Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedNew Middle East Borders !

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 7>
Author
azimuth View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
SlaYer'S SlaYer

Joined: 12-Dec-2004
Location: Neutral Zone
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2979
Direct Link To This Post Topic: New Middle East Borders !
    Posted: 27-Jul-2006 at 12:33
 
 
 
an Idea from Armed Forces Journal!  Confused
 
 
 
 
 
 
Blood borders
How a better Middle East would look
By Ralph Peters

International borders are never completely just. But the degree of injustice they inflict upon those whom frontiers force together or separate makes an enormous difference often the difference between freedom and oppression, tolerance and atrocity, the rule of law and terrorism, or even peace and war.

The most arbitrary and distorted borders in the world are in Africa and the Middle East. Drawn by self-interested Europeans (who have had sufficient trouble defining their own frontiers), Africa's borders continue to provoke the deaths of millions of local inhabitants. But the unjust borders in the Middle East to borrow from Churchill generate more trouble than can be consumed locally.

While the Middle East has far more problems than dysfunctional borders alone from cultural stagnation through scandalous inequality to deadly religious extremism the greatest taboo in striving to understand the region's comprehensive failure isn't Islam but the awful-but-sacrosanct international boundaries worshipped by our own diplomats.

Of course, no adjustment of borders, however draconian, could make every minority in the Middle East happy. In some instances, ethnic and religious groups live intermingled and have intermarried. Elsewhere, reunions based on blood or belief might not prove quite as joyous as their current proponents expect. The boundaries projected in the maps accompanying this article redress the wrongs suffered by the most significant "cheated" population groups, such as the Kurds, Baluch and Arab Shia, but still fail to account adequately for Middle Eastern Christians, Bahais, Ismailis, Naqshbandis and many another numerically lesser minorities. And one haunting wrong can never be redressed with a reward of territory: the genocide perpetrated against the Armenians by the dying Ottoman Empire.

Yet, for all the injustices the borders re-imagined here leave unaddressed, without such major boundary revisions, we shall never see a more peaceful Middle East.

Even those who abhor the topic of altering borders would be well-served to engage in an exercise that attempts to conceive a fairer, if still imperfect, amendment of national boundaries between the Bosporus and the Indus. Accepting that international statecraft has never developed effective tools short of war for readjusting faulty borders, a mental effort to grasp the Middle East's "organic" frontiers nonetheless helps us understand the extent of the difficulties we face and will continue to face. We are dealing with colossal, man-made deformities that will not stop generating hatred and violence until they are corrected.

As for those who refuse to "think the unthinkable," declaring that boundaries must not change and that's that, it pays to remember that boundaries have never stopped changing through the centuries. Borders have never been static, and many frontiers, from Congo through Kosovo to the Caucasus, are changing even now (as ambassadors and special representatives avert their eyes to study the shine on their wingtips).

Oh, and one other dirty little secret from 5,000 years of history: Ethnic cleansing works.

Begin with the border issue most sensitive to American readers: For Israel to have any hope of living in reasonable peace with its neighbors, it will have to return to its pre-1967 borders with essential local adjustments for legitimate security concerns. But the issue of the territories surrounding Jerusalem, a city stained with thousands of years of blood, may prove intractable beyond our lifetimes. Where all parties have turned their god into a real-estate tycoon, literal turf battles have a tenacity unrivaled by mere greed for oil wealth or ethnic squabbles. So let us set aside this single overstudied issue and turn to those that are studiously ignored.

The most glaring injustice in the notoriously unjust lands between the Balkan Mountains and the Himalayas is the absence of an independent Kurdish state. There are between 27 million and 36 million Kurds living in contiguous regions in the Middle East (the figures are imprecise because no state has ever allowed an honest census). Greater than the population of present-day Iraq, even the lower figure makes the Kurds the world's largest ethnic group without a state of its own. Worse, Kurds have been oppressed by every government controlling the hills and mountains where they've lived since Xenophon's day.

The U.S. and its coalition partners missed a glorious chance to begin to correct this injustice after Baghdad's fall. A Frankenstein's monster of a state sewn together from ill-fitting parts, Iraq should have been divided into three smaller states immediately. We failed from cowardice and lack of vision, bullying Iraq's Kurds into supporting the new Iraqi government which they do wistfully as a quid pro quo for our good will. But were a free plebiscite to be held, make no mistake: Nearly 100 percent of Iraq's Kurds would vote for independence.

As would the long-suffering Kurds of Turkey, who have endured decades of violent military oppression and a decades-long demotion to "mountain Turks" in an effort to eradicate their identity. While the Kurdish plight at Ankara's hands has eased somewhat over the past decade, the repression recently intensified again and the eastern fifth of Turkey should be viewed as occupied territory. As for the Kurds of Syria and Iran, they, too, would rush to join an independent Kurdistan if they could. The refusal by the world's legitimate democracies to champion Kurdish independence is a human-rights sin of omission far worse than the clumsy, minor sins of commission that routinely excite our media. And by the way: A Free Kurdistan, stretching from Diyarbakir through Tabriz, would be the most pro-Western state between Bulgaria and Japan.

A just alignment in the region would leave Iraq's three Sunni-majority provinces as a truncated state that might eventually choose to unify with a Syria that loses its littoral to a Mediterranean-oriented Greater Lebanon: Phoenecia reborn. The Shia south of old Iraq would form the basis of an Arab Shia State rimming much of the Persian Gulf. Jordan would retain its current territory, with some southward expansion at Saudi expense. For its part, the unnatural state of Saudi Arabia would suffer as great a dismantling as Pakistan.

A root cause of the broad stagnation in the Muslim world is the Saudi royal family's treatment of Mecca and Medina as their fiefdom. With Islam's holiest shrines under the police-state control of one of the world's most bigoted and oppressive regimes a regime that commands vast, unearned oil wealth the Saudis have been able to project their Wahhabi vision of a disciplinarian, intolerant faith far beyond their borders. The rise of the Saudis to wealth and, consequently, influence has been the worst thing to happen to the Muslim world as a whole since the time of the Prophet, and the worst thing to happen to Arabs since the Ottoman (if not the Mongol) conquest.

While non-Muslims could not effect a change in the control of Islam's holy cities, imagine how much healthier the Muslim world might become were Mecca and Medina ruled by a rotating council representative of the world's major Muslim schools and movements in an Islamic Sacred State a sort of Muslim super-Vatican where the future of a great faith might be debated rather than merely decreed. True justice which we might not like would also give Saudi Arabia's coastal oil fields to the Shia Arabs who populate that subregion, while a southeastern quadrant would go to Yemen. Confined to a rump Saudi Homelands Independent Territory around Riyadh, the House of Saud would be capable of far less mischief toward Islam and the world.

Iran, a state with madcap boundaries, would lose a great deal of territory to Unified Azerbaijan, Free Kurdistan, the Arab Shia State and Free Baluchistan, but would gain the provinces around Herat in today's Afghanistan a region with a historical and linguistic affinity for Persia. Iran would, in effect, become an ethnic Persian state again, with the most difficult question being whether or not it should keep the port of Bandar Abbas or surrender it to the Arab Shia State.

What Afghanistan would lose to Persia in the west, it would gain in the east, as Pakistan's Northwest Frontier tribes would be reunited with their Afghan brethren (the point of this exercise is not to draw maps as we would like them but as local populations would prefer them). Pakistan, another unnatural state, would also lose its Baluch territory to Free Baluchistan. The remaining "natural" Pakistan would lie entirely east of the Indus, except for a westward spur near Karachi.

The city-states of the United Arab Emirates would have a mixed fate as they probably will in reality. Some might be incorporated in the Arab Shia State ringing much of the Persian Gulf (a state more likely to evolve as a counterbalance to, rather than an ally of, Persian Iran). Since all puritanical cultures are hypocritical, Dubai, of necessity, would be allowed to retain its playground status for rich debauchees. Kuwait would remain within its current borders, as would Oman.

In each case, this hypothetical redrawing of boundaries reflects ethnic affinities and religious communalism in some cases, both. Of course, if we could wave a magic wand and amend the borders under discussion, we would certainly prefer to do so selectively. Yet, studying the revised map, in contrast to the map illustrating today's boundaries, offers some sense of the great wrongs borders drawn by Frenchmen and Englishmen in the 20th century did to a region struggling to emerge from the humiliations and defeats of the 19th century.

Correcting borders to reflect the will of the people may be impossible. For now. But given time and the inevitable attendant bloodshed new and natural borders will emerge. Babylon has fallen more than once.

Meanwhile, our men and women in uniform will continue to fight for security from terrorism, for the prospect of democracy and for access to oil supplies in a region that is destined to fight itself. The current human divisions and forced unions between Ankara and Karachi, taken together with the region's self-inflicted woes, form as perfect a breeding ground for religious extremism, a culture of blame and the recruitment of terrorists as anyone could design. Where men and women look ruefully at their borders, they look enthusiastically for enemies.

From the world's oversupply of terrorists to its paucity of energy supplies, the current deformations of the Middle East promise a worsening, not an improving, situation. In a region where only the worst aspects of nationalism ever took hold and where the most debased aspects of religion threaten to dominate a disappointed faith, the U.S., its allies and, above all, our armed forces can look for crises without end. While Iraq may provide a counterexample of hope if we do not quit its soil prematurely the rest of this vast region offers worsening problems on almost every front.

If the borders of the greater Middle East cannot be amended to reflect the natural ties of blood and faith, we may take it as an article of faith that a portion of the bloodshed in the region will continue to be our own.

 
 
 
 
 
WHO WINS, WHO LOSES

Winners

Afghanistan

Arab Shia State

Armenia

Azerbaijan

Free Baluchistan

Free Kurdistan

Iran

Islamic Sacred State

Jordan

Lebanon

Yemen

Losers

Afghanistan

Iran

Iraq

Israel

Kuwait

Pakistan

Qatar

Saudi Arabia

Syria

Turkey

United Arab Emirates

West Bank

 
 
------------------
 
 
what do you think?!
 
i think its naive,  


Edited by azimuth - 27-Jul-2006 at 12:40
Back to Top
Lmprs View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 30-Dec-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1869
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Jul-2006 at 12:47
Ralph Peters was obviously smoking something.
    

Edited by Feanor - 27-Jul-2006 at 13:10
Back to Top
SearchAndDestroy View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar

Joined: 15-Aug-2004
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2728
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Jul-2006 at 12:57
If each group got it's own borders, wouldn't it stop the infighting in countries? Or atleast lessen it? I honestly am asking, not making a comment.
"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey
Back to Top
Imperator Invictus View Drop Down
Caliph
Caliph
Avatar
Retired AE Administrator

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3151
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Jul-2006 at 13:12
Looks like the big states lose and the little states win.
Back to Top
Jay. View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 24-Nov-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1207
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Jul-2006 at 13:14
Yeah, pretty much sums it up in Imperator's post.
Samo Sloga Srbina Spasava
Only Unity Can Save the Serb
Back to Top
Tangriberdi View Drop Down
Earl
Earl


Joined: 03-Aug-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 267
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Jul-2006 at 15:30
Concerning Turkey. This map is mistaken.  Take or find an  administrative Map of Turkey. And then  you can understand how mistaken it is in accordance with the information that I will give below.
 
In the map,  Kurdistan Borders reaches the  Black Sea via Artvin . It can never. Because ; as you will see if you are holding an administrative map of Turkey, Artvin has almost no Kurdish population. In the map Ardahan is shown within the borders of so called Kurdistan. Ardahan is a predominantly Turkish city. Just like Kars and Igdir. Erzurum has some Kurdish regions towards south. But the city center , northward and westward Erzurum is also a predominantly Turkish city. North of Agri is also has a Turkish population about 30%  Now come southward to the western side of the Van lake. Within the borders of the city Bitlis, the districts Adilcevaz, Ahlat and Tatvan are predominantly Turkish. Two of three of these districts, namely; Adilcevaz and Ahlat have Kurdish population under %20. In Tatvan Turks and Kurds are equal in number.
 
Now, that is the truth. How can your stupid bodies , even if they are professors or whatever,  dare to determine borders to Turkey. We draw it by blood.  If one day we decide that no longer we will be able to live with Kurds, side by side, then we will draw our own border again.
,Kurds in the north of Agri are newcomers.. So if we are separated one day. They will go back to where they come from.
Today Istanbul  Mersin and other big Turkish cities have been exposed to Kurdish immigration.. Can someone say that Mersin or Adana or Gaziantep( took later Kurdish immigration and changed in ethno demographical data.)are Kurdish. No it is impossible. We will not let this happen. Kerkuk was a dominantly Turkmen city and you americans changed it into a Kurdish city in accordance with your benefits.
But we will not let you be able to do this in Turkey. You must shed  your blood. if you try.
That is it.
Enough.
U.S.A is the bigest provocator and terrorist country in tyhe world.
History will write that so.
 
 
Back to Top
Jagatai Khan View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Jeune Turc

Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1270
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Jul-2006 at 15:48
But we will not let you be able to do this in Turkey. You must shed  your blood. if you try.
That is it.
Enough.
U.S.A is the bigest provocator and terrorist country in tyhe world.
History will write that so.

No need another word.
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor

Suspended

Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8792
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Jul-2006 at 16:01

This Balkanisation will never happen.  The morons who draw these things up have no idea about the ACUTUAL situation in any of the said countries.  Remember these are the fools who said that Iraqis would welcome the destruction of their country with open arms.

Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor

Suspended

Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8792
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Jul-2006 at 16:06
They make the same school boy errors with Iran.
 
Originally posted by Tangriberdi

Concerning Turkey. This map is mistaken.  Take or find an  administrative Map of Turkey. And then  you can understand how mistaken it is in accordance with the information that I will give below.
 
In the map,  Kurdistan Borders reaches the  Black Sea via Artvin . It can never. Because ; as you will see if you are holding an administrative map of Turkey, Artvin has almost no Kurdish population. In the map Ardahan is shown within the borders of so called Kurdistan. Ardahan is a predominantly Turkish city. Just like Kars and Igdir. Erzurum has some Kurdish regions towards south. But the city center , northward and westward Erzurum is also a predominantly Turkish city. North of Agri is also has a Turkish population about 30%  Now come southward to the western side of the Van lake. Within the borders of the city Bitlis, the districts Adilcevaz, Ahlat and Tatvan are predominantly Turkish. Two of three of these districts, namely; Adilcevaz and Ahlat have Kurdish population under %20. In Tatvan Turks and Kurds are equal in number.
 
Now, that is the truth. How can your stupid bodies , even if they are professors or whatever,  dare to determine borders to Turkey. We draw it by blood.  If one day we decide that no longer we will be able to live with Kurds, side by side, then we will draw our own border again.
,Kurds in the north of Agri are newcomers.. So if we are separated one day. They will go back to where they come from.
Today Istanbul  Mersin and other big Turkish cities have been exposed to Kurdish immigration.. Can someone say that Mersin or Adana or Gaziantep( took later Kurdish immigration and changed in ethno demographical data.)are Kurdish. No it is impossible. We will not let this happen. Kerkuk was a dominantly Turkmen city and you americans changed it into a Kurdish city in accordance with your benefits.
But we will not let you be able to do this in Turkey. You must shed  your blood. if you try.
That is it.
Enough.
U.S.A is the bigest provocator and terrorist country in tyhe world.
History will write that so.
 
 
 
On the same note, I think, America should fragmented along ethnic lines into competing states with racial anymosity, it would make the world a much better place to live and free the oppressed Blacks, Hespanics etc from WASP domination and discrimination.
 
How's that sounds?  Well as an Iranian the above article sounds as ignorant as what i just wrote would to an American.


Edited by Zagros - 27-Jul-2006 at 16:16
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Jul-2006 at 16:15
West Bank - Status undertermined looks like the most clever part of the plan to me.
Back to Top
Cent View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 20-Jun-2005
Location: Sweden
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1013
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Jul-2006 at 16:20
WOW ME LIKE!! I like this Ralph Peters! :D
They don't speak enough about the Kurds, because we have never taken hostages, never hijacked a plane. But I am proud of this.
Abdul Rahman Qassemlou
Back to Top
Cent View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 20-Jun-2005
Location: Sweden
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1013
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Jul-2006 at 16:22

"The most glaring injustice in the notoriously unjust lands between the Balkan Mountains and the Himalayas is the absence of an independent Kurdish state. There are between 27 million and 36 million Kurds living in contiguous regions in the Middle East (the figures are imprecise because no state has ever allowed an honest census). Greater than the population of present-day Iraq, even the lower figure makes the Kurds the world's largest ethnic group without a state of its own. Worse, Kurds have been oppressed by every government controlling the hills and mountains where they've lived since Xenophon's day."

"As would the long-suffering Kurds of Turkey, who have endured decades of violent military oppression and a decades-long demotion to "mountain Turks" in an effort to eradicate their identity. While the Kurdish plight at Ankara's hands has eased somewhat over the past decade, the repression recently intensified again and the eastern fifth of Turkey should be viewed as occupied territory. As for the Kurds of Syria and Iran, they, too, would rush to join an independent Kurdistan if they could. The refusal by the world's legitimate democracies to champion Kurdish independence is a human-rights sin of omission far worse than the clumsy, minor sins of commission that routinely excite our media. And by the way: A Free Kurdistan, stretching from Diyarbakir through Tabriz, would be the most pro-Western state between Bulgaria and Japan."
 
THANK YOU RALPH, and thank you azimuth for posting this. You've made my day! :D
They don't speak enough about the Kurds, because we have never taken hostages, never hijacked a plane. But I am proud of this.
Abdul Rahman Qassemlou
Back to Top
Cent View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 20-Jun-2005
Location: Sweden
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1013
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Jul-2006 at 16:23
A Kurdish state is long overdue.
They don't speak enough about the Kurds, because we have never taken hostages, never hijacked a plane. But I am proud of this.
Abdul Rahman Qassemlou
Back to Top
Cent View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 20-Jun-2005
Location: Sweden
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1013
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Jul-2006 at 16:25
I notice all nationalists and patriots are mad. Now you feel how we feel.
They don't speak enough about the Kurds, because we have never taken hostages, never hijacked a plane. But I am proud of this.
Abdul Rahman Qassemlou
Back to Top
Cent View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 20-Jun-2005
Location: Sweden
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1013
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Jul-2006 at 16:26
"Kerkuk was a dominantly Turkmen city and you americans changed it into a Kurdish city in accordance with your benefits."
 
Source?
They don't speak enough about the Kurds, because we have never taken hostages, never hijacked a plane. But I am proud of this.
Abdul Rahman Qassemlou
Back to Top
mamikon View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 16-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2200
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Jul-2006 at 16:44
why does Kurdistan have access to the black sea though...I dont get that (among, many other things on that map)


Edited by mamikon - 27-Jul-2006 at 16:44
Back to Top
Lmprs View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 30-Dec-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1869
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Jul-2006 at 16:54
Originally posted by mamikon

why does Kurdistan have access to the black sea though...I dont get that (among, many other things on that map)

You need to ask? Well, simply because that map above is a total BS.


    
Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor

Suspended

Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8792
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Jul-2006 at 16:59
Because it has been drawn up my ignorant morons who don't know any real details other than the bullsh*t they are fed by hyper nationalist moron "dissidents and freedom fighters" on the other side of the planet.
 
But you know what, I only have two problems with that map - One is that it incorrectly shows Shia Kurds/Lors (my land) joining Sunni Kurds and Khuzistan as majority Arab when in fact it is not.  Otherwise I don't care if Iran loses Sunni Kurdistan, Baluchis or Azarbaijan (and their mullahs), Iran certainly does not need them.  The question remains, what do we do with the millions of Azaries and Sunnis who are not within their countries and still in Iran? I think deportation or complete assimilation would be the best solution, because we don't want in 100 years they suddenly start to claim that land as Turk, Arab or belonging to the age old Kurdish race too.
 
Also Talyshistan would come to Iran from Azarbaijan since tehy are oppressed by Azeri govt and speak an Iranian dialect.
 


Edited by Zagros - 27-Jul-2006 at 17:14
Back to Top
ok ge View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 29-Aug-2005
Location: Saudi Arabia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1775
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Jul-2006 at 18:49

He said in the map, countries with red labels are countries that are losing terrotories. I see UAE and Qatar with red labels though nothing changed to their areas. Obviously a very unprofessional poor quality job beside already the trashy analysis.

D.J. Kaufman
Wisdom is the reward for a lifetime of listening ... when youd have preferred to talk.
Back to Top
Scorpius View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun
Avatar

Joined: 11-Jul-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 215
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Jul-2006 at 21:18
Originally posted by azimuth

 
what do you think?!
 
i think its naive,  
 

That guy is simple minded for assuming that the cause of the troubles in that region is bounded to borders only.

 

I wish to see a strong Turkey, Armenia, Iran, Iraq, and Syria in terms of their economy and so living standards instead of new countries popping up from no where all of a sudden.

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  123 7>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.078 seconds.