Community archive

Ask something
Discussion Locked

Redrawing borders - Middle East

0 helpful
9 replies

by onbliss

Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.

Ralph Peters author of the book: Never Quit the Fight, Stackpole Books. 2006; in an article written in June 2006 begins thus:

**************
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.
******************

You can read the entire article and look at the before and proposed AFTER maps here: http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2006/06/1833899/

I read that this article has stirred up interest/concern in 'some' circles.

edited: content

9 replies

by dmambo

The problem is that existing governments will fight to maintain control over areas that have valuable resources regardless of the indigenous population's ethnicity. The reason these areas were colonialized in the first place was that the powers wanted to exploit the land. Most of the local rule that evolved from the colonial rule was put in because it would be friendly to the departing governments.

At this point, I'm not sure that any solution would work. The intergroup hatreds are too deeply rooted.

by onbliss

I agree with you, the present governments would fight to maintain status quo.

It is one thing to redraw maps in books and essays, but it is another thing to implement them in real life.

by protiusx

Borders have been in contention for the entire history of man. The very idea of a border is a dividing line between two or more groups and defines what is mine and what is yours. Whose to say whether a border is just or unjust? There will always be two sides to the border issue. Let's look to North Ireland for a good example. I will not detract from the mistakes made by certain countries in the past but I will also not blame every African death on a European or "westerner". The issue is far more complex and the Africans and Arabs need to take some responsibility for their own bloody actions upon themselves.

by dmambo

The "competing" govts are both modern democracies. The citizens of either country live free, prosperous lives including religious freedom. And, (I'm blowing a little smoke here, because I'm not certain) both countries have relatively similar tax structures. If Northern Ireland changed hands tomorrow, how much would the daily lives of her children change? Not too much, I bet. Especially compared to people in the Congo or Rwanda.

But they battle on after 800 years or more. Even with a common language, the bad blood runs deep.

by john.a.wills

The author's proposal for a super-vatican for Islam is almost right. But the Vatican is smaller than many city parks, and parallel states should similarly be small, so as not to distract or annoy. The Muslim vatican should be trilocal: the Great Mosque in Mecca, the Tomb of Muhammed in Medina and the Haram ash Sharif in Jerusalem.
There should be a vatican for Rabbinical Jews huddling up against the Western Wall.
The Christian Vatican should have a dependency at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem.
There should be a Golden Temple City State in Amritsar for Sikhs.
There should be a Potala City State in Lhasa for Buddhists.

by onbliss

...the seriousness of your views about having vaticans for some of the other world religions.

In case you were serious, why do you think there should be one for the Sikhs and Buddhists? And why would you have it in Lhasa for Buddhists?

by john.a.wills

These are large-scale religions with enough centripetality to recognise such a doctrinal centre, whether to agree or to disagree with its pronouncments. The Sikhs already have synods and so forth in a building (which should be included in the state) opposite the Temple.
As for the Buddhists, most of them respect the Dalai Lama, even if he is not their actual leader, and the Dalai Lama's historical base is the Potala.

by onbliss

I am sure you are aware Dalai Lama is a leader in Tibetan Buddhism, though he might be respected by many other schools of Buddhisms he is not officially recognized as their leader.

It would be best for people of a religion to determine [b]such[/b] matters pertaining to their faith without interfernce from others.

Even Sikhism might exhibit some structure that might be comparable to other religious structures, but it only creates displeasure if people belonging to other faiths start viewing everything of other religions in their own image.

by john.a.wills

Then the super-vatican in the article we are discussing is even more off-base. However, the question concerns everyone. There have been definite benefits, starting with sovereignty for a significant church, from the Vatican City State for everyone. It also concerns other people because of the territory to be given up, which is another reason my trilocal proposal for Islam is better than the article's super-vatican.

This discussion is closed to new replies.