reasonable end. Else one after another versions of ISIS would continue their adventures over the millions of ordinary people of the region. Second, the mascots of Shia-Sunni rivalry spearheaded by Iran and Saudi Arabia must come to the reality that they are simply fighting and killing their own people and no one else. They are no more fighting their enemies across West Asia. Thirdly, with America under Obama leaving the region without any credible solution, West Asian countries must realise that they now have grown up and should live on their own. Finally, Russia under Putin is on a globe-trotting course to show the new-found power of Moscow, particularly to challenge the hegemonic role of the US. Hence, Putin’s new adventure in Syria should not be mistaken as balancing of power or for the genuine interest of the people of the region. His latest entry would create more confusion and extend the crisis for some more years for sure.
Sadly as Trofimov (2015) notes: “Having joined the losing side in the Great War, however the Ottomans saw their empire summarily dismantled by European statesmen who knew little about the region’s people, geography and customs. The resulting Middle Eastern States were often artificial creations, sometimes with implausibly straight lines for borders. They have kept going since then, by and large, remaining within their colonial-era frontiers despite repeated attempts at pan-Arab unification.” This seems to continue as there is no sign of thaw in the conflicts in the region, at least for a few years unless some dramatic developments take place.
(The writer is Senior Editor, The Pioneer)