GySgt

It's a bad conclusion. It's a conclusion that is made through the same intellectual habit that has relied on the stability that strongmen and thugs provided for their former colonial masters.

You stated earlier about "root" issues. The root issue is not the overwhelming members of the populations who would like nothing more than a voice to express themselves and an opportunity to offer their children personal success. In the absence of the communist threat, America withdrew into a state of "peace." The "root" issue is that in the wake of 1989 when the Kremlin fell and the third world race stopped, the thugs were free to celebrate their emancipation upon their masses. Ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia and genocides in Sudan and Rwanda ensued - there is no coincidence here. Our role with Bosnia and Kosovo was only because it affected Europeans too closely and even that was a half *** effort to make a safer haven for gun runners who maintain a peace only because of a foriegn presence. It's an uneasy peace that ensures "stability." And the ironic part about the genocides and ethnic cleansings in Kosovo and Bosnia was that right before Yugoslavia cracked, America rushed to hold it together....for stability. (By the way, an interesting not is that Yugoslavia was the only country in Europe that did not have its borders redrawn after WWII.)

Also...take a look at the internal tribal feuds in Iraq and Afghanistan. Look at the Kurds in Turkey. Look at Pakistan. Look at Congo. In every single event above (Yugoslavia, Sudan, Rwanda, Iraq, Turkey, Afghanistan, Pakistan) you will find a country that was thrown together long ago by Europeans and is now immersed in internal fighting or violence between its tribes. And there will be much more and many will evolve into extreme violence.

Your conclusion here should not be about the depravity of non-Europeans and non-Americans. It should be about the festering misery encouraged by thugs, dictators, and religious zealots that have been left to celebrate their independance after the Cold War while our governments looked away. And it should be about all those third world countries that were sewn together long ago and maintained for decades for the false temporary sense of stability. (Strangely, when it came to placing the tribes in Germany and Poland back together after the Berlin Wall fell, no one rushed in to encourage the status quo of stability on them). Africans and Middle Easterners aren't afforded this tribal change back to the what they once were.

Now, this doesn't excuse those populations who wish to remain fixed, frozen in time in order to celebrate a religion that doesn't want to evolve into modern times. But it does offer an explanation on why so many other countries are simply stuck in a prescribed "acceptable" mode.

__________________

GySgt
Semper Fidelis
USMC

bub

Your point is that many conflicts are caused because, 2 centuries ago, Westerners (Europeans) have drawn strange frontiers and have mixed people from different tribes, who are mixed in a single state.

Then, at the decolonization, there was a gap of power, a vacuum, the most powerful tribe takes control of the state (like in Rwanda and in Iraq) and then tries to destroy/control the other tribes.

I think it was the cause of WWI, when the multicultural Habsburg and Turkish empires exploded. Then there was a period of nation building, minorities were sent back to their own "nation state". But that has happened in Yougoslavia only in the 90's.

So, basically, that's the Brits and the French who turned the M/E into a mess when they mixed different populations in Iraq.

__________________
===|:-)

GySgt

Absolutely. The evidence is clear to see throughout the third world (and the one country in Europe that was not redrawn after WWII only to later crumbled in tribal ethnic slaughter.) Consider a hypothetical situation in comparison. I'll break it down into sections, since we can see this in stages.....

The frustrations of the thrid world masses from almost a hundred years ago is today compounded in their descendents with religion, anger, and hatred fueling their sentiments. Decades of misery, prescribed by their fellow and rival tribeman but ignored by those on the outside who had the power to do something, have been brutalizing their people as we called it "peace." The result is an entire uneducated civilization immersed in a devine struggle for salvation (earthly and spiritually) and led by greedy men who struggle to maintain those bad borders and "their" land. Nationalism (where none existed before), becomes the tool for many of the population as they encourage that which will keep their fabricated borders in tact. Religious prescription and tribal loyalty become the tool for which all is to be set right by many others...but instead of rational thought and purpose, they seek to blame the outside for everything. In doing so, they destroy the one thing that we all need in order to improve ourselves - "self criticism."



Absolutely. And what country was the biggest offender in demanding Yugoslavia remain whole? America. We were even demanding this as they were slaughtering each other and seperating themselves out. Instead of handling the situation as we should have and helping them crack apart "peacfully," we chose to watch them slaughter each other in a hopes that they will kill their way to a solution quickly. Through the Cold War, we got ourselves into a bad habit of seeing "stability" in instable countries as the cure to all pain....the easy way out no matter who it hurt. Somehow, we got ourselves hooked on the idea that by facing the Soviet Union, we had to protect the tyrants that remained loyal and aided in keeping those borders secure.

The funny thing is that lines on the map have been redrawn naturally throughout history. One of the most unnatural things to have occurred was the imperial drawings and the later struggle to maintain them as if borders never change. We are too comfortable with lines on a map and panic whenever one changes or even threatens to change (We worked on cracking the Soviet Union for decades and then we rushed in to hold it together).

I believe America did this, because we were largely clueless about what to do after WWII. Considering that we really did inherit a huge world we hardly knew, its amazing we made so few mistakes. But in the absence of our own wisdom, we chose Europe's prescription. We chose to follow the same model of international organization by declaring tyrants "soveriegn" and protecting bad borders. I am a supporter of many of the events during the Cold War, but many things could have also come with better choices. We should have recognized that the end of a World War should have meant a new international organizational need. Instead, we chose the eay way out and opted for any solution that kept us from further war. Our feelings were so great that we even allowed Russia to create its own bad borders and split up Eastern Europe for decades. This is something we would fix later (Berlin Wall), but the third world seems to be forever discarded. But the 21st century enemy is coming from this "trash bin." I believe we are coming to a time where we will be forced to extend the same hand to Arabs and Africans that we have extended to Europeans and Asians. It would be nice to have more than the bare minimum of help from all those that have benefitted in the past, because we simply cannot do it alone. Without enough help, the road will be longer than it has to be and far more violent than it has to be.

Not just Iraq. If you look at the tribes within Saudi Arabia before Imperialism, today's Saudi Arabia could be split into four parts. The same is true for Pakistan, Lebanon, Half of Africa, Indonesia, India..etc. But in all cases, we see either a thug government keeping the "peace" or a struggling democracy where tribes vote for their fellow tribesman only (never a vote for simply the best man/woman). Only Turkey has come a long way, but they are unique. They aren't Arabs and they destroyed the Islamic model on their own. Our problem today is that we are running out of time and can't afford to wait for them to throw out their garbage (some of which we left behind).

bub

Yeah they are not Islamist but they are ultranationalist...and I think it's just as bad.

As for the nations, it's interresting to see that nation-states (where the cultural entity (nation) corresponds to the political entity (state) is a modern construction.

The example I studied in my courses is France. There were many "tribes", autonomous regions with they own culture, language and traditions (always remotely linked but yet different from each other). And then the Kings of France spread the language and culture from Paris to the aeras they had conquered and had called France. Then in the XIXth century, France was "standardized" by schools (where kids from Dunkerke to Marseille learnt the same standardized form of French), military service (soldiers were mixed) and mass medias.

The same has happened in UK and Italy.

But there are counter-examples, like Belgium.
In the years 1830 there was a period of nation building, when "national" heroes were celebated. But now, each community has her own school system, her own medias, her own elections, her own language...so people are more and more "different" and now it is going to explode.

But it's not only in Belgium. The nation-states are now obsolete, because of immigration, interdependant economy, communication at the world level...we enter an area of postnationalism. This is a concept from Habermas I think. He says the nation must not be defined by an uncritical vision of history (like before) nor the appartenance to a "culture", but by universally acceptable notions (like the Human Rights).

That could be the new European identity, based on the acceptation of Human Rights and Rechtstaat and not on a specific traditional culture.

GySgt

I'm not so sure. Certainly, we have Nazi Germany as the ultimate negative example of how nationalism can destroy humanity. But in most overwhelming displays, nationalism has aided in positive unity. Those that opposed Nazi Germany in Europe were practicing their own nationalism. And America's journey across both the Pacific and the Atlantic during that period was greatly influenced by a support of nationalism. The true danger is when we see an imported feel of nationalism (brought by Europeans) that is proving power to a specific tribes identity mixed with religious prescription.

With regards to Turkey...it was a Turkish General that decided Turkey's fate. His actions were dedicated to pushing the Western influence out of his borders. In doing so, he used the western influence of nationalism to do it. He could have easily used Islam. And since his immediate design was to abolish the Sultan (ending almost 14 centuries of Caliphate rule over all of Islam), he freed Turkey not only from western imperialism, but Islamic oppression. Of course, they have had their troubles with this ever since, but they are far ahead of their fellow Muslims in the region. (It's of importance to recognize that they are not Arabs and have always been seen as outsiders). Today, they are dealing with the after affects of not recognizing the rights of all Turks (Kurds in the South) until recently. The Kurds argue over tribal roots and seperation and the Turkish government is acting out of nationalism for its unnatural borders. The Kurds have an argument, but so does the Turkish government. Turkey is a great example of how these bad borders are going to affect even countries not enslaved to religious prescription.

This is absolutely correct, but it is a utopian dream. Such a thing would demand a global government. The problem is that most of the world does not agree with seperating or blending their cultures....

- Asia: Who ever immigrated to Asia? China has never seen the influx of immigrants that the West has seen. Their population largely shares an identity in religion, culture, and outward appearance. The same is true for Japan and other countries. Their cultures are very much the same as they have always been...with modern translations and shifts. Even as families crossed borders from one Asian country to the next, they stayed within the same cultural dynamic. Now, one could try to describe this region as tolerant towards others, but the truth is that they haven't had to be tested. Tourists are one thing, but immigrants are another. And everyone that has been tested has stumbled greatly.

- The Middle East: This region has been tested and continues to fail quite boldly. Tribal and religious identity has always been the way by which people are judged. Outsiders are treated as such and even individuals within their own societies are subjected to strict codes of sameness. Nobody has ever immigrated to the Arab deserts and thusly, no Arab country has ever really dealt with immigration ("Palestine" being the exception). We hear a lot from Muslim countries about the sins of European imperialism upon them, but we never hear them criticize the accepted inter-imperialism they have practiced upon each other since Islam exploded out of the Arab desert 14 centuries ago.

- Europe: This region is very aware of how impossible it is to maintain a nationalistic identity in accordance to what history has seen in the past. I know you don't like to recognize it, but Europe has had a lot of prescription that has made it difficult to accept outsiders. From repeated ethnic cleansings through tribal conflicts, to religious inquisitions, to full scale genocides, Europe has managed to force a specific identity (sameness) from this country to the next over the centuries. It is very true that Europe has turned a corner since WWII, but the ethnic identities remain. Today, the biggest obstacle for Europe is the exponentially growing immigration coming from Muslim states. Europe is not prepared for them, and many immigrants do not wish to practice their religion under the religious laws governing Europe. As unemployment and governmental reliance worsens for these Muslim societies, the situation will get worse for both sides. One only has to look at the behaviors of those who have nothing but to turn to divine aid for their answers and paths to recognize how dangerous the situation can get. I firmly believe that a storm is coming.

- America: Even with its hardships that naturally come when the world's identities come together, America is the model of cultural and religious blending. But it had to come through a Civil War and countless civil rights marches. And these events were a hundred years apart! America is unique, because it was created by the cooperation of immigrants. Today, racism persists to a lesser degree, but will always be a part of a population that defines itself by the parts of every culture on earth. But when it comes to human rights, Americans tend to rely upon outdated laws that prevent help or think themselves unaffected by the misery of those across the sea.

I do believe that Human Rights should unite us. But, our world is led by organizations that caters to dictators. When nations like China and Russia have a veto vote on a United Nations Security Council, there won't be too much humanitarian aid being discussed, especially when the dictators maintain "peace." And the truth is that no dictator is in a hurry to take another one out and most countries around the world appreciate their veto vote, because it means that they don't have to take responsibility for something they don't care about anyway. We saw it with Iraq, where a brutal human rights violator was supposed to be saved by laws of soveriegnty. We see it today in Darfur, where everyone is quick to point out misery, but slow to do anything about it. But a war for revenge like in Afghanistan seems perfectly acceptable and just. For some criminal reason, humanitarian assistance is not a justifiable act in our world...even when those human rights violators are encouraging the misery that evolves into religious terror upon others.


It can be. International Laws based on traditions are not acceptable in this day and age. When the laws that were meant to protect the innocent become laws that defend the criminals or dictators, we have to create new laws. When systems of international organization stops working, we have to recognize that traditional organizations and identities need to evolve. And we absolutely have to stop thinking that lines on a map are forever set in concrete simply because we are used to seeing them. I think that when this era is over (you and I will be long gone), Rechtstaat's thinking will come only after history has seen the tribes in these countries reunited.