Syria, the Arab Spring, and the Ottoman Empire

As tempted as I have felt to rant write about Syria, I resisted that urge, but I seem to have crossed my own "red line"!

The following is a repeat post from two years ago, with minor edits:

The “Arab Spring” is the final unraveling of the Ottoman Empire.

It is now three years since the self-immolation of a Tunisian street merchant—a horrific act that captured the imaginations of millions and launched the widespread movement in the Middle East to remove authoritarian governments, in favor of democracy.

Almost all the countries included in the ongoing Arab Spring were once part of the powerful and expansive Ottoman Empire, whose prominence was marked by the conquest of Constantinople in 1453.  The city became Istanbul and the empire’s capital too.  It was no surprise, therefore, that soon Suleiman and his forces were knocking on Vienna’s doors. 

Source

As empires always do, the Ottoman Empire, also, started its decline after a successful run, and the descent accelerated in the 19^th century.  Again, as it happens with empires, the decline was marked by its territories being taken over by other powers.  Tunisia was one of those, as were the other Arab Spring countries of Algeria, Libya, Egypt, Syria, Morocco, and Yemen.  The Pasha was replaced by European colonial powers.  The First World War, whose conclusion we mark with Armistice Day and Veterans Day, had an additional effect of removing the remnants of the Ottoman Empire. 

The final untangling from the Ottoman ties began with the breakup of Yugoslavia in 1991.  The Balkans, too, were once a part of the Ottoman Empire, and Yugoslavia was held together by authoritarian governments, until the death of President Tito and, later, the collapse of the Soviet Bloc.  When the authoritarian structures were gone, for the first time people in Yugoslavia had an opportunity to establish their own political identities.  Unfortunately, it turned out to be violent and bloody, and triggered external intervention from the US and its NATO allies.

The collapse of the Soviet Union created new countries that were also former Ottoman territories—Armenia and Azerbaijan.  These had been swallowed by the Russian Czars and, after the Bolshevik Revolution, became a part of the USSR. 

When all that dust settled, more or less, the decade that followed began with the events of September 11, 2001.  

One of the grand plans that preoccupied Osama bin Laden’s maniacal approach was the creation of an Islamic state that would continue where the Ottoman Empire had ended.  His logic was that the US was propping up the governments in Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Libya, to name a few, and that weakening the US would make possible the supra-Islamic state. 

In this decade, fortunately, the Arab Spring is the exact opposite of what bin Laden had envisioned.  The peoples of the former territories of the Ottoman Empire are protesting against their rulers not because they want to re-create an Islamic empire.  When the Tunisian street merchant set himself on fire, it was because he was fed up with having to deal with the corrupt rulers—all the way down to the local police.  Egyptians similarly were tired of Hosni Mubarak and his cronies looting away the wealth, while the youth were jobless with highly insecure futures. 

Dictators and authoritarian governments have been the norm since the end of the Ottoman Empire, and even after the people in the Arab Spring countries had witnessed the departure of the European colonizers.  Tunisia, for instance, was a French colony until 1956, but independence did not usher in freedom and democracy. 

The correlation between the Arab Spring and the Ottoman Empire is also reflected in the case of Saudi Arabia, which has not experienced mass protests—Saudi Arabia was not a part of the Ottoman Empire.

The Arab Spring is a reminder, in a way, that our contemporary lives are intricately connected with events from the past—something that historians often remind us about but is easily forgotten by most of the rest of us. 

The continued linkage with the past means that even as we keep one eye on the Arab Spring, the other remains fixed on at least one byproduct of the end of the British Empire that the world worries about--Pakistan.  

Empires strike back, even from their graves!

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,The Daily Show on Facebook

Is 2012 is a game-changer in history, as were 1979 and 2001?

I was in graduate school--often sleeping in a corner of USC's philosophy library or Doheny library--as the the Soviet Bloc started coming apart.

It was surreal to watch the entire system come down.  Those were the prime years of CNN and its anchor, Bernard Shaw.  

As one who grew up reading Russian literature, which convinced my parents that I was a commie who would never go to the US, I was all the more fascinated with the events and Gorbachev became my hero for carefully walking down the path of perestroika and glasnost.

All of a sudden there they were: Latvia and Estonia and Lithuania.  Soon after all that there was Yeltsin holding on to a new Russian beginning.

The crazy thing for me as a student was that none of my faculty even remotely talked about such a possibility, say, in 1987 or even in 1988. 

As Yogi Berra remarked, "Prediction is very hard, especially about the future"

Years later, as the summer season of the university's calendar was winding down, it was early in the morning as I was drinking coffee with NPR in the background when I thought I heard something about a plane crashing into the World Trade Center in NY.  For two days after turning the television on at that moment, I sat transfixed and absolutely depressed by the even more surreal sights--I even skipped out on the back-to-school events on campus where, I later learnt, the university president had apparently highlighted, among other accomplishments, a research work that I had just completed.

I am amazed that I have already lived through such major game changers in world history!

In recent years the dramatic game changers in global history have been quite regular, about a decade apart:

1968: the Tet Offensive
1979: annus horribilis
1989: The Berlin Wall tumbles down
2001: 9/11

It is then tempting to worry that the next event is round the corner.  It is equally tempting to think that the Arab Spring was not a game-changer, but that the recent wave of protests is the beginning of a historic turning point.

But, I have learnt enough to humbly admit to this: I don't know when and where that will happen.

I don't think even Bruce Bueno de Mesquita knows
 :-(

The fights with my brother easily explain the Benghazi consulate attack

When we were children, my brother and I fought our good fights, almost all of them based on a single concept: we seemed to know exactly what would make the other fly off the handle.  Take a finger very near the other, but not touch.  And keep saying "I am not touching you." Less than a minute later, we trade blows.  Or, simply repeat what the other said. A few of those repetitions later, it is Tom and Jerry launching anything they can get their hands on.

It is a similar pattern that we have observed in the Middle Eastern and Islamic geopolitical issues.  We have enough and more evidence that it takes only a few to say something uncivilized, protected free speech that might be, and there are people who go ballistic.  The offended party rarely ever takes the typical mother's advice to simply ignore the taunts.  Fights ensue.

After a few fights, we learn, we grow up, and we become adults.  Most of us stop engaging in those kinds of behaviors. But, not Terry Jones, writes Marc Ambinder!

Terry Jones is monumentally stupid and even more reckless. His first attempt to provoke Muslims ended in the deaths of innocents.  We live in an age where speech acts can easily escape their geographical confinement, and Jones, understanding how easily he can prove (to himself) his contention that the Islamic religion is inherently violent and corrupt, regularly yells fire in crowded theaters.  

Of course I was not doing anything when I held my finger near my brother's face and said "I am not touching you"--well, other than trying my best to provoke a reaction from him.  Terry Jones manages to provoke people again and again.

Adds Ambinder:

We live in a world where American provocateurs can easily arouse the militancy of Muslim extremists who are more ubiquitous than even I would like to admit, or, at the very least, allow bad people to use extant anti-American sentiment to whip crowds into frenzies. In either case, innocent people, including Americans, die. ...
Those who use the gift of institutionally and legally-protected free speech to exploit and prey upon the vulnerability of certain people to violence ought to be shamed.  

So, what can mothers do with such stupid and irresponsible kids? Again, Ambinder:

On Twitter, the first instinct of a lot of Americans was retributive justice. But the U.S. government's sensitivity about the mood of the violent protesters is maddening but necessary. Being aggressive would cause more unnecessary dying. ...
At the same time, the people who killed people; protesters, thugs, militants, whomever, are ultimately responsible for their actions. If the U.S. government is going to discourage our own idiots from provoking people, then the governments of Egypt and Libya should act to corral those within their own nations who would storm an embassy on the pretext that a film offends.

Turns out that the October Surprise in this election season has come from totally unexpected quarters!

All those neocons who were jumping up and down with joy that the Iraq War and the Great War on Terror unleashed the Arab Spring have even more blood on their hands now, says The Hindu in its editorial:

Ambassador Stevens may have been the victim of his country’s reckless post-9/11 policy of “regime change”. The policy targeted pan-Arabist, staunchly secular though iron-fisted regimes that had cracked down hard on Islamist extremists. The global war on terror that followed 9/11 first toppled Iraq’s Saddam Hussain on the false pretext that his regime was developing weapons of mass destruction that could be used for terrorism.

Consequently, the collapse of the Ba’athist government opened the floodgates for jihadi groups to infiltrate Iraq and fan out in the region. The NATO-supported grisly killing last year of Libyan leader Muammar Qadhafi, who had kept a lid on extremists, has been followed by an unprecedented jihadi assertion in the country, led by the Libya Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG).

LIFG leader Abdelhakim Belhaj sharpened his skills in the 1980s during the anti-Soviet jihad in Afghanistan. After 9/11, Belhaj headed for Pakistan and then Iraq, where he befriended terror kingpin Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

Ambinder ends his post by quoting this tweet:

When innocent people die because of what you say, it's time to man up. Terry Jones get your ass to Benghazi and defend your film!
— AllThingsHLS (@AllThingsHLS) September 11, 2012

Not only should Terry Jones go there though.  He should take along with him W Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Kristol, ....

Meanwhile, Israel's Benjamin Netanyahu wants to bomb Iran, like yesterday, so much so that even his own country is flummoxed. 

“Who are you trying to replace?” the opposition leader, Shaul Mofaz, asked of Netanyahu in the Knesset on Wednesday. “The Administration in Washington or that in Tehran?”

What the hell is wrong with all these people?

It is a mad, mad, mad world!

Photo of the day: Election in Egypt

Caption at the source:
Fadila Mohammed, 90, is carried by an Egyptian Army captain and other voters as she leaves a polling station after voting in Cairo.

Empires strike back. Solution: stop empire-building!

The “Arab Spring” is the final unraveling of the Ottoman Empire.

It is now almost a year since the self-immolation of a Tunisian street merchant—a horrific act that captured the imaginations of millions and launched the widespread movement in the Middle East to remove authoritarian governments in favor of democracy.

Almost all the countries included in the ongoing Arab Spring were once part of the powerful and expansive Ottoman Empire, whose prominence was marked by the conquest of Constantinople in 1453.  The victorious Mehmed renamed the city Istanbul and made it the empire’s capital too and, thereby, made clear the intention to expand into Europe.  It was no surprise, therefore, that soon Suleiman and his forces were knocking on Vienna’s doors. 

As empires always do, the Ottoman Empire, also, started its decline after a successful run, and the descent accelerated in the 19^th century.  Again, as it happens with empires, the decline was marked by its territories being taken over by other powers.  Tunisia was one of those, as were the other Arab Spring countries of Algeria, Libya, Egypt, Syria, Morocco, and Yemen.  The Pasha was replaced by European colonial powers.  The First World War, whose conclusion we mark with Armistice Day and Veterans Day, had an additional effect of removing the remnants of the Ottoman Empire. 

But, the real and final untangling from the Ottoman ties began with the breakup of Yugoslavia in 1991.  The Balkans, too, were once a part of the Ottoman Empire, and Yugoslavia was held together by authoritarian governments, until the death of President Tito and, later, the collapse of the Soviet Bloc.  When the authoritarian structures were gone, for the first time people in Yugoslavia had an opportunity to establish their own political identities.  Unfortunately, it turned out to be violent and bloody and triggered external intervention from the US and its NATO allies.

The collapse of the Soviet Union created new countries that were also former Ottoman territories—Armenia and Azerbaijan.  These had been swallowed by the Russian Czars and, after the Bolshevik Revolution, became a part of the USSR. 

When all that dust settled, more or less, the decade that followed began with the events of September 11, 2001.  One of the grand plans that preoccupied Osama bin Laden’s maniacal approach was the creation of an Islamic state that would continue where the Ottoman Empire had ended.  His logic was that the US was propping up the governments in Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Libya, to name a few, and that weakening the US would make possible the supra-Islamic state. 

In this decade, fortunately, the Arab Spring is the exact opposite of what bin Laden had envisioned.  The peoples of the former territories of the Ottoman Empire are protesting against their rulers not because they want to re-create an Islamic empire.  When the Tunisian street merchant set himself on fire, it was because he was fed up with having to deal with the corrupt rulers—all the way down to the local police.  Egyptians similarly were tired of Hosni Mubarak and his cronies looting away the wealth, while the youth were jobless with highly insecure futures. 

Dictators and authoritarian governments have been the norm since the end of the Ottoman Empire, and even after the people in the Arab Spring countries had witnessed the departure of the European colonizers.  Tunisia, for instance, was a French colony until 1956, but independence did not usher in freedom and democracy. 

The correlation between the Arab Spring and the Ottoman Empire is also reflected in the case of Saudi Arabia, which has not experienced mass protests—Saudi Arabia was not a part of the Ottoman Empire.

The Arab Spring is a reminder, in a way, that our contemporary lives are intricately connected with events from the past—something that historians often remind us about but is easily forgotten by most of the rest of us. 

The continued linkage with the past means that even as we keep one eye on the Arab Spring, the other remains fixed on at least one byproduct of the end of the British Empire that the world worries about--Pakistan.  Empires strike back, even from their graves!

Details on the Arab Spring in a series of graphics

The Economist uses technology better than most publications that I care to read.  This one here is really cool (except for the annoying part that it doesn't begin with "1 of 40" and you have to manually go to the beginning!):

Yemen ... I know ye from my posts

With all the news updates about the protests and proto-civil-war in Yemen, here are a few of my own posts about Yemen over the past few months:

About President "Uncle Ali" ... a Yemeni version of Musharraf
How even students in my class got all worked up about the status of women in Yemen--and this was in a class way back in March 2010!
Back in July 2010, the NY Times Magazine had a lengthy piece titled, "Is Yemen the Next Afghanistan?" ... to which my response then was, as is now, "The answer is a no-brainer!"

There is something seriously wrong when a bloke like me is able to follow events in a far away country and blog about them, only to realize that our government lags way behind in its policies.  If that is my case, imagine then the frustrations of phenomenally informed and qualified commentators like Juan Cole!

BTW, recall these Jon Stewart classics on Yemen?

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Terror 2.0 by Yemen - Sad Libs
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Rally to Restore Sanity

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Terror 2.0 by Yemen
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Rally to Restore Sanity