REGIONAL ALLIANCES IN THE MIDDLE EAST MUST INCLUDE SYRIA
October 1, 2011
By Ghassan Kadi
By Ghassan Kadi
Ahmad Adinehvand of the International Peace Studies Centre (IPSC) published an interesting article titled “Possibilities and Requirements” of Iran-Turkey and Egypt forming a strategic Islamic alliance in the Middle East, an alliance that would fend off the divide and conquer policy of the West in the Levant. Please see Nina Mak's link below.
.
The article cites historical facts that reveals good in-depth knowledge of the author. However, it falls short of being able to properly address the issue of Palestine.
.
Not withstanding that on the surface this alliance appears to have the foundation of an ideal alternative to giving the orient by-and-large total independence from the West and its notorious interventions, we have to remain realistic in our analyses and expectations.
.
The only foundation for this coalition to work properly would be one that is based on national regional cooperation. For it to be effective and of long-term nature, it cannot be an Islamic alliance.
.
Sadly but realistically, sectarianism is still rife within Muslims, or at least within some of them who are fundamentalist and prepared to take up arms defedning their sect. If anything, the Sunni-Shiite divide is getting wider and old passions of hatred and vendetta are resurfacing after centuries of calm and whence more fundamentalists are recruited on both sides of the divide. If this alliance is based on Islam, and not unless both Sunnis and Shiites, concurrently and simlutanuously decide to put the ugly history that divided them centrueis ago and move forward, the issue of conflict will inevitably surface again. It will be only a matter of time.
.
Furthermore, an Islamic alliance will not only have within its underpinning foundation the hallmarks of fracture and collapse, but it also as the properncity to give little or no consideration to Chrisitian and other minorities in the region.
.
The Egyptian revolution is not over yet and the final victor remains to be unknown. Egypt is still in the process of defining its new direction and identity. Whilst it is currently flirting with both Iran and Turkey, the new Egypt is still in the labour ward awaiting birth. For the new Egypt to get into an alliance that is Islamic by definition, the new Egypt will have to be Islamic and this is not yet known to be the case.
.
Turkey on the other hand is still a NATO member and continues to have strong ties with Israel despite the recent hiccups. Its new Islamist agenda may not outlive the tenure of the incumbant ruling party. Whether or not Turkey is prepared to join an Islamic alliance for the long haul remains to be seen. If anything, at the present moment, Erdogan seems to be flirting with every one. The only bridge he has severed is the one that links him to Assad. He seems to want to do something big, but he is not sure what it is yet. In the meantime, he has a foot in every door. In regard to his views of Iran, if anything is obvious, it is that Erdogan is trying to forge a new Sunni alliance under Turksih wings not under Saudi/Western wings.
.
Iran is perhaps the only country of the three that is clearly Islamic, not withstanding its Shitte nature.
.
In reality therefore, Iran, Turkey and Egypt are not ready to form an Islamic alliance, and even if they do, the future of Christians and other minorities can become ill-defined.
.
So the question to ask is this. Are Turkey, Iran and Egypt ready to get into a national regional alliance? Realistically, it would be very difficult to answer this question because the correct answer to it lies in the hearts and minds of the leaders of those countries. But even if one assumes that yes they are ready, the bigger question that pops up is the question of Palestine.
.
Neither Turkey nor Egypt or Iran own Palestine. Whether we regard Palestine as a sovereign complete nation or a part of a bigger Arab Nation, geographically and historically speaking, Palestine is the southern part of Syria and only its people have the right to decide its political direction and destiny.
.
Surely, the Palestinian cause has attracted a lot of sympthay from Westerners and people around the globe. The support of Iran to Hezbollah and Hamas has been phenomenal. If Ergodan eventaully walks the talk and does something positive and concrete for the people of Gaza, his efforts will be of great help. But the true friends of Palestine and Palestinian people are the ones who want to make sure that Palestinians have the right of self determination.
.
A regional national alliance therefore will not have the rightful mandate to be effective not unless it includes Syria. Why Syria? Because leaders can come and go, but Palestine will always be a part of Syria, and Palestine is a small nation that cannot enter the propsed Turkish-Iranian-Egyptian alliance on equal par.
.
For as long as this national alliance does not have a Syrian/Palestinian representation and the leading role, then it will have the same intrinsic hallmarks of failure as the Islamic alliance.
.
Last but not least, if Assad puts the current uprising under control, Erdogan will be left red-faced and unable to deal any political business with Assad. On the other hand, if we see a regime change in Syria, the most likely winner will be the Sunni fundamentalists who will be very anti-Iranian. Either way, Syria will not be a part of this alliance, which begs the question as to how can this alliance be of any positive significance if the rightful land owners are excluded.
.
The only conclusion this argument reaches is that such an alliance, if it comes to fruition, and not unless it changes its umbrella from Islamic to regional national, and its constituency from Turkish-Iranian-Egyptian to Syrian/Palestinian-Turish-Iranian-Egyptian, it will have the propencity to be a either a return to the times of sectarianism or at best a return to the era regional colonialism in which nations surrounding Greater Syria decide how to split the Syrian bounty.
.
The article cites historical facts that reveals good in-depth knowledge of the author. However, it falls short of being able to properly address the issue of Palestine.
.
Not withstanding that on the surface this alliance appears to have the foundation of an ideal alternative to giving the orient by-and-large total independence from the West and its notorious interventions, we have to remain realistic in our analyses and expectations.
.
The only foundation for this coalition to work properly would be one that is based on national regional cooperation. For it to be effective and of long-term nature, it cannot be an Islamic alliance.
.
Sadly but realistically, sectarianism is still rife within Muslims, or at least within some of them who are fundamentalist and prepared to take up arms defedning their sect. If anything, the Sunni-Shiite divide is getting wider and old passions of hatred and vendetta are resurfacing after centuries of calm and whence more fundamentalists are recruited on both sides of the divide. If this alliance is based on Islam, and not unless both Sunnis and Shiites, concurrently and simlutanuously decide to put the ugly history that divided them centrueis ago and move forward, the issue of conflict will inevitably surface again. It will be only a matter of time.
.
Furthermore, an Islamic alliance will not only have within its underpinning foundation the hallmarks of fracture and collapse, but it also as the properncity to give little or no consideration to Chrisitian and other minorities in the region.
.
The Egyptian revolution is not over yet and the final victor remains to be unknown. Egypt is still in the process of defining its new direction and identity. Whilst it is currently flirting with both Iran and Turkey, the new Egypt is still in the labour ward awaiting birth. For the new Egypt to get into an alliance that is Islamic by definition, the new Egypt will have to be Islamic and this is not yet known to be the case.
.
Turkey on the other hand is still a NATO member and continues to have strong ties with Israel despite the recent hiccups. Its new Islamist agenda may not outlive the tenure of the incumbant ruling party. Whether or not Turkey is prepared to join an Islamic alliance for the long haul remains to be seen. If anything, at the present moment, Erdogan seems to be flirting with every one. The only bridge he has severed is the one that links him to Assad. He seems to want to do something big, but he is not sure what it is yet. In the meantime, he has a foot in every door. In regard to his views of Iran, if anything is obvious, it is that Erdogan is trying to forge a new Sunni alliance under Turksih wings not under Saudi/Western wings.
.
Iran is perhaps the only country of the three that is clearly Islamic, not withstanding its Shitte nature.
.
In reality therefore, Iran, Turkey and Egypt are not ready to form an Islamic alliance, and even if they do, the future of Christians and other minorities can become ill-defined.
.
So the question to ask is this. Are Turkey, Iran and Egypt ready to get into a national regional alliance? Realistically, it would be very difficult to answer this question because the correct answer to it lies in the hearts and minds of the leaders of those countries. But even if one assumes that yes they are ready, the bigger question that pops up is the question of Palestine.
.
Neither Turkey nor Egypt or Iran own Palestine. Whether we regard Palestine as a sovereign complete nation or a part of a bigger Arab Nation, geographically and historically speaking, Palestine is the southern part of Syria and only its people have the right to decide its political direction and destiny.
.
Surely, the Palestinian cause has attracted a lot of sympthay from Westerners and people around the globe. The support of Iran to Hezbollah and Hamas has been phenomenal. If Ergodan eventaully walks the talk and does something positive and concrete for the people of Gaza, his efforts will be of great help. But the true friends of Palestine and Palestinian people are the ones who want to make sure that Palestinians have the right of self determination.
.
A regional national alliance therefore will not have the rightful mandate to be effective not unless it includes Syria. Why Syria? Because leaders can come and go, but Palestine will always be a part of Syria, and Palestine is a small nation that cannot enter the propsed Turkish-Iranian-Egyptian alliance on equal par.
.
For as long as this national alliance does not have a Syrian/Palestinian representation and the leading role, then it will have the same intrinsic hallmarks of failure as the Islamic alliance.
.
Last but not least, if Assad puts the current uprising under control, Erdogan will be left red-faced and unable to deal any political business with Assad. On the other hand, if we see a regime change in Syria, the most likely winner will be the Sunni fundamentalists who will be very anti-Iranian. Either way, Syria will not be a part of this alliance, which begs the question as to how can this alliance be of any positive significance if the rightful land owners are excluded.
.
The only conclusion this argument reaches is that such an alliance, if it comes to fruition, and not unless it changes its umbrella from Islamic to regional national, and its constituency from Turkish-Iranian-Egyptian to Syrian/Palestinian-Turish-Iranian-Egyptian, it will have the propencity to be a either a return to the times of sectarianism or at best a return to the era regional colonialism in which nations surrounding Greater Syria decide how to split the Syrian bounty.
No comments:
Post a Comment