"natural" states in the middle east after the collapse of the ottoman empire

[demanvanwezel]

Every time we have a discussion in the OT about the arab states it keeps resurfacing that these nations are in trouble because they are artificial states whose borders were arbitrarily drawn up by western imperialist powers without any regard for the people that lived there or the history of the area

(an urban legend says that the point in saudi arabia came to be because churchill's pens slipped)

so what would the area have looked like if france and brittain had drawn borders with regard for the locals or (more likely) the ottoman empire collapsed without outside influence?

 

[darthfanta]

 

[profxyz]

I suspect, given the geographical look of the region and its historical borders, that you'd have

1)A state astride the Nile (Egypt)
2)A Sunni Levantine state primarily using the Med for navigation (Greater Syria)
3)A Mountain state at the edge of Anatolia (probably Kurdistan)
4)A Shia Mesopotamian state at the Tigris and Euphrates - (this will still invite sectarian violence, but it's just not possible to make a Sunni state viable in Iraq under any borders)
5)A Hejazi state along the Red Sea (Hejaz)
6)Bedouin states in the Syrian desert and Arabian Peninsula

These should provide states which exert maximum control on their populations, and so have the resources/force necessary to challenge any ideological threats to their rule without requiring potentially destructive divide-and-rule tactics that most Arab states now use.

That said, I don't really agree that 'natural' states exist in the Middle East, at least not of the sort where a geographical majority identifies with a set of common symbols and history (beyond Islam, which is not exactly enthralled with the idea of individual states). Arab identity in post-WWI Middle East was centered around religion/sect, tribe, and city-vs-rural identities, not some geographical attachment. The intellectuals in Damascus, Baghdad and Cairo, those whom in Europe we'd expect to form nationalist narratives - they were concerned with Arabs as a whole, and really had more in common with each other than the peasant/Bedouin living 50 miles away.

Sykes-Picot of course drew artificial borders, but any other border arrangement save an Islamic/Arab socialist unity would have been just as artificial. Despite that, ME states have generally managed to cobble up some sort of 'national identity' pretty well: Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Palestine etc. have demonstrated their cohesiveness through fending off 'threats' like pan-Arab socialism, secession movements, and each other (notably Iran-Iraq, but note that Lebanon has not collapsed into Syria, nor has Palestine collapsed into Jordan).

I would argue that alternative identities such as Islam and ethnicity are successfully competing with the idea of 'the state' for public allegiance nowadays because state leaders have generally failed to deliver benefits to their countrymen. In such a view the question of whether the Sykes-Picot states are 'natural' is irrelevant.

 

[Sleepyhead]

The people saying that seriously need to get their heads out of their behinds.. You should tell them that instead of assuming that they actually have a point.

EVERY state is artificial. Nationalities are formed in conjunction with a movement, a state or something similar. Is the current Middle East that different from the Ottoman times?

For comparison: Is this a map of Russia and its border states or the republics of the USSR?

 

[Gordy]

The local Arab leaders wanted to grab as much territory as they could get their hands on. No different to the British or French really. It's a bit naïve to imagine that the borders would have been set by plebiscite no matter who was overseeing events.

 

[Enravota]

The local Arab leaders wanted to grab as much territory as they could get their hands on. No different to the British or French really. It's a bit naïve to imagine that the borders would have been set by plebiscite no matter who was overseeing events.

AFAIK most of the early leaders were pan-Arabists.

 

[Enravota]

Is the current Middle East that different from the Ottoman times?

The Millet system and the administrative districts of the OE do not necessary bear any relation. Most of the districts would host a number of Millets, all with different status and internal laws.

 

[Kurfürst]

I have to reluctantly say, that apart from splitting the Levant in two, modern borders kind of make sense. I mean geographically. Terrain would IMO result in something quite similar even without outside meddling. Yes, Hejaz and the Persian gulf coast would probably not belong into the same state, but apart from the huge Saudi Arabia and fragmented Levant, if I were to split middle east into states, it would be something similar to today's borders.

Apart from Kurdistan and the whole turkish southeastern border. That might be the most arbitrary border in the middle east. The population there was by the end of the Ottomans heavily mixed between Arabs, Kurds and Turks. The line between Turkey and Syria with Iraq could have been drawn 50 miles north or south, and it would still be as "accurate" as the line we got IRL.

I mean, it makes no sense topographically. Passes leading to anatolian plateau are deep within turkish territory. It's just a line smack dab in the middle of a plain. It cuts across rivers. And it makes no sense from a demographic point of view either. Or rather, the population was very mixed, so no line would be accurate.

IIRC, the syrian-turkish part was drawn along a railroad tracks, so it pointlessly divides towns that were built along the tracks. The iraqi part isn't much better, cutting right through Kurdistan. All in all, I very much dislike that border. Independent Kurdistan, encompassing turkish, syrian and iraqi kurds, would have been much better.

 

[Andrelvis]

The intellectuals in Damascus, Baghdad and Cairo, those whom in Europe we'd expect to form nationalist narratives - they were concerned with Arabs as a whole, and really had more in common with each other than the peasant/Bedouin living 50 miles away.

I somewhat doubt that is what people would expect in Europe at the time. The Arabs as a whole were considered a single nationality.

 

[Gordy]

AFAIK most of the early leaders were pan-Arabists.

Of course, they wanted to be leader of the pan-Arab state. However they were prepared to settle for being king of whatever they could grab.

 

[Pellaken]

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articlePictures/The Project for the New Middle East.jpg

this has been a popular map

 

[La Toscana]

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articlePictures/The Project for the New Middle East.jpg

this has been a popular map

It's very weird to think that the tiny Pakistan on that map would have roughly the same population as the rest minus turkey.

 

[Aetius]

I have read the French considered splitting out parts of their Lebanon mandates into a Maronite Mount Lebanon state and Alawite state around Latakia.

 

[DoomBunny]

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articlePictures/The Project for the New Middle East.jpg

this has been a popular map

Kurdwank, Armenia-screw.

 

[profxyz]

I somewhat doubt that is what people would expect in Europe at the time. The Arabs as a whole were considered a single nationality.

I meant that in Europe, you'd expect regional intellectuals to form their own separate nationalist narratives - romantic nationalism and all that. But for the Middle East, regional Arab intellectuals didn't form Syrian or Egyptian narratives, but instead formed pan-Arab/Islamic narratives. Because, as you said, the Arabs were considered/considered themselves a single nationality.

 

[demanvanwezel]

It's very weird to think that the tiny Pakistan on that map would have roughly the same population as the rest minus turkey.

heh I remember when playing punjab in vicky2 I conquered afghanistan, sindh and the baluchi states and had desicions about accepting pashtun and sindi but not baluchi, was pretty cross aout that because baluchistan is nearly a 100% baluchi and that's an entire state that's simply red on the administrative map

untill I noticed that the total level of baluchis in my litle kingdom was less then 1%, I had severall minorities who lived in my other states that took up more population percentage, in fact I think that they were the 2nd or 3th least populous group and I had about 10 different nationalities living in my borders

that's how few people live in baluchistan

 

[Andrelvis]

I meant that in Europe, you'd expect regional intellectuals to form their own separate nationalist narratives - romantic nationalism and all that. But for the Middle East, regional Arab intellectuals didn't form Syrian or Egyptian narratives, but instead formed pan-Arab/Islamic narratives. Because, as you said, the Arabs were considered/considered themselves a single nationality.

You are right in your latter assertion, but the same happened in Europe as well. Instead of Bavarian and etc. nationalisms appearing, it was (pan-)German nationalism which took place.

 

[Chamboozer]

The people saying that seriously need to get their heads out of their behinds.. You should tell them that instead of assuming that they actually have a point.

EVERY state is artificial. Nationalities are formed in conjunction with a movement, a state or something similar.

Pretty much. There are no "natural" borders for states in the Middle East, just as there was no "natural" border for France in the 17th Century. Nationalities aren't ancient and primordial, they are artificial and created. Any possible combination of borders which came out of the WWI peace would have resulted in tensions as the people inhabiting these states searched for political consensus. That consensus may have been harder to find when very different kinds of people were brought together in one state, but there was no inherent reason why Iraq's Sunnis and Shi'ites couldn't live together, just like there eventually came to be no reason for Germany's Protestants and Catholics to avoid living together. Not that the road wasn't bumpy - Bismarck's Germany had its Kulturkampf - but the obstacles weren't insurmountable.

 

[User29]

So we all agree a Pan-Arab Super State belongs on the world stage? The Borders... the Pretty Map borders... I see them...

 

[Herbert West]

So we all agree a Pan-Arab Super State belongs on the world stage? The Borders... the Pretty Map borders... I see them...

Yeah, that is the goal of most sunni islamist organisations. One big, sunni, Arab Ummah. Persians need not apply