Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment  
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 5,100
Reply with quote  #1 
The raging civil war in Syria, the threat that it might drag neighbouring countries like Lebanon into it due to links with that country's own internal conflicts, and the interminable Palestinian issue, are of themselves the product of the fallout of the fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Arab Revolt, out of which arbitrary and artificial boundaries were drawn up. Of course, only Jordan has been stable and successful in being such as a kingdom, but its internal dynamics are rather different. Similarly the Yugoslav wars of the 90s were but a continuation of a conflict that began in 1914, with scores still unsettled.

In Bosnia-Herzegovina today, peace has to be maintained with a good deal outside assistance, a weak central government with Republika Srpska periodically demonstrating its independence from Sarajevo. Nobody wants a return to conflict, but they are locked into a catch-22 situation.

The problem of Syria and Lebanon, however, was one of conflicting communal interests and ideologies. After all, the Greater Syria ideal originated in the Arab Revolt and might have been realised under King Faisal in 1920, which Jordan under Abdullah I continued to pursue for some time after, traces of it remaining in Jordanian policy even afterwards. Maybe it was the most reasonable solution. Of course, the SSNP and Baath developed their own rather more sinister versions of the ideal, which led to the Assad regime's involvement in Lebanon. All this conflicted with contrasting Arab and non-Arab visions and ideologies, particularly among Christians.

Essentially the failure of Syria and Lebanon is that they had a system of government imposed on them by the French Mandate in the 1920s that was completely unsuitable to a complex society with an essentially sectarian and feudal basis. In Lebanon, it was taken one step further, with parliamentary seats and the highest offices in the republic allocated on an explicitly sectarian basis. While Syria came under Baathist rule, with an iron fist, to keep everyone under a lid before it recently exploded.

The idea of partition has always been talked about in both countries, but would that simply create an even more unviable and unworkable system? The idea of separate Alawite, Kurdish and Druze states seems to be resurfacing in Syria, and the Druze and Alawites had separate regions in the Mandate period.

Like the Palestinian issue, this has all the hallmarks of an interminable problem (and if a Palestinian state EVER happens, it will have the exact same problems!). Federalism, partition of countries... all touted but with risks. So who has a better solution?
jovan66102

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 2,581
Reply with quote  #2 
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidV
Similarly the Yugoslav wars of the 90s were but a continuation of a conflict that began in 1914, with scores still unsettled.



Try from the First Balkan War, 1912. I believe it was Erik Maria Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn who said that the Great War was, in essence, simply the Third Balkan War.

__________________
'Monarchy can easily be ‘debunked;' but watch the faces, mark the accents of the debunkers. These are the men whose tap-root in Eden has been cut: whom no rumour of the polyphony, the dance, can reach - men to whom pebbles laid in a row are more beautiful than an arch. Yet even if they desire equality, they cannot reach it. Where men are forbidden to honour a king they honour millionaires, athletes or film-stars instead: even famous prostitutes or gangsters. For spiritual nature, like bodily nature, will be served; deny it food and it will gobble poison.' C.S. Lewis God save Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, etc.! Vive le Très haut, très puissant et très excellent Prince, Louis XX, Par la grâce de Dieu, Roi de France et de Navarre, Roi Très-chrétien!
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 5,100
Reply with quote  #3 
I hadn't thought of that. But for Croats and Slovenes, independence in 1991 undid what happened between 1914 and 1918, as they viewed 1918-91 period as a mistake.

What we are more looking at is how to bring about a lasting peace in the Middle East when some of the more reasonable solutions have usually been dismissed by the parties concerned.
head_statue

Registered:
Posts: 171
Reply with quote  #4 
An alawite state might give ideas for the alawites in antioch to try to rejoin alexandretta to their co religionists. I think that france made a dumb decision by handing it to turkey since they got nothing in return. Turkey was aupposed to join the allies in exchange for alexandretta.
DavidV

Registered:
Posts: 5,100
Reply with quote  #5 
The Druze are concentrated in three pockets: the Jebel Druze region in Syria, the Chouf district in Lebanon, and around Mount Carmel in Israel.

So you have competing ethnic, sectarian and ideological visions for the region, which is far more complex than any of Europe had. And no one force that can keep the peace.
Pragmatist

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 586
Reply with quote  #6 
I forsee that if a wave of secession sweeps across Europe the Republika Srpska may secede from BiH. They see this as a degree revenge for the EU's support of Kosovo independence.
__________________
in America, the law is King
-Thomas Paine
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.