Background
In his book “Lawrence in
Arabia: War, Deceit, Imperial Folly, and the Making of The Modern Middle East,”
Scott Anderson, a veteran war correspondent for several news agencies and who
has seen up close the conflicts in Lebanon, Israel, Egypt, Northern Ireland,
Bosnia, and several more, reminds us, if the title of the book has not done so
already, that the recent conflicts in the Middle East are a consequence of the
muddled politics, greed, and imperial desires of the United State and several
European powers, France and the United Kingdom most prominent among them.
"Before most, "writes
Anderson, "Lawrence seems to have accepted the modern concept of History
as something malleable, that the truth is what people are willing to
believe."
And, surely, with the avalanche of
information we get from twenty-four hour news services, social media on the
Internet, magazines, and newspapers, the malleability of History is sadly
evident and the "truth" of events such as the so-called
"Emigrant Crisis" is what the European and American public, lulled by
decades of banal newscast and the silly rantings of "talking heads"
like those of Fox News, that are more interested in muck raking for political
purposes than talking about the political-economic motives that drove the
United States and its European allies to invade Iraq (see documentaries such as
"Breaking The Silence: Truth and Lies in The War on Terror" (2003)).
(Note: Why is it (at least in France, it is) that these interesting documentaries
are shown at midnight or later?).
The malleability of History is
also disgracefully evident in the way that it is taught (or rather not even
mentioned) in schools and how it is described in books that pretend to explain
it to non-scholars and children. For example, during my research to gather
material for a novel I was writing, I discovered the complicity (unknown to me,
at least) and enthusiastic collaboration, not only of the French authorities
but also of a sizable portion of the general public, in the persecution and
deportation to concentration camps of French Jews, Communists, and anti-Nazis.
But worse, I discovered that it is not only not taught in schools but that the
public is deliberately misinformed, facts ignored, or taught in such a way that
things such as the many concentration camps that existed in France soil before,
during, and after World War II are portrayed as something the Germans forced on
the French.
But, this "complicity of
silence" is not particular to France. There is no country in the world
that is not ashamed of some chapter or other of its history and tries to suppress
it, ignore it, or simply deny its existence. Therefore, it is not strange that
the people of this country, and particularly the people with whom I have
frequent contact, ignore completely the historical reasons for the diaspora
that we are now witnessing.
The writing of T. E. Lawrence
(Lawrence of Arabia, as he is popularly known) and of historians (most of them
from western countries) tell us the that Middle East as we know it today was
created, mostly, by the United Kingdom, or the British Empire if you will. It
was that British Empire that carried out a war against another empire,
the Ottoman one. For that reason, the British felt they were entitled to, as
well as their staunch ally France, to redesign borders, create countries, and
assign territory to others, as they saw fit. And, I might add, as it suited
their economic and political purposes. It was these political and economic
interest that guided the British and French to "invent" Irak,
redesign Iran, designate Saudi Arabia as a Saudi kingdom, and to hand out spoils
to sheiks and princes, creating a herd of small kingdoms poor in culture and
world knowledge but rich in natural resources. Big enough to exploit but small
enough to control.
In this "new" Middle
East, the European powers repeated the same mistakes they made in the Balkans,
or perhaps I should say, hey intentionally made in the Balkans. That is, to
invent countries throwing together cultures, religions, and traditions highly
antagonistic to each other, as they did, for example by creating Yugoslavia
where Serbs, Croats, and Bosnians were set up for continuous strife. In Irak,
these powers installed a repressive minority Sunni regime to control a Shiite
majority. In Iran, they installed and protected for decades a repressive,
corrupt regime run by the Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi who was overthrow by a
social-religious revolution only to be shunned by the same countries who had
set him up in power.
Speaking of Palestine, Lawrence
once said in 1917 that if the creation of a Jewish state was allowed it would
have to be created by the force of arms and only by the force of arms would it
continue to exist given that it would be surrounded by a huge and hostile
majority. Nevertheless, the United States, with the complicity of its European
allies, did exactly that and sold it to the US public and general world opinion
via propaganda and Hollywood movies (Exodus, for example). This is not to say
that the Jewish people should not have a homeland but that the Palestinians did
not deserve to lose theirs.
In 1920, French troops defeated
Arab forces in the Syrian Kingdom, king Faisal (who had been an ally during
WWI, had to flee, and in the San Remo Conference, Syria was chopped up, into
present Syria, Lebanon, and Palestine (which would be later chopped up to
create Israel). Syria and Lebanon became French protectorates and Palestine a
British one. This arbitrary chopping up by the Europeans led to decades of
strife as the different countries and peoples sought independence. The
Europeans answered with brutal repression. While at home and abroad the US and
the Europeans raved about Democracy, Free Speech, etc. in the Middle East they
practiced quite the opposite. This political and economic domination and
exploitation lasted up to the end of World War II. After the War, it began to
crumble.
All of this is to say that the
European and American interventions in the Middle East were motivated by the
need to control politically so they could exploit economically a region highly
unstable but rich in resources. The place was a bomb. The fuse had been lit and
it was just a question of time until it exploded.
The Explosion
In March of 2003, the United
States and a "coalition" of its allies invaded Irak. For reasons that
are still obscure and uncertain, Saddam Hussein, who had in the eighties been
an ally, and who the United States had covertly armed and supported in its war
with Iran, was designated, along with Al-Queda, as the co-conspirators in the
9/11 attacks. Worse than that, he was accused of having hundreds, if not
thousands, of Weapons of Mass Destruction who he was (allegedly) waiting to use
on the American and European public. None of the powerful intelligence services
of the US and its European allies, nor UN inspectors, nor anyone else ever
found before or after the invasion, any such WMDs. Colin Powell, who should be
ashamed of himself, showed cartoons, drawings, and blurry pictures of truck to
claim "mobile laboratories of deadly chemical agents." They were old
trailer trucks. Nevertheless, George W. Bush was adamant in finishing what his
father had refused to do, that is, invade Irak and topple the Saddam Hussein
regime. They did, they found the old dictator in a hole in the ground, and had
him hung. The result of this unbridled hubris was a disaster of world-wide
proportions.
The Consequences
The destabilization brought to the
region by the War soon changed the configuration of the Middle East forever.
Immediately after the fall of Saddam, a civil war started in Irak between
Sunnis and Shiites; Iran, given that its archenemy, Irak, was in turmoil,
started interventions in several of its neighbors supporting Shiite militias
and rebellions with the idea of reducing the power of Saudi Arabia, the great
ally and provider of the United States; a rebellion started in Syria, the Arab
Spring brought dictator allies of the West: Mubarak in Egypt, Ben Ali in
Tunisia, Gaddafi, the newly refurbished French ally, in Algeria. Bahrain,
Yemen, and other Emirates were also affected or infected by these regime
changes.
The terrible wars in Syria,
Afghanistan, and Irak, the civil wars in Algeria and Irak, and the unrest in
the Emirates opened up a space for the deadliest of the turmoils
manifestations, ISIS. The trickle of refugees that all of this caused was soon
to become a river that threatens to develop into a human tsunami.
Other parts of the world
The wars in the Middle East
affected more than just that region. North and Central Africa are also in crisis.
All those countries that were a paradise for the oil and raw material
companies, where the Western Powers installed repressive dictators friendly to
global giant companies, are also in turmoil, suffering violent regime changes
and/or terrorist attacks from Al-Queda affiliates like Boko Haram.
The chickens are coming home to
roost
A commentator in an American TV
program said that he hated liberal politicians saying that "the chickens
have come home to roost" whenever there is a terrorist attack in a Western
Country. On uses that saying to mean that all there is no action without
consequences and that the decision taken today will have repercussions
tomorrow. The imperialist ideas of centuries past, the collusion of western
companies and dictators in African, Arab, and Latin American countries, the
overthrow of legitimately elected governments that did not suit the interest of
the Western Powers, the support of criminal governments like that of the Shah
of Iran, Pinochet in Chile, and Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe have created
conditions of war, crisis, and the hate we see demonstrated toward Western
Countries.
Through cultural domination
expressed in the Internet, the movie industry, and other media, we have sold
the idea of "the American Way of Life", an endless source of wealth of
Europe and its Union of countries, and that peace and security is much better
here than "there", wherever "there" is. People
"there" know that our economic paradise is, in a large part, due to
the exploitation by our western companies of their countries. Is it any wonder
that they might want a part of it?
This crisis is not going to go
away soon. It is not an airplane crash that is forgotten a week later when a
new "breaking news" item occupies the news channels. This crisis is
here for the long run. An "expert" in massive migration cases said in
an Al Jazeera interview that the majority of immigrants would go back home
"as soon a conditions in their countries improved and were
appropriate." I almost laughed. There are 25 million Mexicans and Latin
Americans in the US. A great part of them ARE NOT migrants; they are the sons
and daughters of migrants. They have been born or have grown up in the US and
consider themselves Americans; they have no relation to or desire to return to
Mexico. Does this gentleman, or anyone in Europe for that matter, think that
once these African or Arab children grow up into adolescents or adults, once
they get a job, go to school, become part of our European societies in France,
the UK, Germany, Austria, Spain, etc., they will want to go back to Syria,
Irak, Togo, Ethiopia, or wherever?
No, sir. We're in this for the
long run. "The chickens have come home to roost." We are suffering
the consequences of the actions of our past policies, our dependence on oil,
our prejudices, ignorance, and misunderstandings of other cultures. And now we
have to live with that.
No comments:
Post a Comment