Dividing the States of the ‘Middle East’: Helping Factors
Prof. As’ad Abdul Rahman
Both, the plan and the game designed to break up the Arab world have been going on, not without interruptions, for decades. With the presence of Western institutions (primarily American/ British, in open direct or indirect alliance with Israel/ the Zionist movement), strategic schemes and concepts have been developed to divide the region into ethnic, religious, sectarian, and tribal cantons. Within this context, we find it necessary to lay out the reasons/ factors for the recent success of these institutions in promoting / proposing ‘effective’ plans to divide the Middle East in particular. However, it is important to affirm that these institutions/ bodies do not often play their role by direct intervention. They move by setting up ‘pressure groups’ to guide decision makers to achieve their goals after building helpful public opinion, especially in parliaments, in favor of or opposed to an idea in a way that allows recruitment and mobilization in support of that opinion in the western (mainly American/ British and Israeli) decision centers. They often initiate the idea, without always adopting it publicly, but doing that from under the table and amid curtains of research / media smoke. Again, what are the factors/reasons for the success of the above institutions?
First is what thinkers believe is ‘openness to colonialism’, where a colonial power succeeds in creating a model of life and thinking that make sizable portion of peoples accept the boundaries it lays down and even have these portions work to protect them. It is a situation created by the colonial power managing to convince the colonized of its superiority, their inability to run their own affairs by themselves, being backward with the conviction that any rejection or resistance act is doomed to failure.
Secondly, the ‘ability to a break-up’ and opposition to diversity: They relate to the common knowledge that cultural pluralism, ethnic, sectarian and denominational diversity are characteristics of the demographic structures of the majority of countries including most Arab countries. Unfortunately, they presented an ‘ideal’ factor to sow sedition among society members with growing ethnic, tribal and religious sentiments within the same religion. Thus, extremist religious groups (not without encouragement from local, regional and international “help”) grew in large numbers and spread with violence as their only means to realise their thoughts and beliefs as well as to ensure their survival.
Thirdly, the miserable state of affairs created by the Arab country systems/ regimes and their impacts on the homeland and citizens. Freedoms were suppressed with oppression, persecution and total backwardness. They failed as they sought independence to build proper citizenship and loyalty to the state, with only the interests of the ruling powers ensured. Citizenship was thus compromised under a growing number of groups seen as marginalized, who were used to serve the political system’s interests or extremism, often unconsciously.
Fourth, dysfunctional nationalist ideologies that failed to bring about a clear vision to unify the minds of its supporters. Thus, nationalists (mainly in opposition parties) were split with different names such as socialist, liberal or secular in the shadow of partisan political conflicts.
Fifth, the Middle East region is of extreme importance to the capitalist colonialist West in all respects. It is a reservoir of raw materials and holds the world’s largest oil reserve, along with population density that qualifies it to be a market generating considerable profits. Furthermore, the region is strategically important within a framework of an integrated colonialist system, particularly as regards connection with the spheres of influence in East Asia.
Sixth, the United States moved following the collapse of the Soviet Union to lead the world and needed regional focal points, particularly in the Middle East with its important geographic location. It could be impossible, as an example, to run battles in Afghanistan or Iraq from Washington or New York without ‘employing’ the region and working to draw up a political map that serves its military purposes.
Finally, Israel’s security was and still is an American strategic priority in the region. The Zionist state is the American spearhead forming an extension to its policies in the region, mainly important especially following the demise of the old colonialism, yet, with its new military presence in regional countries designed to provide an alternative as a military power near the centre of developments, ready to intervene if Western interests are threatened.
All colonial schemes stem from the arrogance of power. Such is perceived when a country believes it can do what it wants, as long as the balance of power is in its favor and its military preparedness exceeds that of its opponents, especially as regards the Zionist state with its lobbying groups in the Western world. The groups that promote ideas and proposals serving Israel and the Zionist movement’s supreme interests on top of which are those seeking split-up of Arab countries.
The break-up plans being floated were not based on previously drawn maps, but were prepared on the basis of demographic realities (religion, nationality and sectarianism). Re-drawing the international borders requires conciliation of the wills of peoples, known to be impossible to achieve now, hence the senseless bloodshed is continuing to achieve this purpose!!
