|
Seaver, do you at least accept the proposition that colonialism contributes to the problem? While I agree that portions of the Middle East were largely free from colonialism (with the notable exception of the 1920-45 period between the collapse of the Ottoman Empire and the destruction of the colonial system following WWII), the boundaries as they exist today are largely a product of French and British mapmakers. While I certainly accept your arguement that we are talking adults and not 3 year olds, you have to admit that the world would certainly be different right now if there were an independent Kurdistan or if the UAE didn't exist (ports deal aside).
I have to disagree that these people have lived or would live in peace within these defined borders. There has certainly been ethnic tensions for years, as seen by the Kurdish independence movement and the Ottoman slaughter of the Armenians. There is tension because the various factions are constantly jockeying for position with the ruling one putting their people in policital and economic domination over the others. The same scenario in various forms has played itself out in quite a few other conflicts around the world - the former Yugoslavia, Democratic Republic of Congo (Zaire), Rwanda, Cambodia, southern Mexico and even the US during Reconstruction.
Your basic assumption is that people living in these areas lived in peace prior to colonialism, and I think that you need to go back and check your history. The longest periods of prolonged peace in the Middle East were under the Ottomans, which was an empire under any definition of the term. Any prolonged peace between, say, the Kurds, Shia and Sunnis of modern Iraq was enforced by the central authority who didn't want anyone messing up their power structure. The Ottomans allowed a great measure of local governance in small provinces, which, notably, didn't look anything like what the Europeans concocted 80 years ago.
What I really don't understand is why you seem to think that all the necessary reforms are on their side. Your example makes little to no sense in a historical perspective. Are the Crusaders a metaphor for the 9/11 bombers et al? If so, you need to remember that Al Qaida refers to Western nations as Crusaders, and they still vividly remember the Crusades in that part of the world along with all of what we would now retrospectively call war crimes.
__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo
|