Pak Tribune, Pakistan
The 'Brilliant' New Scheme to Redraw Muslim Borders ...

Yasser Latif Hamdani  

September 1, 2006
Pakistan's Pak Tribune - Original Article (English)    

The Armed Forces Journal [an American military journal] has recently come up with another brilliant scheme to reconfigure the nations in the Muslim World [Clickable before-and-after maps on left]. The author of this new scheme, Ralph Peters, is the latest in a long line of theorists who have done more to injure America's reputation among Muslims than any real U.S. injustices committed by Washington. For one thing, here in this information age, this brilliant gentleman actually argues for the realignment of the Muslim World along linguistic and sectarian lines, when logically, the concern should be to transform nation-states into constitution-based democratic republics that guarantee good governance and equal rights to all citizens, regardless of their ethnic, linguistic or religious origins.

[Editor's Note: Read also, 'New Middle East' Borders to Be Drawn in Arab Blood from Syria, about the same article from the Armed Forces Journal].

To be frank, the question of who died and gave Mr. Peters the right to determine what constitutes a natural or an unnatural state is beyond the scope of this discussion. To this writer, it is pretty clear why Peters chose the particular nation-states between the Bosphorus and the Indus for such vivisection and not, for example, the region known as Modern India, which lay between Pakistan and Bangladesh, which is a single state containing thousands of ethnic, caste and parochial divisions. Clearly, India's development of a democratic framework would not suffice for Mr. Peters to spare that country from similar vivisection. After all, the Kashmiri, the Nagaland, the Sikh and India's other 15-odd freedom movements have as much validity as those he mentions in his article, i.e. the Kurds, the Balochs, the Naqshbandis, the Eastern Christians, the Ismailis, the Shias, etc, etc. Besides if democracy was criteria, how would his reconfiguration along minor sectarian lines help that cause?

The states that he hints at as ripe for dismantling are as natural as any states in Europe, Asia, Africa or the Americas. Turkey, Iran and Pakistan are the historic successor states to great Muslim Empires of the past. In this respect they are not unlike Austria, Hungary, Germania, Spain and Britain, etc. Pakistan especially is not just the natural consequence of Muslim control over South Asia: it has remained an independent entity for four millennia, distinct both from Afghanistan and the modern state of India, and joined with either of these states only for brief periods under great empires i.e., The Maurya empire , the Ghaznavid empire , and the Turk and British empires. The Khyber Pass is a natural demarcation between Afghanistan and Pakistan, and it is quite clear that no matter what cultural ties bind Afghans with Pakistani Pashtuns, most Pashtuns always choose to stand united with Pakistan.

Perhaps the Pashtun regions of Afghanistan will break away and join Pakistan, but the possibility of it happening the other way around would require wishes to be transformed into rocketships. As for the Balochs, they number just 7 million of Pakistan's total population of 150 million, whereas Balochistan as a Province that makes up almost half the Pakistan republic's land mass. And out of these 7 million Balochs, only a few hundred thousand follow anti-Pakistan tribal leaders. The idea that this would somehow spin into a major separatist movement exposes a geopolitical ignorance of the realities of Pakistan.

Since ancient times, the Iran-Turan [Turkish] rivalry of has been immortalized in folklore. The Ottoman and Safavid Empires gave this rivalry new meaning. The states that later became part of USSR were historically part of these two empires. Therefore, there is a much greater chance of parts of Azerbaijan and the Central Asian states joining either Iran or Turkey than the other way around. Truth be told, the dream of having a Kurdistan, as the most pro-Western state between Bulgaria and Japan, is perhaps at the heart of Mr. Peters mental, geographic and political gymnastics.

While I am no fan of Saudi Arabia and its Wahabbi fundamentalism, I wonder what prompted Mr. Peters to declare Saudi Arabia an unnatural state? If being united by a monarchy is his reason, should he not raise a similar objection against the United Kingdom, which historically has been united by the royal family. And oh great scholar, do spare a thought for Scotland. Why not dismantle this most unnatural state and make independent England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland happy? Surely there must be some great and historic injustices that could be reversed there? You see, I am very open-minded about the idea of altering borders. Come to think of it, what a great wrong would be reversed if California were to be made part of Mexico. And why stop there - how about Texas, or is the blood of slave-owners spilled at the Alamo more important than the blood of the millions who sacrificed their lives (even those lives sacrificed unwillingly) in conflicts that created these borders in the first place?

The fact of the matter is that with the end of colonialism, the Muslim World entered into the nation-state phase and after 80-odd years, national boundaries within the Muslimdom" are now concrete realities. The way forward is not to break down and create new ghettos, but to take existing nation states and help them democratize and modernize, to bring them in step with the modern world. Thus this new proposal to redraw the borders is at least 60 years too late. Instead of coming up with these hair-brained schemes to alter existing borders in this day and age, perhaps a policy of hands off non-intervention (especially an end to all support for dictators and military rulers) would be been more advisable.

Unfortunately, American attitudes have historically favored a foolhardy belief in the notion that two wrongs make a right. This is precisely why Mr. Peters says so openly "Ethnic cleansing works!" Truth be told, it is impossible in this day and age to satisfy each and every imagined identity group. Who is to judge which claim should take priority? This is a question that will continue to haunt those who wish to follow Mr. Peters' scheme. Instead, my suggestion is: Give democracy a chance and stop aiding military dictators.

yasser.hamdani@gmail.com

VIDEO FROM LIBYA: MUAMMAR GADHAFI SAYS IT

IS NOT 'GLOBAL TERROR ... IT IS MUSLIM TERROR'

AL-ARIBIYA, DUBAI: Excerpts from a speech by Libyan Leader, Muammar Gadhafi, at the Arab League conference, March 23, 2005, 00:05:33, Via MEMRI

"What is terrorism? Has any American blown up an airplane? No. Has any American strapped on an explosives belt and gone to Cairo, Tripoli, or Algiers, to blow something up? Such a thing never happened. Has any Indian gone to China to blow something up? No. Has any Russian done such things? No. Has any Italian, any Frenchman...? No."

Libyan Dictator Moammar Gadhafi