Ozkirimli, U. (1988), Theories of Nationalism: a Critical Introduction, Palgrave.
Abizadeh, A. (2005) Was Fichte an Ethnic Nationalist? On Cultural Nationalism and its Double’, History of Political Thought. Vol. 1 XXVI. No. 2. Summer 2005
Andler, C. (1917) Le Pangermanisme philosophique (1800 à 1914) Paris.
Rocker, R. (1937) Nationalism and Culture, trans. Ray E. Chase. Los Angeles
Interview with Syrian poet "Adonis," aired on Dubai TV on March 11, 2006. http://www.memritv.org/search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=1076
Smith, J. (1995) “Case of the Mistaken Identities,” The Financial Times, 1995, available at http://www.orhanpamuk.net/articles/joansmith_inter.htm.
Jafri Maqsood, (2007) Islam and Unity http://www.irfi.org/articles/articles_201_250/islam_and_unity.htm
http://www.ciaonet.org/book/jankowski/index.html
Hayek F. A. (1982), New Studies in Philosophy, Politics, Economics and the History of Ideas, Routledge, London
http://www.alquds.co.uk/index.asp?fname=today\02z34.htm&storytitle=ffالقمة%20الخليجية:%20الهواجس%20نفسهاfff&storytitleb=عبد%20الباري%20عطوان&storytitlec=
Watenpaugh, (2006) ‘Being Modern in the Middle East: Revolution, Nationalism, Colonialism, and the Arab Middle Class. Princeton University Press. http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8210.html
Atiya, E. (1958), ‘the Arabs: the Origins, Present Conditions, and Prospect of the Arab World’, Apelican Book UK.
Taheri, A. (1987) Holy Terror: the Inside Story of Islamic Terrorism, A Sphere Book, Great Britain.
Braudel, F. (1985) l’Mediterranee
Madden, F. (2002), “the Real History of the Crusades”
http://www.crisismagazine.com/april2002/cover.htm
Simons, G. (2004), “the History of Iraq: From Summer to Post Saddam, Palgrave Macmillan.
http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/ik/Muqaddimah/Int_Mat_Bk_One.htm
Prolegomena by Ibn Khaldun, translated in part by Reynold A. Nicholson in Translations of Eastern Poetry and Prose. Cambridge University Press, England, 1922.
Interview with Ali Sirmen, columnist for the leftist kemalist Chemhuryat http://www.babelmed.net/index.php?c=423&m=&k=&l=en
Zaenadin, Ahmad, (2007) Alhayat 03/12/07
http://www.alhayat.com/special/issues/12-2007/Item-20071202-9c136e6d-c0a8-10ed-00c1-a41e6a5a0787/story.html
Antonius, G. (1937) The Arab Awakening: the Story of the Arab Nationalist Movement .New York.
Al-Azmeh, A. (1993), ‘Islam and Modernity’, Verso London.
Uriel Heyd, (1950) ‘Foundations of Turkish Nationalism: The Life and Teachings of Ziya G'Kalp’. Luzac. London.
Islam and Arab’s encounter with the west is as old as Islam itself. There is a mention of Al-Rum, the Romans, in the holy book of Islam Qura’n. The relationships between the two people are not always been in ease. While west is a rather secular concept but it also indicates the land of Christendom. On the other hand Islam and Arabs are not synonyms either. Giving that the process of naming is always problematic. Therefore any adjective and concepts requires clear definition. The majority of Arabs are Muslim. While the majority of Muslims are not Arabs. Islam makes Arab identity, even in its secular versions. While concerning the relationships between West and Christianity. The two at the same time are intertwined and antagonistic to each other.
West especially Europe has a troubled history with Islam. When the Arabs first issued from the desert, they advanced very rapidly. This early clash and challenge to the authority of the Roman Empire resulted in resentment and abhorrence from European side. Edward Gibbon described them as “robbers” (Atiya, 1958: 19). The Arabs have been surprised and surprising others at the ease and rapidity of their success. “Forty-six years after the flight of Mahomet from Mecca, his disciples appeared in arms under the walls of Constantinople” (Gibbon, 1788). As Gibbon continues “they were animated by a genuine or fictitious saying of the prophet, that, to the first army which besieged the city of the Caesars”.
The Arabs and Muslims were in incredulity of their own success because not for long time ago they were Bedoweens (nomads) in scattered communities in the desert. The primitive life style and harsh condition of the nature surround them, made survival the priority in their life and no any purpose beyond that.
With the establishment of Islam, Arabs established their own first state; with its strong belief the novel state similar to any other power also developed the appetite for expansion. Islam like any other religion has a nature of dominance. It is duty on Muslim to do Jihad, either through preaching, book, or through sword. However some (Madden, 2007) argue “the means of Muslim expansion was always the sword”. This is historically not correct since Islam spread in South East Asia only through merchants. But the nature of dominance is undisputable as many centuries later founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hassan Al-Banna, puts it “it is the nature of Islam to dominate, not to be dominated, to impose its law on all nations and to extend its power to the entire planet” (Taheri, 1987). Islam spread in the three contents in a matter of less than a century. According to Braudel the reason of that fast expansion was that Islam was not opposing the other culture and religions but it was merely a continuation of them. Despite the similarity among all the three religions as Islam call them ahl-al ktab, people of book. The history of the region shows that there has never been any sort of integrations between the two sides of the Mediterranean. The hatred and the discourse of othering is the dominant view. Both Christian and Muslims killed each other as a holy act. The both sides act has been justified in various ways throughout the history. In the late 11th century, the Pope of Rome Urban II declared a crusade to take Jerusalem from the Arabs, who had held the city for centuries. In just a few years, European knights seized the city, slaughtering most of its Muslim and Jewish inhabitants. According to Madden (2002) the “Christians in the eleventh century were not paranoid fanatics. Muslims really were gunning for them”. Thus would begin two centuries of holy war. “The crusade had an educational and liberalising effect on Europe. They found a society in many respect more refined and dignified than their own” (Atiyah, 1958:68). The Muslims were upper handed until the birth of the European Renaissance.
The beginning of decline
From the crusade to the Renaissance Arabs in the Middle East were under Ottoman Empire. Ottomans were fierce Turkish warrior tribe that originated in the central and eastern Asian grassland, the homeland also of the Scythians, Huns, and Mongols. Like Mongols they were great horsemen, and their skill with bow gave them considerable military prowess. They were racial mixture, some resembling the Chinese in skin colour and facile feature, others like Caucasians (Simons, 2004:173).
Ottomans success against the other can be explained as the conflict between civilised and barbarian. Like previous barbarian groups Mongols and others, Ottoman expanded rapidly and conquered vast lands in the region and beyond. “In 1534 Suleiman despatched the Grand Wazer Ibrahim Pasha to commence the conquest of Iraq” (Simons, 2004:175). The Ottoman Empire destroyed what they come a cross and during their tenure they failed to built anything, no city, no school, no palace, and no civilisation. In 1638 Sultan Murad IV conquered Iraq and divided into three Villyats; Baghdad, Basra and Musil.
Ottoman expansion went as far as North Africa. But the vast bulk of their Empire was in the Europe. The Ottomans despite their success in the frontiers their Empire at home was getting more and more corrupted. Many factors contributed to the decline of the Ottoman Empire; problem with dynastic successions, administering a vast empire, the harem system, factional competition for power, weakening the unity of the empire.
As their previous Arab Abysid Empire, Ottomans as soon as established their power they immersed themselves in the business of pleasure seeking. Power and sex corrupted the empire to a degree the brother overthrowing the father, this milieu of distrust led to bloodshed among empyreal families. The rise and decline of the empire was explained before by the Muslim philosopher called Ibn Khaldun in his famous book Al-Muqaddimah as translated to Latin as Prolegomena. He believed that an empire, “seldom outlives three generations” (Nicholson, 1922). “The first maintains its nomadic character, its rude and savage ways of life” as it was in the early stage of the Ottoman Empire. The second generation “comes a change”. The change according to Ibn Khaldun occurs because “possessing dominion and affluence, they turn from nomadic to settled life, and from hardship to ease and plenty”. In this stage, after the clam “The authority, instead of being shared by all, is appropriated by one, while the rest, too spiritless to make an effort to regain it, abandon the glory of ambition for the shame of subjection”. Here Ibn Khaldun blames the “spiritless-ness” of the ordinary people as a cause for the emergence of the despotic rulers. While the “third generation at this stage men no longer take delight in glory and patriotism, since all have learned to bow under the might of a sovereign and are so addicted to luxurious pleasures that they have become a burden on the state; for they require protection like women and young boys” (Nicholson, 1922).
But Ottoman Empire emerged in a time when the Arab was falling. Therefore, the Arabs initially saw Ottomans more as a blessing than a curse. As Ibn Khaldun puts it: “when the state was drowned in decadence” (Lewis, 1999:90). The state he considers is the Arab kalifa in Baghdad. Then he continues “it was God’s benevolence that He rescue the faith, by reviving its dying breath and defending the wall of Islam. He did this by sending to the Muslims, from the Turkish nation ruler to defend them and utterly royal helpers” (Lewis, 1999:90). This claim is far from truth. The Ottomans were not Muslim but became Muslim. Their aim was not to revive Islam but to use it as a state ideology. But Ibn Khaldun beliefs as result of this “Islam rejoices in the benefit, which it gains through them, and the branch of the kingdom flourish with the freshness of the youth” (Lewis, 1999:90).
This might explain why Arabs were fine with Ottoman rule as long as the state ideology was Islamic. The Muslim philosopher Ibn Rushd that is known in Latin as Averroes proclaimed in 1175 that there are “two truths religion for the uneducated masses and philosophy for the educated elite”. But in this case religious truth for the masses and hedonism for the elite rulers. The weakness of the centre resulted in a new structure of the empire. The Ottomans appointed local mutasarrifiya (governorate) from the local people, however that was a sign of the weakness of the centre but resulted in coexistence throughout much of Ottoman era.
However the royal family had a very special and unique method to docile the local representatives. According to Ali Al-Wardy in his book the Modern History of Iraq
Royal authority had sodomy with the Valy’s (the appointed local chief) as a way to domesticate and docile them and then according to the tradition of the region they will not rebel. Since sodomy was common among Turks, as one European traveller put it “they {Turks] loath the natural use of the woman” (Al-Azmeh, 1993:124).
When the Ottoman Empire reached a level that they could not stand in front of Europeans, the dilemma began. The painful question was why they are defeating and losing to the Europeans. This realisation was unbearable, since for a many centuries the Ottomans regarded themselves in a same level as the Europeans. The need for Ottomans to be like the Europeans or become Europeans is and old and complicated feeling. “When in 1856, following to the Crimean War, during the Paris Conference held at the Quai d’Orsay, the great European powers declared that the Ottoman Empire was now part of the European circle and that its territorial integrity was guaranteed by European states. The ottoman press was enthusiastic and kept on repeating: We have all become Europeans” (Sirmen, 2007).
Becoming European was not an easy metamorphosing process. If in the Kafka’s text “one morning, Gregor Samsa was waking up from anxious dreams, he discovered that in bed he had been changed. Then he asked what’s happened to me. It was no dream”.
What happened to Gregor Samsa during the night in his bed it happened to the Ottoman Empire also. The metamorphosing process was called Tanzimat, an Arabic origin Turkish word for organizing. As Ali Sirmen put it “During the period of the Tanzimat in the 19th century, the Turks believed that by aligning themselves with Europe they would have become more civilized, progressed economically, etc… But ultimately the Empire crumbled” (2007).
Before the Europeanisation attempt the identity of the Empire was Islamic. Therefore when the Ottomans entered Syria in 1516 they did not face any resistance from the local. For the local the entering was not a change, it was still Islamic (Zaenadin, 2007).
The Tanzimat
Tanzimat Declaration which is officially known as the “Imperial Gulhane Decree” of 1839 read by the Grand Vizier Mustafa Reshid Pasha in the name of the Sultan (Finkel, 2005: 447). The previous reform was known as New Order, which emerged during Selim III. The sole aim of this reform attempts was to modernise the Ottoman army. Modernising was a concept meant renewal; strengthen, to a level that could fight the western army. It was a process ambiguous and complex. Through the change in the army the aim was also to change the face of the Empire. The empire was loose and had a multiple nationality, languages, and identities. It was not a Turkish Empire “the alleged ‘Turkish domination of 400 years’, is a historic forgery” (Ali Sirmen, 2007).
Beside the reform in army the modernisation process had other aims also. The Tanzimat was reorganising the whole empire in way to survive the new era. One of the main tasks was to establish a new identity to the Empire. A special school opened in Istanbul in Galatasaray, it was called the Galatasaray School. The school was founded in 1868 to create an ottoman identity. A new identity was Turk. Turk during the empire was a name for people who lived outside cities. It was not a privilege for one to be a Turk. Members of the Ottoman Empire were calling themselves as Osmanly. According to Ali Sirmen the school failed to establish its aim. “On the other hand, it quite managed to transmit a national Turkish identity” (Ali Sirmen). When Ottomans failed to coin an identity Turk became their identity. This was especially in the hand of the Young Turks movement and their party Itihad o Taraqi Union and Progress. The party came to power in 1908 and ruled till 1918. With Ithad o Taraqi the European form of identity arrived namely nationalism. “Ottoman rule was tolerant of the others ethnicity and religion tolerance became both religious prospect and part of political practice” (Pappé, 2007:15). Looking at the composition of a city like Istanbul during the Ottoman Empire indicates how cosmopolitan the Empire was. The city was home for many different minorities; Kurds, Arabs, Albanians, Greeks, Jews, beside that the city was attracting various kind of people for arrange of reasons, land, interest, profit, leisure refugee” ( Rohat Eski Istanbul Kurtleri “By 1893 only half of its population was Muslim. Ottoman was an Empire without an ethnic identity” (Pappé, 2007:15).
Therefore the aim of Itihad o Taraqi was to construct an ethnic identity, to build a nation, to centralise the empire, to make the Turkish language a Lingua Franca of the empire. This step, or rather steps, which was called reform, marked the arrival of the idea of a nation and nation state from Europe into the Middle East. The reform was the formative period for Arab and Turkish nationalism. As Antonio’s claims that it was the Young Turks' policy of 'turkification' that kindled the flames of nationalism among non-Turkish subjects of the Ottoman state (Antonius, 1937). However it’s hard to know what Antonius means by nationalisation. He frequently refers to the subjects of his book as "the Arab race.
At that time the question of modernisation and becoming modern was not limited only to Istanbul. The questions about modernity were asked in every provincial capital like Beirut, Baghdad, Cairo, Aleppo and others. These questions were asked by intellectuals, who were merely member of, middle class city dwellers as (Watenpaugh, 2006) recalls:
On the evening of 2 January 1910, Fathallah Qastun, a newspaper editor in Aleppo, one of the most important cities of the Ottoman Empire, addressed the inaugural meeting of the Mutual Aid Society. Simply titled "Becoming Civilized," the text of the speech, complete with parenthetical notations of spontaneous applause, was published in Qastun's own Arabic-language newspaper, al-Sha'b [The People]. Qastun began his speech by asking: "Why have we not yet become fully civilized and in particular, why have we not borrowed more from Europe?"
Since the Ottoman Empire and its changes is beyond the concern of this paper, therefore, rather the impact of that changes in the Ottoman Empire on the Arab Middle East will be taking into consideration. Ottoman were concerned about their empire. The reform they were initiated was mainly aiming to centralise the empire and making it a Turkish empire through a process of tukification.
This Turkification process was an emulation of the western style without any understanding of the nature of the empire. When the Ottomans pushed for making Turkish the language of the Empire the step backlash, the Turkification was embedded with Turanism or pan Turkism. The founder of this movement was a man called Ziya Gokalp.
At the end of the Ottoman Empire the country was in a major political and intellectual crises. Those were the days of the Meșrutiyet, a Turkish word for constitutional regime founded by the Young Turks after the 1908-9 revolution. The Turkish intelligentsia was torn between three conflicting ideologies: the liberalism of the Tanzimat period, which demanded assimilation to the West and hoped to save the multi-national Ottoman Empire by granting equal rights to all its citizens without distinction of religion and race (Ottomanism); the clericalism of the orthodox Muslims who insisted that Islam must retain its dominating influence on politics, culture and social life and serve as an indissoluble link between the Muslim nations inside the Empire, particularly Turks and Arabs, and those beyond its borders (Islamism or Pan-Islamism); and Turkish nationalism which in its first, romantic period fought for closer relations between all peoples of Turkish race in the hope of eventually uniting them in one Empire (Pan-Turkism or Turanism). After some hesitation Gökalp rejected the first two ideals and supported the Turanian movement. With the change of political circumstances, however, he took exception to its extreme aims and developed his own ideology which he called Turkism (Türkçü lük) and which is in fact a kind of synthesis of the trends mentioned above with the emphasis on the element of nationalism. Like most members of his party, Union and Progress, Gökalp in the beginning favoured Ottomanism (Osmanlicilik) (Heyd, 1950:71).
There are a lot of fogs around this all process. Whether the idea of nationalism defused into Arabs as a reaction to the process of centralisation or as emulation of the Turanism, is not quite clear. One can conduct a philological research, like those research mostly done by the oreintalsit Bernard Luis, and reach a result that for instance there is a concept of Eroba which means Arabism as same as Turanism. But without doubt the alteration of the Ottoman Empire from an Islamic empire into a nationalistic nation-state, as Heyd put it “At first, however, the new ideals brought only harm to the Turks. The Christians, and after them the non-Turkish Muslims (e.g.Albanians and Arabs) in the Ottoman Empire, took up the cry of nationalism with enthusiasm and threw off -- or tried to throw off -- the yoke of Turkish rule (1950: 104).
The idea of nationalism diffused from west to Turkey and in the hand of thinker like Gokalp went through a Trukification. This can be regarded as a moment of the commencement of modernity, a process which has not finalised yet. As Pamuk put it:
“Istanbul is geographically confused. So is the Turkish nation. 60 percent are conservative, 40 percent are looking for westernisation. These two groups have been arguing among themselves for 200 years. This situation of being in limbo, in between East and West, it’s a lifestyle in Turkey.” (Smith, 1995)
The Turkish attempt to centralise their empire was a plan doomed to failure. The causes of the failure were many among them the looseness of the empire. In the area like “Arabian Peninsula the Ottoman power had not been very effective. For the most part of the various local princes and sheikhs enjoyed large measure of autonomy, if not virtual independent” (Atiyah, 1958: 91). The Young Turks had to engage in confrontation with an identity more robust, than their required new identity, with the deeper roots in the society and the psyche of the people. This was especially with Muslims. Those Muslims who spoke Arabic retained a pride in their language: God revealed the Qur'an in Arabic to an Arab prophet in the seventh century. They also celebrated the history of the early Arab conquests, which carried Islam from the Oxus to the Pyrenees. And they took pride in their genealogies, which linked them to Arabia at the dawn of Islam.
When the Ottoman Empire started to decline there was a rescue process within the Empire, the rescue process was emerging in a three lines. Two of these of three lines their ideological geneses were from the West. Tanzimat group were advocating and canvassing for liberalism. They vowed to introduce the concept of citizenship and equal right for without distinction of religion and race (Heyd, 1950:71).
The second line which had its ideological genesis in the West was Turkish nationalism “which in its first, romantic period fought for closer relations between all peoples of Turkish race in the hope of eventually uniting them in one Empire (Pan-Turkism or Turanism)” (Heyd, 1950:71).
The line, which countered these, two was the line of the “clericalism of the orthodox Muslims who insisted that Islam must retain its dominating influence on politics, culture and social life and serve as an indissoluble link between the Muslim nations inside the Empire, particularly Turks and Arabs, and those beyond its borders, these were (Islamism or Pan-Islamism) (Heyd, 1950:71).
Among the three lines or ideologies two were from outsides, liberalism and nationalism. The third line or ideology was recycling of the tradition. This formula indicates that the Turkish intelligentsia were more in favour of the outside alternative rather than their native. This dialectical or rather none dialectical relationship between outside and inside is a mirror of a situation that is rather more complex. Liberalism and nationalism are ideologies belong to modernity. This is indicates that the Turkish intelligentsia were aware of the process of modernity and enlightenment in Europe and they came under a direct influence of it.
The failure of liberal lines and the decline of the Islamic line show the nature of the problem that the empire was facing. The empire was in decay and the dream of its elites was to recover and maintain the dominancy like the past but with the modern tools. Liberalism was not a suitable ideology to establish an empire or to recover an empire. The mission required dedication, blind belief, romanticism and irrational collectivist. 'Liberalism’ provides the model of political institutions that “the individual liberty which a 'government under the law' had secured to the citizens” (Hayek, 1982:119). In this process what was required was merely anti-liberalism. It was required from the individual to give up its liberty and imagine himself as a part of the newly invented notion of nation.
While Islam did not disappear or vanish it was merely an exhausted ideology, an ideology of the ancient regime. Or in reality it was never an ideology. The empire was Islamic but in its domain people lacked every sense of politics. They were never being citizens they lived a static life without any contradiction or antagonism. Therefore, it does not change or develop into a higher stage of social formation. "The Asiatic form necessarily hangs on most tenaciously and for the longest time. This is due to its presupposition that the individual does not become independent vis-à-vis the commune; that there is a self sustaining cycle of production, unity of agriculture and manufacture etc." (Marx, 1973:486). Islam backs this form of static and unity and continuity without change. Islam sees strength in unity. As Maqsood Jafri (2007) puts it “When the sand grains unite they become a vast desert. When the sea drops unite they become a boundless ocean. The unity of people makes an invincible strong nation. This is the reason Islam lays great stress on the importance of unity”. And this sense of unity and oneness is also stressed on in the Qur’an, (49:10) “The Mu’minoon (the Believers) are but a single Brotherhood”. The Islamic concept of Towhid is the word for becoming one, for eliminating differences. This as the result becomes a barrier in front of any different view, any opposition, and throughout Islam always argument solved by force. i.e. restoration of unity. The Arab poet Mohammad Ahmad Said known as Adonis (2006) regards the “emergence and glorification of dictatorships - sometimes in the name of pan-Arabism, and other times in the name of rejecting foreigners” to the concept of “oneness”. “I believe it has to do with the concept of 'oneness,' which is reflected - in practical or political terms - in the concept of the hero, the savoir, or the leader. This concept offers an inner sense of security to people who are afraid of freedom. Some human beings are afraid of freedom”.
For these reasons the Islam was not seen as an option for the change and recovery of the empire. But despite that the Turkish elite could not free themselves from Islam and Islamic view especially epistemologically. The Turk moved from an Islamic despot to a modern or Asiatic despot. The emergence of Turkish nationalism was one of the main contributors into the awakening the feeling of nationalism among Arabs in the Middle East.
Dawn of the Arab Nationalism
When the Turkish nationalism reached the power as the result they made sultan an irrelevant entity. They regard Islam, as well as any other religion, as a historicalphenomenon subject to change and dependent on the social circumstances in which it developed” (Heyd, 1950:82). This approach was revolutionary in his days. Since Arabs were regard themselves as the people who Allah chose them “You are the best nation raised up for mankind” (Al-Imran 110). However this verses does not mean Arabs particularly but the Arab nationalism utilized it in its rhetoric. This felling of being alienated and striped from the culture and religion drove Arabs to alienation.
Therefore the early Arab nationalism was against the Turks not the Europeans. For the Turkish nationalist the non-Turks become the Other. The origin of the Turkish nationalism was merely German. German nationalism namely Fichte and Herder but not Kant. According to Fichte the world is a coherent whole and it is manifestation of ego” (Ozkirimli, 17: 1988).
Understanding Fichte might help to shed a light on the nature of the nationalism that emerged in Turkey and later on in the Middle East. Fichte’s famous book Reden an die deutsche Nation (Addresses to the German Nation) arguably constitutes one of the founding texts of nationalist political thought. The book appeared eighteen years after the French Revolution: it comprises thirteen addresses that Fichte delivered at the Berlin Academy on Sundays during the winter of 1807 to 1808. Berlin was under French occupation at the time, and the foreign occupiers are the targets of Fecht’s polemic: his stated goal is to rouse the German nation from its slumber to assert its freedom and throw off the Napoleonic yoke (Abizadeh, 2005).
The Fechte was rappelling more any other thinkers because of the relative similarity of the circumstances. Fichte was staunchly republican by his youth, but during the French occupation of Germany he change in favour of Romantic nationalism and even pan-Germanism. This change from an individual based republican into a collectivist
Chauvinistic state helps to clarify many puzzles in the nature of the Middle Eastern nationalism. Turkey as same as Germany felt weak toward other European nations and its territory was under constant threat from every side.
This felling of losing the country, the empire, the imperial status pushed Turkish nationalist to regard every Other as enemy and not hesitate to use violent toward them. This is reached its climax during the Armenian genocide. For Charles Andler (1917) and (Rudolf Rocker, 1937:189), Fechte particularly in his Addresses, provides one of the primary philosophical sources of the chauvinistic pan-Germanism thought to be at the root of the German aggression in World war1. This is also indicates how and why the pathological modernity or counter modernity reached the Middle East and accepted rather than the individualistic liberal modernity.
At the mean time apart from reaction to the Turkish Modernity movement there were other lines which it from the Western modernity reached the region.
Monday, December 24, 2007
modernity in the Middle East
Ozkirimli, U. (1988), Theories of Nationalism: a Critical Introduction, Palgrave.
Abizadeh, A. (2005) Was Fichte an Ethnic Nationalist? On Cultural Nationalism and its Double’, History of Political Thought. Vol. 1 XXVI. No. 2. Summer 2005
Andler, C. (1917) Le Pangermanisme philosophique (1800 à 1914) Paris.
Rocker, R. (1937) Nationalism and Culture, trans. Ray E. Chase. Los Angeles
Interview with Syrian poet "Adonis," aired on Dubai TV on March 11, 2006. http://www.memritv.org/search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=1076
Smith, J. (1995) “Case of the Mistaken Identities,” The Financial Times, 1995, available at http://www.orhanpamuk.net/articles/joansmith_inter.htm.
Jafri Maqsood, (2007) Islam and Unity http://www.irfi.org/articles/articles_201_250/islam_and_unity.htm
http://www.ciaonet.org/book/jankowski/index.html
Hayek F. A. (1982), New Studies in Philosophy, Politics, Economics and the History of Ideas, Routledge, London
http://www.alquds.co.uk/index.asp?fname=today\02z34.htm&storytitle=ffالقمة%20الخليجية:%20الهواجس%20نفسهاfff&storytitleb=عبد%20الباري%20عطوان&storytitlec=
Watenpaugh, (2006) ‘Being Modern in the Middle East: Revolution, Nationalism, Colonialism, and the Arab Middle Class. Princeton University Press. http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8210.html
Atiya, E. (1958), ‘the Arabs: the Origins, Present Conditions, and Prospect of the Arab World’, Apelican Book UK.
Taheri, A. (1987) Holy Terror: the Inside Story of Islamic Terrorism, A Sphere Book, Great Britain.
Braudel, F. (1985) l’Mediterranee
Madden, F. (2002), “the Real History of the Crusades”
http://www.crisismagazine.com/april2002/cover.htm
Simons, G. (2004), “the History of Iraq: From Summer to Post Saddam, Palgrave Macmillan.
http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/ik/Muqaddimah/Int_Mat_Bk_One.htm
Prolegomena by Ibn Khaldun, translated in part by Reynold A. Nicholson in Translations of Eastern Poetry and Prose. Cambridge University Press, England, 1922.
Interview with Ali Sirmen, columnist for the leftist kemalist Chemhuryat http://www.babelmed.net/index.php?c=423&m=&k=&l=en
Zaenadin, Ahmad, (2007) Alhayat 03/12/07
http://www.alhayat.com/special/issues/12-2007/Item-20071202-9c136e6d-c0a8-10ed-00c1-a41e6a5a0787/story.html
Antonius, G. (1937) The Arab Awakening: the Story of the Arab Nationalist Movement .New York.
Al-Azmeh, A. (1993), ‘Islam and Modernity’, Verso London.
Uriel Heyd, (1950) ‘Foundations of Turkish Nationalism: The Life and Teachings of Ziya G'Kalp’. Luzac. London.
Islam and Arab’s encounter with the west is as old as Islam itself. There is a mention of Al-Rum, the Romans, in the holy book of Islam Qura’n. The relationships between the two people are not always been in ease. While west is a rather secular concept but it also indicates the land of Christendom. On the other hand Islam and Arabs are not synonyms either. Giving that the process of naming is always problematic. Therefore any adjective and concepts requires clear definition. The majority of Arabs are Muslim. While the majority of Muslims are not Arabs. Islam makes Arab identity, even in its secular versions. While concerning the relationships between West and Christianity. The two at the same time are intertwined and antagonistic to each other.
West especially Europe has a troubled history with Islam. When the Arabs first issued from the desert, they advanced very rapidly. This early clash and challenge to the authority of the Roman Empire resulted in resentment and abhorrence from European side. Edward Gibbon described them as “robbers” (Atiya, 1958: 19). The Arabs have been surprised and surprising others at the ease and rapidity of their success. “Forty-six years after the flight of Mahomet from Mecca, his disciples appeared in arms under the walls of Constantinople” (Gibbon, 1788). As Gibbon continues “they were animated by a genuine or fictitious saying of the prophet, that, to the first army which besieged the city of the Caesars”.
The Arabs and Muslims were in incredulity of their own success because not for long time ago they were Bedoweens (nomads) in scattered communities in the desert. The primitive life style and harsh condition of the nature surround them, made survival the priority in their life and no any purpose beyond that.
With the establishment of Islam, Arabs established their own first state; with its strong belief the novel state similar to any other power also developed the appetite for expansion. Islam like any other religion has a nature of dominance. It is duty on Muslim to do Jihad, either through preaching, book, or through sword. However some (Madden, 2007) argue “the means of Muslim expansion was always the sword”. This is historically not correct since Islam spread in South East Asia only through merchants. But the nature of dominance is undisputable as many centuries later founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hassan Al-Banna, puts it “it is the nature of Islam to dominate, not to be dominated, to impose its law on all nations and to extend its power to the entire planet” (Taheri, 1987). Islam spread in the three contents in a matter of less than a century. According to Braudel the reason of that fast expansion was that Islam was not opposing the other culture and religions but it was merely a continuation of them. Despite the similarity among all the three religions as Islam call them ahl-al ktab, people of book. The history of the region shows that there has never been any sort of integrations between the two sides of the Mediterranean. The hatred and the discourse of othering is the dominant view. Both Christian and Muslims killed each other as a holy act. The both sides act has been justified in various ways throughout the history. In the late 11th century, the Pope of Rome Urban II declared a crusade to take Jerusalem from the Arabs, who had held the city for centuries. In just a few years, European knights seized the city, slaughtering most of its Muslim and Jewish inhabitants. According to Madden (2002) the “Christians in the eleventh century were not paranoid fanatics. Muslims really were gunning for them”. Thus would begin two centuries of holy war. “The crusade had an educational and liberalising effect on Europe. They found a society in many respect more refined and dignified than their own” (Atiyah, 1958:68). The Muslims were upper handed until the birth of the European Renaissance.
The beginning of decline
From the crusade to the Renaissance Arabs in the Middle East were under Ottoman Empire. Ottomans were fierce Turkish warrior tribe that originated in the central and eastern Asian grassland, the homeland also of the Scythians, Huns, and Mongols. Like Mongols they were great horsemen, and their skill with bow gave them considerable military prowess. They were racial mixture, some resembling the Chinese in skin colour and facile feature, others like Caucasians (Simons, 2004:173).
Ottomans success against the other can be explained as the conflict between civilised and barbarian. Like previous barbarian groups Mongols and others, Ottoman expanded rapidly and conquered vast lands in the region and beyond. “In 1534 Suleiman despatched the Grand Wazer Ibrahim Pasha to commence the conquest of Iraq” (Simons, 2004:175). The Ottoman Empire destroyed what they come a cross and during their tenure they failed to built anything, no city, no school, no palace, and no civilisation. In 1638 Sultan Murad IV conquered Iraq and divided into three Villyats; Baghdad, Basra and Musil.
Ottoman expansion went as far as North Africa. But the vast bulk of their Empire was in the Europe. The Ottomans despite their success in the frontiers their Empire at home was getting more and more corrupted. Many factors contributed to the decline of the Ottoman Empire; problem with dynastic successions, administering a vast empire, the harem system, factional competition for power, weakening the unity of the empire.
As their previous Arab Abysid Empire, Ottomans as soon as established their power they immersed themselves in the business of pleasure seeking. Power and sex corrupted the empire to a degree the brother overthrowing the father, this milieu of distrust led to bloodshed among empyreal families. The rise and decline of the empire was explained before by the Muslim philosopher called Ibn Khaldun in his famous book Al-Muqaddimah as translated to Latin as Prolegomena. He believed that an empire, “seldom outlives three generations” (Nicholson, 1922). “The first maintains its nomadic character, its rude and savage ways of life” as it was in the early stage of the Ottoman Empire. The second generation “comes a change”. The change according to Ibn Khaldun occurs because “possessing dominion and affluence, they turn from nomadic to settled life, and from hardship to ease and plenty”. In this stage, after the clam “The authority, instead of being shared by all, is appropriated by one, while the rest, too spiritless to make an effort to regain it, abandon the glory of ambition for the shame of subjection”. Here Ibn Khaldun blames the “spiritless-ness” of the ordinary people as a cause for the emergence of the despotic rulers. While the “third generation at this stage men no longer take delight in glory and patriotism, since all have learned to bow under the might of a sovereign and are so addicted to luxurious pleasures that they have become a burden on the state; for they require protection like women and young boys” (Nicholson, 1922).
But Ottoman Empire emerged in a time when the Arab was falling. Therefore, the Arabs initially saw Ottomans more as a blessing than a curse. As Ibn Khaldun puts it: “when the state was drowned in decadence” (Lewis, 1999:90). The state he considers is the Arab kalifa in Baghdad. Then he continues “it was God’s benevolence that He rescue the faith, by reviving its dying breath and defending the wall of Islam. He did this by sending to the Muslims, from the Turkish nation ruler to defend them and utterly royal helpers” (Lewis, 1999:90). This claim is far from truth. The Ottomans were not Muslim but became Muslim. Their aim was not to revive Islam but to use it as a state ideology. But Ibn Khaldun beliefs as result of this “Islam rejoices in the benefit, which it gains through them, and the branch of the kingdom flourish with the freshness of the youth” (Lewis, 1999:90).
This might explain why Arabs were fine with Ottoman rule as long as the state ideology was Islamic. The Muslim philosopher Ibn Rushd that is known in Latin as Averroes proclaimed in 1175 that there are “two truths religion for the uneducated masses and philosophy for the educated elite”. But in this case religious truth for the masses and hedonism for the elite rulers. The weakness of the centre resulted in a new structure of the empire. The Ottomans appointed local mutasarrifiya (governorate) from the local people, however that was a sign of the weakness of the centre but resulted in coexistence throughout much of Ottoman era.
However the royal family had a very special and unique method to docile the local representatives. According to Ali Al-Wardy in his book the Modern History of Iraq
Royal authority had sodomy with the Valy’s (the appointed local chief) as a way to domesticate and docile them and then according to the tradition of the region they will not rebel. Since sodomy was common among Turks, as one European traveller put it “they {Turks] loath the natural use of the woman” (Al-Azmeh, 1993:124).
When the Ottoman Empire reached a level that they could not stand in front of Europeans, the dilemma began. The painful question was why they are defeating and losing to the Europeans. This realisation was unbearable, since for a many centuries the Ottomans regarded themselves in a same level as the Europeans. The need for Ottomans to be like the Europeans or become Europeans is and old and complicated feeling. “When in 1856, following to the Crimean War, during the Paris Conference held at the Quai d’Orsay, the great European powers declared that the Ottoman Empire was now part of the European circle and that its territorial integrity was guaranteed by European states. The ottoman press was enthusiastic and kept on repeating: We have all become Europeans” (Sirmen, 2007).
Becoming European was not an easy metamorphosing process. If in the Kafka’s text “one morning, Gregor Samsa was waking up from anxious dreams, he discovered that in bed he had been changed. Then he asked what’s happened to me. It was no dream”.
What happened to Gregor Samsa during the night in his bed it happened to the Ottoman Empire also. The metamorphosing process was called Tanzimat, an Arabic origin Turkish word for organizing. As Ali Sirmen put it “During the period of the Tanzimat in the 19th century, the Turks believed that by aligning themselves with Europe they would have become more civilized, progressed economically, etc… But ultimately the Empire crumbled” (2007).
Before the Europeanisation attempt the identity of the Empire was Islamic. Therefore when the Ottomans entered Syria in 1516 they did not face any resistance from the local. For the local the entering was not a change, it was still Islamic (Zaenadin, 2007).
The Tanzimat
Tanzimat Declaration which is officially known as the “Imperial Gulhane Decree” of 1839 read by the Grand Vizier Mustafa Reshid Pasha in the name of the Sultan (Finkel, 2005: 447). The previous reform was known as New Order, which emerged during Selim III. The sole aim of this reform attempts was to modernise the Ottoman army. Modernising was a concept meant renewal; strengthen, to a level that could fight the western army. It was a process ambiguous and complex. Through the change in the army the aim was also to change the face of the Empire. The empire was loose and had a multiple nationality, languages, and identities. It was not a Turkish Empire “the alleged ‘Turkish domination of 400 years’, is a historic forgery” (Ali Sirmen, 2007).
Beside the reform in army the modernisation process had other aims also. The Tanzimat was reorganising the whole empire in way to survive the new era. One of the main tasks was to establish a new identity to the Empire. A special school opened in Istanbul in Galatasaray, it was called the Galatasaray School. The school was founded in 1868 to create an ottoman identity. A new identity was Turk. Turk during the empire was a name for people who lived outside cities. It was not a privilege for one to be a Turk. Members of the Ottoman Empire were calling themselves as Osmanly. According to Ali Sirmen the school failed to establish its aim. “On the other hand, it quite managed to transmit a national Turkish identity” (Ali Sirmen). When Ottomans failed to coin an identity Turk became their identity. This was especially in the hand of the Young Turks movement and their party Itihad o Taraqi Union and Progress. The party came to power in 1908 and ruled till 1918. With Ithad o Taraqi the European form of identity arrived namely nationalism. “Ottoman rule was tolerant of the others ethnicity and religion tolerance became both religious prospect and part of political practice” (Pappé, 2007:15). Looking at the composition of a city like Istanbul during the Ottoman Empire indicates how cosmopolitan the Empire was. The city was home for many different minorities; Kurds, Arabs, Albanians, Greeks, Jews, beside that the city was attracting various kind of people for arrange of reasons, land, interest, profit, leisure refugee” ( Rohat Eski Istanbul Kurtleri “By 1893 only half of its population was Muslim. Ottoman was an Empire without an ethnic identity” (Pappé, 2007:15).
Therefore the aim of Itihad o Taraqi was to construct an ethnic identity, to build a nation, to centralise the empire, to make the Turkish language a Lingua Franca of the empire. This step, or rather steps, which was called reform, marked the arrival of the idea of a nation and nation state from Europe into the Middle East. The reform was the formative period for Arab and Turkish nationalism. As Antonio’s claims that it was the Young Turks' policy of 'turkification' that kindled the flames of nationalism among non-Turkish subjects of the Ottoman state (Antonius, 1937). However it’s hard to know what Antonius means by nationalisation. He frequently refers to the subjects of his book as "the Arab race.
At that time the question of modernisation and becoming modern was not limited only to Istanbul. The questions about modernity were asked in every provincial capital like Beirut, Baghdad, Cairo, Aleppo and others. These questions were asked by intellectuals, who were merely member of, middle class city dwellers as (Watenpaugh, 2006) recalls:
On the evening of 2 January 1910, Fathallah Qastun, a newspaper editor in Aleppo, one of the most important cities of the Ottoman Empire, addressed the inaugural meeting of the Mutual Aid Society. Simply titled "Becoming Civilized," the text of the speech, complete with parenthetical notations of spontaneous applause, was published in Qastun's own Arabic-language newspaper, al-Sha'b [The People]. Qastun began his speech by asking: "Why have we not yet become fully civilized and in particular, why have we not borrowed more from Europe?"
Since the Ottoman Empire and its changes is beyond the concern of this paper, therefore, rather the impact of that changes in the Ottoman Empire on the Arab Middle East will be taking into consideration. Ottoman were concerned about their empire. The reform they were initiated was mainly aiming to centralise the empire and making it a Turkish empire through a process of tukification.
This Turkification process was an emulation of the western style without any understanding of the nature of the empire. When the Ottomans pushed for making Turkish the language of the Empire the step backlash, the Turkification was embedded with Turanism or pan Turkism. The founder of this movement was a man called Ziya Gokalp.
At the end of the Ottoman Empire the country was in a major political and intellectual crises. Those were the days of the Meșrutiyet, a Turkish word for constitutional regime founded by the Young Turks after the 1908-9 revolution. The Turkish intelligentsia was torn between three conflicting ideologies: the liberalism of the Tanzimat period, which demanded assimilation to the West and hoped to save the multi-national Ottoman Empire by granting equal rights to all its citizens without distinction of religion and race (Ottomanism); the clericalism of the orthodox Muslims who insisted that Islam must retain its dominating influence on politics, culture and social life and serve as an indissoluble link between the Muslim nations inside the Empire, particularly Turks and Arabs, and those beyond its borders (Islamism or Pan-Islamism); and Turkish nationalism which in its first, romantic period fought for closer relations between all peoples of Turkish race in the hope of eventually uniting them in one Empire (Pan-Turkism or Turanism). After some hesitation Gökalp rejected the first two ideals and supported the Turanian movement. With the change of political circumstances, however, he took exception to its extreme aims and developed his own ideology which he called Turkism (Türkçü lük) and which is in fact a kind of synthesis of the trends mentioned above with the emphasis on the element of nationalism. Like most members of his party, Union and Progress, Gökalp in the beginning favoured Ottomanism (Osmanlicilik) (Heyd, 1950:71).
There are a lot of fogs around this all process. Whether the idea of nationalism defused into Arabs as a reaction to the process of centralisation or as emulation of the Turanism, is not quite clear. One can conduct a philological research, like those research mostly done by the oreintalsit Bernard Luis, and reach a result that for instance there is a concept of Eroba which means Arabism as same as Turanism. But without doubt the alteration of the Ottoman Empire from an Islamic empire into a nationalistic nation-state, as Heyd put it “At first, however, the new ideals brought only harm to the Turks. The Christians, and after them the non-Turkish Muslims (e.g.Albanians and Arabs) in the Ottoman Empire, took up the cry of nationalism with enthusiasm and threw off -- or tried to throw off -- the yoke of Turkish rule (1950: 104).
The idea of nationalism diffused from west to Turkey and in the hand of thinker like Gokalp went through a Trukification. This can be regarded as a moment of the commencement of modernity, a process which has not finalised yet. As Pamuk put it:
“Istanbul is geographically confused. So is the Turkish nation. 60 percent are conservative, 40 percent are looking for westernisation. These two groups have been arguing among themselves for 200 years. This situation of being in limbo, in between East and West, it’s a lifestyle in Turkey.” (Smith, 1995)
The Turkish attempt to centralise their empire was a plan doomed to failure. The causes of the failure were many among them the looseness of the empire. In the area like “Arabian Peninsula the Ottoman power had not been very effective. For the most part of the various local princes and sheikhs enjoyed large measure of autonomy, if not virtual independent” (Atiyah, 1958: 91). The Young Turks had to engage in confrontation with an identity more robust, than their required new identity, with the deeper roots in the society and the psyche of the people. This was especially with Muslims. Those Muslims who spoke Arabic retained a pride in their language: God revealed the Qur'an in Arabic to an Arab prophet in the seventh century. They also celebrated the history of the early Arab conquests, which carried Islam from the Oxus to the Pyrenees. And they took pride in their genealogies, which linked them to Arabia at the dawn of Islam.
When the Ottoman Empire started to decline there was a rescue process within the Empire, the rescue process was emerging in a three lines. Two of these of three lines their ideological geneses were from the West. Tanzimat group were advocating and canvassing for liberalism. They vowed to introduce the concept of citizenship and equal right for without distinction of religion and race (Heyd, 1950:71).
The second line which had its ideological genesis in the West was Turkish nationalism “which in its first, romantic period fought for closer relations between all peoples of Turkish race in the hope of eventually uniting them in one Empire (Pan-Turkism or Turanism)” (Heyd, 1950:71).
The line, which countered these, two was the line of the “clericalism of the orthodox Muslims who insisted that Islam must retain its dominating influence on politics, culture and social life and serve as an indissoluble link between the Muslim nations inside the Empire, particularly Turks and Arabs, and those beyond its borders, these were (Islamism or Pan-Islamism) (Heyd, 1950:71).
Among the three lines or ideologies two were from outsides, liberalism and nationalism. The third line or ideology was recycling of the tradition. This formula indicates that the Turkish intelligentsia were more in favour of the outside alternative rather than their native. This dialectical or rather none dialectical relationship between outside and inside is a mirror of a situation that is rather more complex. Liberalism and nationalism are ideologies belong to modernity. This is indicates that the Turkish intelligentsia were aware of the process of modernity and enlightenment in Europe and they came under a direct influence of it.
The failure of liberal lines and the decline of the Islamic line show the nature of the problem that the empire was facing. The empire was in decay and the dream of its elites was to recover and maintain the dominancy like the past but with the modern tools. Liberalism was not a suitable ideology to establish an empire or to recover an empire. The mission required dedication, blind belief, romanticism and irrational collectivist. 'Liberalism’ provides the model of political institutions that “the individual liberty which a 'government under the law' had secured to the citizens” (Hayek, 1982:119). In this process what was required was merely anti-liberalism. It was required from the individual to give up its liberty and imagine himself as a part of the newly invented notion of nation.
While Islam did not disappear or vanish it was merely an exhausted ideology, an ideology of the ancient regime. Or in reality it was never an ideology. The empire was Islamic but in its domain people lacked every sense of politics. They were never being citizens they lived a static life without any contradiction or antagonism. Therefore, it does not change or develop into a higher stage of social formation. "The Asiatic form necessarily hangs on most tenaciously and for the longest time. This is due to its presupposition that the individual does not become independent vis-à-vis the commune; that there is a self sustaining cycle of production, unity of agriculture and manufacture etc." (Marx, 1973:486). Islam backs this form of static and unity and continuity without change. Islam sees strength in unity. As Maqsood Jafri (2007) puts it “When the sand grains unite they become a vast desert. When the sea drops unite they become a boundless ocean. The unity of people makes an invincible strong nation. This is the reason Islam lays great stress on the importance of unity”. And this sense of unity and oneness is also stressed on in the Qur’an, (49:10) “The Mu’minoon (the Believers) are but a single Brotherhood”. The Islamic concept of Towhid is the word for becoming one, for eliminating differences. This as the result becomes a barrier in front of any different view, any opposition, and throughout Islam always argument solved by force. i.e. restoration of unity. The Arab poet Mohammad Ahmad Said known as Adonis (2006) regards the “emergence and glorification of dictatorships - sometimes in the name of pan-Arabism, and other times in the name of rejecting foreigners” to the concept of “oneness”. “I believe it has to do with the concept of 'oneness,' which is reflected - in practical or political terms - in the concept of the hero, the savoir, or the leader. This concept offers an inner sense of security to people who are afraid of freedom. Some human beings are afraid of freedom”.
For these reasons the Islam was not seen as an option for the change and recovery of the empire. But despite that the Turkish elite could not free themselves from Islam and Islamic view especially epistemologically. The Turk moved from an Islamic despot to a modern or Asiatic despot. The emergence of Turkish nationalism was one of the main contributors into the awakening the feeling of nationalism among Arabs in the Middle East.
Dawn of the Arab Nationalism
When the Turkish nationalism reached the power as the result they made sultan an irrelevant entity. They regard Islam, as well as any other religion, as a historicalphenomenon subject to change and dependent on the social circumstances in which it developed” (Heyd, 1950:82). This approach was revolutionary in his days. Since Arabs were regard themselves as the people who Allah chose them “You are the best nation raised up for mankind” (Al-Imran 110). However this verses does not mean Arabs particularly but the Arab nationalism utilized it in its rhetoric. This felling of being alienated and striped from the culture and religion drove Arabs to alienation.
Therefore the early Arab nationalism was against the Turks not the Europeans. For the Turkish nationalist the non-Turks become the Other. The origin of the Turkish nationalism was merely German. German nationalism namely Fichte and Herder but not Kant. According to Fichte the world is a coherent whole and it is manifestation of ego” (Ozkirimli, 17: 1988).
Understanding Fichte might help to shed a light on the nature of the nationalism that emerged in Turkey and later on in the Middle East. Fichte’s famous book Reden an die deutsche Nation (Addresses to the German Nation) arguably constitutes one of the founding texts of nationalist political thought. The book appeared eighteen years after the French Revolution: it comprises thirteen addresses that Fichte delivered at the Berlin Academy on Sundays during the winter of 1807 to 1808. Berlin was under French occupation at the time, and the foreign occupiers are the targets of Fecht’s polemic: his stated goal is to rouse the German nation from its slumber to assert its freedom and throw off the Napoleonic yoke (Abizadeh, 2005).
The Fechte was rappelling more any other thinkers because of the relative similarity of the circumstances. Fichte was staunchly republican by his youth, but during the French occupation of Germany he change in favour of Romantic nationalism and even pan-Germanism. This change from an individual based republican into a collectivist
Chauvinistic state helps to clarify many puzzles in the nature of the Middle Eastern nationalism. Turkey as same as Germany felt weak toward other European nations and its territory was under constant threat from every side.
This felling of losing the country, the empire, the imperial status pushed Turkish nationalist to regard every Other as enemy and not hesitate to use violent toward them. This is reached its climax during the Armenian genocide. For Charles Andler (1917) and (Rudolf Rocker, 1937:189), Fechte particularly in his Addresses, provides one of the primary philosophical sources of the chauvinistic pan-Germanism thought to be at the root of the German aggression in World war1. This is also indicates how and why the pathological modernity or counter modernity reached the Middle East and accepted rather than the individualistic liberal modernity.
At the mean time apart from reaction to the Turkish Modernity movement there were other lines which it from the Western modernity reached the region.
Abizadeh, A. (2005) Was Fichte an Ethnic Nationalist? On Cultural Nationalism and its Double’, History of Political Thought. Vol. 1 XXVI. No. 2. Summer 2005
Andler, C. (1917) Le Pangermanisme philosophique (1800 à 1914) Paris.
Rocker, R. (1937) Nationalism and Culture, trans. Ray E. Chase. Los Angeles
Interview with Syrian poet "Adonis," aired on Dubai TV on March 11, 2006. http://www.memritv.org/search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=1076
Smith, J. (1995) “Case of the Mistaken Identities,” The Financial Times, 1995, available at http://www.orhanpamuk.net/articles/joansmith_inter.htm.
Jafri Maqsood, (2007) Islam and Unity http://www.irfi.org/articles/articles_201_250/islam_and_unity.htm
http://www.ciaonet.org/book/jankowski/index.html
Hayek F. A. (1982), New Studies in Philosophy, Politics, Economics and the History of Ideas, Routledge, London
http://www.alquds.co.uk/index.asp?fname=today\02z34.htm&storytitle=ffالقمة%20الخليجية:%20الهواجس%20نفسهاfff&storytitleb=عبد%20الباري%20عطوان&storytitlec=
Watenpaugh, (2006) ‘Being Modern in the Middle East: Revolution, Nationalism, Colonialism, and the Arab Middle Class. Princeton University Press. http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8210.html
Atiya, E. (1958), ‘the Arabs: the Origins, Present Conditions, and Prospect of the Arab World’, Apelican Book UK.
Taheri, A. (1987) Holy Terror: the Inside Story of Islamic Terrorism, A Sphere Book, Great Britain.
Braudel, F. (1985) l’Mediterranee
Madden, F. (2002), “the Real History of the Crusades”
http://www.crisismagazine.com/april2002/cover.htm
Simons, G. (2004), “the History of Iraq: From Summer to Post Saddam, Palgrave Macmillan.
http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/ik/Muqaddimah/Int_Mat_Bk_One.htm
Prolegomena by Ibn Khaldun, translated in part by Reynold A. Nicholson in Translations of Eastern Poetry and Prose. Cambridge University Press, England, 1922.
Interview with Ali Sirmen, columnist for the leftist kemalist Chemhuryat http://www.babelmed.net/index.php?c=423&m=&k=&l=en
Zaenadin, Ahmad, (2007) Alhayat 03/12/07
http://www.alhayat.com/special/issues/12-2007/Item-20071202-9c136e6d-c0a8-10ed-00c1-a41e6a5a0787/story.html
Antonius, G. (1937) The Arab Awakening: the Story of the Arab Nationalist Movement .New York.
Al-Azmeh, A. (1993), ‘Islam and Modernity’, Verso London.
Uriel Heyd, (1950) ‘Foundations of Turkish Nationalism: The Life and Teachings of Ziya G'Kalp’. Luzac. London.
Islam and Arab’s encounter with the west is as old as Islam itself. There is a mention of Al-Rum, the Romans, in the holy book of Islam Qura’n. The relationships between the two people are not always been in ease. While west is a rather secular concept but it also indicates the land of Christendom. On the other hand Islam and Arabs are not synonyms either. Giving that the process of naming is always problematic. Therefore any adjective and concepts requires clear definition. The majority of Arabs are Muslim. While the majority of Muslims are not Arabs. Islam makes Arab identity, even in its secular versions. While concerning the relationships between West and Christianity. The two at the same time are intertwined and antagonistic to each other.
West especially Europe has a troubled history with Islam. When the Arabs first issued from the desert, they advanced very rapidly. This early clash and challenge to the authority of the Roman Empire resulted in resentment and abhorrence from European side. Edward Gibbon described them as “robbers” (Atiya, 1958: 19). The Arabs have been surprised and surprising others at the ease and rapidity of their success. “Forty-six years after the flight of Mahomet from Mecca, his disciples appeared in arms under the walls of Constantinople” (Gibbon, 1788). As Gibbon continues “they were animated by a genuine or fictitious saying of the prophet, that, to the first army which besieged the city of the Caesars”.
The Arabs and Muslims were in incredulity of their own success because not for long time ago they were Bedoweens (nomads) in scattered communities in the desert. The primitive life style and harsh condition of the nature surround them, made survival the priority in their life and no any purpose beyond that.
With the establishment of Islam, Arabs established their own first state; with its strong belief the novel state similar to any other power also developed the appetite for expansion. Islam like any other religion has a nature of dominance. It is duty on Muslim to do Jihad, either through preaching, book, or through sword. However some (Madden, 2007) argue “the means of Muslim expansion was always the sword”. This is historically not correct since Islam spread in South East Asia only through merchants. But the nature of dominance is undisputable as many centuries later founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hassan Al-Banna, puts it “it is the nature of Islam to dominate, not to be dominated, to impose its law on all nations and to extend its power to the entire planet” (Taheri, 1987). Islam spread in the three contents in a matter of less than a century. According to Braudel the reason of that fast expansion was that Islam was not opposing the other culture and religions but it was merely a continuation of them. Despite the similarity among all the three religions as Islam call them ahl-al ktab, people of book. The history of the region shows that there has never been any sort of integrations between the two sides of the Mediterranean. The hatred and the discourse of othering is the dominant view. Both Christian and Muslims killed each other as a holy act. The both sides act has been justified in various ways throughout the history. In the late 11th century, the Pope of Rome Urban II declared a crusade to take Jerusalem from the Arabs, who had held the city for centuries. In just a few years, European knights seized the city, slaughtering most of its Muslim and Jewish inhabitants. According to Madden (2002) the “Christians in the eleventh century were not paranoid fanatics. Muslims really were gunning for them”. Thus would begin two centuries of holy war. “The crusade had an educational and liberalising effect on Europe. They found a society in many respect more refined and dignified than their own” (Atiyah, 1958:68). The Muslims were upper handed until the birth of the European Renaissance.
The beginning of decline
From the crusade to the Renaissance Arabs in the Middle East were under Ottoman Empire. Ottomans were fierce Turkish warrior tribe that originated in the central and eastern Asian grassland, the homeland also of the Scythians, Huns, and Mongols. Like Mongols they were great horsemen, and their skill with bow gave them considerable military prowess. They were racial mixture, some resembling the Chinese in skin colour and facile feature, others like Caucasians (Simons, 2004:173).
Ottomans success against the other can be explained as the conflict between civilised and barbarian. Like previous barbarian groups Mongols and others, Ottoman expanded rapidly and conquered vast lands in the region and beyond. “In 1534 Suleiman despatched the Grand Wazer Ibrahim Pasha to commence the conquest of Iraq” (Simons, 2004:175). The Ottoman Empire destroyed what they come a cross and during their tenure they failed to built anything, no city, no school, no palace, and no civilisation. In 1638 Sultan Murad IV conquered Iraq and divided into three Villyats; Baghdad, Basra and Musil.
Ottoman expansion went as far as North Africa. But the vast bulk of their Empire was in the Europe. The Ottomans despite their success in the frontiers their Empire at home was getting more and more corrupted. Many factors contributed to the decline of the Ottoman Empire; problem with dynastic successions, administering a vast empire, the harem system, factional competition for power, weakening the unity of the empire.
As their previous Arab Abysid Empire, Ottomans as soon as established their power they immersed themselves in the business of pleasure seeking. Power and sex corrupted the empire to a degree the brother overthrowing the father, this milieu of distrust led to bloodshed among empyreal families. The rise and decline of the empire was explained before by the Muslim philosopher called Ibn Khaldun in his famous book Al-Muqaddimah as translated to Latin as Prolegomena. He believed that an empire, “seldom outlives three generations” (Nicholson, 1922). “The first maintains its nomadic character, its rude and savage ways of life” as it was in the early stage of the Ottoman Empire. The second generation “comes a change”. The change according to Ibn Khaldun occurs because “possessing dominion and affluence, they turn from nomadic to settled life, and from hardship to ease and plenty”. In this stage, after the clam “The authority, instead of being shared by all, is appropriated by one, while the rest, too spiritless to make an effort to regain it, abandon the glory of ambition for the shame of subjection”. Here Ibn Khaldun blames the “spiritless-ness” of the ordinary people as a cause for the emergence of the despotic rulers. While the “third generation at this stage men no longer take delight in glory and patriotism, since all have learned to bow under the might of a sovereign and are so addicted to luxurious pleasures that they have become a burden on the state; for they require protection like women and young boys” (Nicholson, 1922).
But Ottoman Empire emerged in a time when the Arab was falling. Therefore, the Arabs initially saw Ottomans more as a blessing than a curse. As Ibn Khaldun puts it: “when the state was drowned in decadence” (Lewis, 1999:90). The state he considers is the Arab kalifa in Baghdad. Then he continues “it was God’s benevolence that He rescue the faith, by reviving its dying breath and defending the wall of Islam. He did this by sending to the Muslims, from the Turkish nation ruler to defend them and utterly royal helpers” (Lewis, 1999:90). This claim is far from truth. The Ottomans were not Muslim but became Muslim. Their aim was not to revive Islam but to use it as a state ideology. But Ibn Khaldun beliefs as result of this “Islam rejoices in the benefit, which it gains through them, and the branch of the kingdom flourish with the freshness of the youth” (Lewis, 1999:90).
This might explain why Arabs were fine with Ottoman rule as long as the state ideology was Islamic. The Muslim philosopher Ibn Rushd that is known in Latin as Averroes proclaimed in 1175 that there are “two truths religion for the uneducated masses and philosophy for the educated elite”. But in this case religious truth for the masses and hedonism for the elite rulers. The weakness of the centre resulted in a new structure of the empire. The Ottomans appointed local mutasarrifiya (governorate) from the local people, however that was a sign of the weakness of the centre but resulted in coexistence throughout much of Ottoman era.
However the royal family had a very special and unique method to docile the local representatives. According to Ali Al-Wardy in his book the Modern History of Iraq
Royal authority had sodomy with the Valy’s (the appointed local chief) as a way to domesticate and docile them and then according to the tradition of the region they will not rebel. Since sodomy was common among Turks, as one European traveller put it “they {Turks] loath the natural use of the woman” (Al-Azmeh, 1993:124).
When the Ottoman Empire reached a level that they could not stand in front of Europeans, the dilemma began. The painful question was why they are defeating and losing to the Europeans. This realisation was unbearable, since for a many centuries the Ottomans regarded themselves in a same level as the Europeans. The need for Ottomans to be like the Europeans or become Europeans is and old and complicated feeling. “When in 1856, following to the Crimean War, during the Paris Conference held at the Quai d’Orsay, the great European powers declared that the Ottoman Empire was now part of the European circle and that its territorial integrity was guaranteed by European states. The ottoman press was enthusiastic and kept on repeating: We have all become Europeans” (Sirmen, 2007).
Becoming European was not an easy metamorphosing process. If in the Kafka’s text “one morning, Gregor Samsa was waking up from anxious dreams, he discovered that in bed he had been changed. Then he asked what’s happened to me. It was no dream”.
What happened to Gregor Samsa during the night in his bed it happened to the Ottoman Empire also. The metamorphosing process was called Tanzimat, an Arabic origin Turkish word for organizing. As Ali Sirmen put it “During the period of the Tanzimat in the 19th century, the Turks believed that by aligning themselves with Europe they would have become more civilized, progressed economically, etc… But ultimately the Empire crumbled” (2007).
Before the Europeanisation attempt the identity of the Empire was Islamic. Therefore when the Ottomans entered Syria in 1516 they did not face any resistance from the local. For the local the entering was not a change, it was still Islamic (Zaenadin, 2007).
The Tanzimat
Tanzimat Declaration which is officially known as the “Imperial Gulhane Decree” of 1839 read by the Grand Vizier Mustafa Reshid Pasha in the name of the Sultan (Finkel, 2005: 447). The previous reform was known as New Order, which emerged during Selim III. The sole aim of this reform attempts was to modernise the Ottoman army. Modernising was a concept meant renewal; strengthen, to a level that could fight the western army. It was a process ambiguous and complex. Through the change in the army the aim was also to change the face of the Empire. The empire was loose and had a multiple nationality, languages, and identities. It was not a Turkish Empire “the alleged ‘Turkish domination of 400 years’, is a historic forgery” (Ali Sirmen, 2007).
Beside the reform in army the modernisation process had other aims also. The Tanzimat was reorganising the whole empire in way to survive the new era. One of the main tasks was to establish a new identity to the Empire. A special school opened in Istanbul in Galatasaray, it was called the Galatasaray School. The school was founded in 1868 to create an ottoman identity. A new identity was Turk. Turk during the empire was a name for people who lived outside cities. It was not a privilege for one to be a Turk. Members of the Ottoman Empire were calling themselves as Osmanly. According to Ali Sirmen the school failed to establish its aim. “On the other hand, it quite managed to transmit a national Turkish identity” (Ali Sirmen). When Ottomans failed to coin an identity Turk became their identity. This was especially in the hand of the Young Turks movement and their party Itihad o Taraqi Union and Progress. The party came to power in 1908 and ruled till 1918. With Ithad o Taraqi the European form of identity arrived namely nationalism. “Ottoman rule was tolerant of the others ethnicity and religion tolerance became both religious prospect and part of political practice” (Pappé, 2007:15). Looking at the composition of a city like Istanbul during the Ottoman Empire indicates how cosmopolitan the Empire was. The city was home for many different minorities; Kurds, Arabs, Albanians, Greeks, Jews, beside that the city was attracting various kind of people for arrange of reasons, land, interest, profit, leisure refugee” ( Rohat Eski Istanbul Kurtleri “By 1893 only half of its population was Muslim. Ottoman was an Empire without an ethnic identity” (Pappé, 2007:15).
Therefore the aim of Itihad o Taraqi was to construct an ethnic identity, to build a nation, to centralise the empire, to make the Turkish language a Lingua Franca of the empire. This step, or rather steps, which was called reform, marked the arrival of the idea of a nation and nation state from Europe into the Middle East. The reform was the formative period for Arab and Turkish nationalism. As Antonio’s claims that it was the Young Turks' policy of 'turkification' that kindled the flames of nationalism among non-Turkish subjects of the Ottoman state (Antonius, 1937). However it’s hard to know what Antonius means by nationalisation. He frequently refers to the subjects of his book as "the Arab race.
At that time the question of modernisation and becoming modern was not limited only to Istanbul. The questions about modernity were asked in every provincial capital like Beirut, Baghdad, Cairo, Aleppo and others. These questions were asked by intellectuals, who were merely member of, middle class city dwellers as (Watenpaugh, 2006) recalls:
On the evening of 2 January 1910, Fathallah Qastun, a newspaper editor in Aleppo, one of the most important cities of the Ottoman Empire, addressed the inaugural meeting of the Mutual Aid Society. Simply titled "Becoming Civilized," the text of the speech, complete with parenthetical notations of spontaneous applause, was published in Qastun's own Arabic-language newspaper, al-Sha'b [The People]. Qastun began his speech by asking: "Why have we not yet become fully civilized and in particular, why have we not borrowed more from Europe?"
Since the Ottoman Empire and its changes is beyond the concern of this paper, therefore, rather the impact of that changes in the Ottoman Empire on the Arab Middle East will be taking into consideration. Ottoman were concerned about their empire. The reform they were initiated was mainly aiming to centralise the empire and making it a Turkish empire through a process of tukification.
This Turkification process was an emulation of the western style without any understanding of the nature of the empire. When the Ottomans pushed for making Turkish the language of the Empire the step backlash, the Turkification was embedded with Turanism or pan Turkism. The founder of this movement was a man called Ziya Gokalp.
At the end of the Ottoman Empire the country was in a major political and intellectual crises. Those were the days of the Meșrutiyet, a Turkish word for constitutional regime founded by the Young Turks after the 1908-9 revolution. The Turkish intelligentsia was torn between three conflicting ideologies: the liberalism of the Tanzimat period, which demanded assimilation to the West and hoped to save the multi-national Ottoman Empire by granting equal rights to all its citizens without distinction of religion and race (Ottomanism); the clericalism of the orthodox Muslims who insisted that Islam must retain its dominating influence on politics, culture and social life and serve as an indissoluble link between the Muslim nations inside the Empire, particularly Turks and Arabs, and those beyond its borders (Islamism or Pan-Islamism); and Turkish nationalism which in its first, romantic period fought for closer relations between all peoples of Turkish race in the hope of eventually uniting them in one Empire (Pan-Turkism or Turanism). After some hesitation Gökalp rejected the first two ideals and supported the Turanian movement. With the change of political circumstances, however, he took exception to its extreme aims and developed his own ideology which he called Turkism (Türkçü lük) and which is in fact a kind of synthesis of the trends mentioned above with the emphasis on the element of nationalism. Like most members of his party, Union and Progress, Gökalp in the beginning favoured Ottomanism (Osmanlicilik) (Heyd, 1950:71).
There are a lot of fogs around this all process. Whether the idea of nationalism defused into Arabs as a reaction to the process of centralisation or as emulation of the Turanism, is not quite clear. One can conduct a philological research, like those research mostly done by the oreintalsit Bernard Luis, and reach a result that for instance there is a concept of Eroba which means Arabism as same as Turanism. But without doubt the alteration of the Ottoman Empire from an Islamic empire into a nationalistic nation-state, as Heyd put it “At first, however, the new ideals brought only harm to the Turks. The Christians, and after them the non-Turkish Muslims (e.g.Albanians and Arabs) in the Ottoman Empire, took up the cry of nationalism with enthusiasm and threw off -- or tried to throw off -- the yoke of Turkish rule (1950: 104).
The idea of nationalism diffused from west to Turkey and in the hand of thinker like Gokalp went through a Trukification. This can be regarded as a moment of the commencement of modernity, a process which has not finalised yet. As Pamuk put it:
“Istanbul is geographically confused. So is the Turkish nation. 60 percent are conservative, 40 percent are looking for westernisation. These two groups have been arguing among themselves for 200 years. This situation of being in limbo, in between East and West, it’s a lifestyle in Turkey.” (Smith, 1995)
The Turkish attempt to centralise their empire was a plan doomed to failure. The causes of the failure were many among them the looseness of the empire. In the area like “Arabian Peninsula the Ottoman power had not been very effective. For the most part of the various local princes and sheikhs enjoyed large measure of autonomy, if not virtual independent” (Atiyah, 1958: 91). The Young Turks had to engage in confrontation with an identity more robust, than their required new identity, with the deeper roots in the society and the psyche of the people. This was especially with Muslims. Those Muslims who spoke Arabic retained a pride in their language: God revealed the Qur'an in Arabic to an Arab prophet in the seventh century. They also celebrated the history of the early Arab conquests, which carried Islam from the Oxus to the Pyrenees. And they took pride in their genealogies, which linked them to Arabia at the dawn of Islam.
When the Ottoman Empire started to decline there was a rescue process within the Empire, the rescue process was emerging in a three lines. Two of these of three lines their ideological geneses were from the West. Tanzimat group were advocating and canvassing for liberalism. They vowed to introduce the concept of citizenship and equal right for without distinction of religion and race (Heyd, 1950:71).
The second line which had its ideological genesis in the West was Turkish nationalism “which in its first, romantic period fought for closer relations between all peoples of Turkish race in the hope of eventually uniting them in one Empire (Pan-Turkism or Turanism)” (Heyd, 1950:71).
The line, which countered these, two was the line of the “clericalism of the orthodox Muslims who insisted that Islam must retain its dominating influence on politics, culture and social life and serve as an indissoluble link between the Muslim nations inside the Empire, particularly Turks and Arabs, and those beyond its borders, these were (Islamism or Pan-Islamism) (Heyd, 1950:71).
Among the three lines or ideologies two were from outsides, liberalism and nationalism. The third line or ideology was recycling of the tradition. This formula indicates that the Turkish intelligentsia were more in favour of the outside alternative rather than their native. This dialectical or rather none dialectical relationship between outside and inside is a mirror of a situation that is rather more complex. Liberalism and nationalism are ideologies belong to modernity. This is indicates that the Turkish intelligentsia were aware of the process of modernity and enlightenment in Europe and they came under a direct influence of it.
The failure of liberal lines and the decline of the Islamic line show the nature of the problem that the empire was facing. The empire was in decay and the dream of its elites was to recover and maintain the dominancy like the past but with the modern tools. Liberalism was not a suitable ideology to establish an empire or to recover an empire. The mission required dedication, blind belief, romanticism and irrational collectivist. 'Liberalism’ provides the model of political institutions that “the individual liberty which a 'government under the law' had secured to the citizens” (Hayek, 1982:119). In this process what was required was merely anti-liberalism. It was required from the individual to give up its liberty and imagine himself as a part of the newly invented notion of nation.
While Islam did not disappear or vanish it was merely an exhausted ideology, an ideology of the ancient regime. Or in reality it was never an ideology. The empire was Islamic but in its domain people lacked every sense of politics. They were never being citizens they lived a static life without any contradiction or antagonism. Therefore, it does not change or develop into a higher stage of social formation. "The Asiatic form necessarily hangs on most tenaciously and for the longest time. This is due to its presupposition that the individual does not become independent vis-à-vis the commune; that there is a self sustaining cycle of production, unity of agriculture and manufacture etc." (Marx, 1973:486). Islam backs this form of static and unity and continuity without change. Islam sees strength in unity. As Maqsood Jafri (2007) puts it “When the sand grains unite they become a vast desert. When the sea drops unite they become a boundless ocean. The unity of people makes an invincible strong nation. This is the reason Islam lays great stress on the importance of unity”. And this sense of unity and oneness is also stressed on in the Qur’an, (49:10) “The Mu’minoon (the Believers) are but a single Brotherhood”. The Islamic concept of Towhid is the word for becoming one, for eliminating differences. This as the result becomes a barrier in front of any different view, any opposition, and throughout Islam always argument solved by force. i.e. restoration of unity. The Arab poet Mohammad Ahmad Said known as Adonis (2006) regards the “emergence and glorification of dictatorships - sometimes in the name of pan-Arabism, and other times in the name of rejecting foreigners” to the concept of “oneness”. “I believe it has to do with the concept of 'oneness,' which is reflected - in practical or political terms - in the concept of the hero, the savoir, or the leader. This concept offers an inner sense of security to people who are afraid of freedom. Some human beings are afraid of freedom”.
For these reasons the Islam was not seen as an option for the change and recovery of the empire. But despite that the Turkish elite could not free themselves from Islam and Islamic view especially epistemologically. The Turk moved from an Islamic despot to a modern or Asiatic despot. The emergence of Turkish nationalism was one of the main contributors into the awakening the feeling of nationalism among Arabs in the Middle East.
Dawn of the Arab Nationalism
When the Turkish nationalism reached the power as the result they made sultan an irrelevant entity. They regard Islam, as well as any other religion, as a historicalphenomenon subject to change and dependent on the social circumstances in which it developed” (Heyd, 1950:82). This approach was revolutionary in his days. Since Arabs were regard themselves as the people who Allah chose them “You are the best nation raised up for mankind” (Al-Imran 110). However this verses does not mean Arabs particularly but the Arab nationalism utilized it in its rhetoric. This felling of being alienated and striped from the culture and religion drove Arabs to alienation.
Therefore the early Arab nationalism was against the Turks not the Europeans. For the Turkish nationalist the non-Turks become the Other. The origin of the Turkish nationalism was merely German. German nationalism namely Fichte and Herder but not Kant. According to Fichte the world is a coherent whole and it is manifestation of ego” (Ozkirimli, 17: 1988).
Understanding Fichte might help to shed a light on the nature of the nationalism that emerged in Turkey and later on in the Middle East. Fichte’s famous book Reden an die deutsche Nation (Addresses to the German Nation) arguably constitutes one of the founding texts of nationalist political thought. The book appeared eighteen years after the French Revolution: it comprises thirteen addresses that Fichte delivered at the Berlin Academy on Sundays during the winter of 1807 to 1808. Berlin was under French occupation at the time, and the foreign occupiers are the targets of Fecht’s polemic: his stated goal is to rouse the German nation from its slumber to assert its freedom and throw off the Napoleonic yoke (Abizadeh, 2005).
The Fechte was rappelling more any other thinkers because of the relative similarity of the circumstances. Fichte was staunchly republican by his youth, but during the French occupation of Germany he change in favour of Romantic nationalism and even pan-Germanism. This change from an individual based republican into a collectivist
Chauvinistic state helps to clarify many puzzles in the nature of the Middle Eastern nationalism. Turkey as same as Germany felt weak toward other European nations and its territory was under constant threat from every side.
This felling of losing the country, the empire, the imperial status pushed Turkish nationalist to regard every Other as enemy and not hesitate to use violent toward them. This is reached its climax during the Armenian genocide. For Charles Andler (1917) and (Rudolf Rocker, 1937:189), Fechte particularly in his Addresses, provides one of the primary philosophical sources of the chauvinistic pan-Germanism thought to be at the root of the German aggression in World war1. This is also indicates how and why the pathological modernity or counter modernity reached the Middle East and accepted rather than the individualistic liberal modernity.
At the mean time apart from reaction to the Turkish Modernity movement there were other lines which it from the Western modernity reached the region.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Sunday, November 11, 2007
Friday, August 10, 2007
Friday, July 13, 2007
End of Iraq Sradar Aziz
مهرگی عێراق
سهردار عهزیز
پاش دهرد و ئازار و خوێنێکی زۆر، له سهردهستی دایهنێکی ئینگلیز به ناوی گێرچوید بێل، له سهرهتای بیستهکانی سهدهی رابووردوو له میانهی پرۆسهیهکی گهوره و ساتهوهختێکی مێژووی بۆ سهرتاپا رۆژههڵاتی ناوهراست دهوڵهتی عێراق، به پرۆسهیهکی قهیسهری، له دایک بوو. له دایک بوونی ئهم بوونهوهڕه سهیره، که له دهعهجانێ ئهچێت، ههر له سهرهتاوه مایهی گومان و پرسیاربوو. ههر لهو سهروبهرهی که خاتوو بێل خهریکی دارشتنی پلان و نهخشهی عێراق بوو، قهشهیهکی ئهمریکی که کاری له ناوچهکهدا بڵاوکردنهوهی ئاینی مهسیحی بوو به بێل دهڵێت؛ ههوڵی تۆ بۆ دروستکردنی عێراق دژایهتیکردنی چوارههزار ساڵه له مێژوو. ههر له ئاشوریهکان و بابلیهکانهوه تا رۆژگاری ئهمرۆ ههرگیز ئهم سهرزهمینه یهکگرتوویی به خۆیهوه نهدیوه. ئهگهر ئهتهوێت کارێکی وهها بکهیت دهبێ پهلهی لێنهکهیت، خهڵکی کاتیان دهوێ بۆئهوهی به یهکتری ئاشنابن و بتوانن بهیهکهوه بژین. بهڵام وهک دهزانین بێل ههر سووربوو له سهر پلانهکهی، عێراق دروستکرا بهڵام ههمیشه وهک مناڵێکی زۆڵ بهدوای ناسنامهو رهگی خۆیا ئهگهرێ، ههمیشه بوونهوهرێکی تاقانهو نامۆبووه.
دروستکردنی عێراق رهنگدانهوهی عهقڵی ئینگلیزه. ئینگلیزهکان وهک زۆر کۆلۆنیالیزمی تر به ئاگایی و بێئاگایی ههوڵی ئهوهیان ئهدا دونیا له سهر شێوهی ووڵاتهکهیان دروستکهن. ئینگلتهرا خاوهن حکومهتێکی ناوهندی بههێزه، (یان بههێز بوو) له ههرکوێی تر دهسهڵاتیان ههبووبێ ههردهم حکومهتێکی ناوهندی بههیزیان پێکهوه ناوه. ههروهها دهسهڵاتی ئیمپریالیانه به سروشتی خۆی شێوازی دهسهڵاتێک دهخوازێت که چهق و ناوهندێکی بههێزی ههبێت.
وهک چۆن رۆژگاری ئهمرۆ دهبینین خهیاڵی ئهمریکیهکان بۆ دونیا ههوڵدانێکی ساویلکانهیه بۆ وێناکردنی دونیا له سهر شێوازی ئهمریکی. ههرلهم روانگهیهشهوهیه که پێداگرتنیان بۆ فیدرالیزم له سهر شێوازی ئهمریکی له عێراق دووبارهکردنهوهی ئهو گێلێتیهیه که ئینگلیزهکان کردیان. (ئهم تێزه رهنگدانهوهی بیری مۆدێرنهیه، که گوایه پرۆسهیهک ههیه له ههموو جێگایهک بهبێ جیاوازی کارئهکات، ئهم یونیڤێرسالیزمه له بیرکردنهوهدا کرۆکی بیری مۆدێرنهیه. ئهم دهستهباڵایهی بیر لهبری ناوهند قهیرانێکه که پاشان پۆستمۆدێرنه به چری و بهئاراستهیهکی جودا کاری لهسهر ئهکات). به ههرحاڵ عێراق له دایک بوو بهڵام له ههموو تهمهنیا جگه له خوێن رشتن و دیکتاتۆریهت و شهر هیچی تری به خۆیهوه نهدی. دیکتاتۆریهت و شهر و جیونۆساید زیاتر پهیوهندیان به بونیادی حکومهتی عێراقهوه ههیه تا به کهسهکانهوه. بۆیه بهدڵنیاییهوه ئهگهر عێراق به ههمان بونیادهوه دروستبکرێتهوه دهسهڵات له دهستی ههر لایهنێکا بێت ههمان ئهنجام بهرههم دههێنرێت و ههمان مێژوو دوبارهدهبێتهوه ئهوهی سهیره له میانهی لێکۆڵینهوه له عێراق ئهم لایهنه فهرامۆشکراوه ، زیاتر جهخت لهسهر رۆڵی پارت و کهسهکان ئهکرێتهوه نهک ستراکتۆرهکان.
لهوه ئهچی خۆشبهختانه مهرگی ئهو بوونهوهره فرانکشتاینیه سهیروسهمهرهیه نزیک بووبێتهوه. ئهمرۆ عێراق به ناو خاوهن حکومهتێکی یهکگرتوه بهڵام له راستیدا ووڵات دابهشبووه. ئهم دابهشبوونه له ههموو شتێ زیاتر چاوهروانکراوبوو چونکه ههرگیز هیچ کام له پێکهاتهکانی عێراق نهیانوویستوه به یهکهوه بژین، چونکه ئهوهندهی جوادیی له نێوانیاندا ههیه نیوئهوهنده هاوبهشیان نیه، وهک بهڵگه مێژوویهکان پێمان دهڵێن.
ئهم چهند ههفتهیهی رابووردوو زیاتر له ههموو کاتێکی تر، دهنگ و باسی بهشکردنی عێراق له ئارادایه. بۆ ههموو لایهک زۆر بهباشی روونبوهتهوه که شهری ناوخۆ نهک رووئهدات بهڵکو دهمێکه ههڵگیرساوه. ئهو تهلگرافانهی له بهغاوه دهگهنه واشنتۆن ههواڵی خۆشیان پێنیه. ئیدارهی بۆش و کۆنگریس زۆر دهستهپاچانه به دوای چارهسهرێکا ئهگهرێن. یهکێک لهو چارهسهرانهی که له دهنگوباسدان شێوازێکه که له بنهرهتدا دهگهرێتهوه بۆ سهرهتای مێژووی ووڵاته یهکگرتوهکانی ئهمریکا. وهک له سهرهتاوه ئاماژهمان پێدا، ئینگلیزهکان خهیاڵیان ئهوهنده فراوان نهبوو ههتا بتوانن شێوازێکی تر له حوکم وێنابکهن جگه لهو شێوازه حوکمهی که له لهندهن بهرێوهئهچوو، لهوه ئهچێت ئهمریکایهکانیش بهدهست ههمان دهردهوه بناڵێنن. بۆیه ئهوهی ئهمرۆ پێشنیارئهکرێت پێیدهڵێن (حکومهتی ئێسقان)؛ مهبهست لهمه ئهوهیه که حکومهتێک له بهغدا دابمهزرێت که وهک چۆن ئێسقان له لهشی مرۆڤدا، به مانایهکی تر ووڵاتهکه پێکهوه گرێدات و به ههندێ کاری سهرهکی ههستێ، که وهک پێشنیارکراوه بریتین له؛ کاروباری دهرهوه، پاراستنی سنوور و سهرپهرشتیکردنی داهاتی نهوت. ئهگهر بگهریینهوه بۆ سهرهتای مێژووی ئهمریکا واشنتۆن دی سی ههمان رۆڵی دهبینی وه زاراوهی حکومهتی ئێسقان دهگهرێتهوه بۆ ههمان رۆژگار.
ئهم بیرۆکهیه له ماڵپهری رۆژنامهی واشنتۆن پۆست به فیدرالیزم پلهس ناوزهدکراوه. فیدرالیزم پلهس به مانای له فیدرالیزم زیاتر دێت. واشنتۆن پۆست که له دهزگاکانی بریارهوه نزیکه ههروهها له خۆرایی نهبوو کهله گۆشهی راوبۆچونیان ماڵپهرهکهی بۆ خوێنهران و شارهزایان واڵاکردبوو. ئهگهر هیچ نهبی نیشانهی ئهوهیه که بیرۆکهیهکی لهو جۆره له ناوهندهکانی بریاردا له واشنتۆن بیری لێئهکرێتهوه.
یهكیک لهو تێزه سهرهکیانهی که ئهم دهستهیه تاوتوێ ئهکهن بیرۆکهی دابهشکردنی عێراقه. رهگی ئهم بیرۆکهیه لهوێوه سهری ههڵگرتوه که شهری ناخۆ له عێراق ههڵگیرساوه تهنها چارهسهر ئهوهیه چۆن به زووترین کات کۆتایی پێبهێنرێت. وهک له تاقیکردنهوهکانی ترهوه فێربوون، مێژووی ئهمریکا، ئهم دواییانه له یوگوسلافیا، ههمیشه شهری ناوخۆ دهبێته هۆی جیابوونهوه. بهڵام ئهگهر هاتوو ههر له ئێستاوه جیابوونهوه کاری بۆکرا ئهوا شهری ناوخۆ ئهوهنده درێژه ناکێشێ.
شایانی باسه له نێوکۆنگریسدا چهند ئهندامێک ههن دهمێکه بانگهشه بۆ جیابوونهوهی عێراق ئهکهن. بهڵام له ههموو کهسێ زیاتر پیتهر گالبرێته، پیتهر دۆستی نزیکی کورده و له نزیکهوه پهیوهندی به سهرکردایهتی کوردهوه ههیه بۆ ماوهیهک راوێژکاری حکومهتی ههرێمی کوردوستان بوو. پیتهر به ئاشکرا دهمێکه له نوسینهکانیا که به تایبهتی له نیورک بووک ریڤیودا بڵاودهبنهوه جاری مهرگی عێراق داوه. ئهم نووسینانه بوونهته بابهتی کتێبێک به ناوی کۆتایی عێراق.
بهڵام ئهوهی له ههمووی زیاتر جێی سهرنجه ئهو بابهتهیه که ژمارهی ئهم جارهی گۆڤاری یوئێس ئارمد جۆرناڵدا بڵاوبوهوه. وهک له ناونیشانی گۆڤارهرهکهدا دیاره، گۆڤارهکه تایبهته به کاروباری سهربازی ئهمریکی.
سنووره خوێناویهکان ناونیشانی بابهتهکهیه. له ژێرناونیشانهکهوه دێرێک ههیه که زۆر مانای له خۆیدا ههڵگرتوه ئهویش؛ رۆژههڵاتێکی ناوهراستی باشتر چۆنه، که به مانای ئهوه دێت ئهو رۆژههڵاتی ناوهراستهی که ههیه نهک ههر باش نیه بهڵکو وهک نووسهر پاشان دێته سهری ئهوهنده خراپه که ههمیشه مایهی بهرههم هێنانی رق و تیرۆریزمه. نوسهری بابهتهکه رالف پیتهرسه. پیتهرس له سهرهتای بابهتهکهیدا دهڵێت سنووره نێودهوڵهتیهکان ههرگیز به شێوهیهکی تهواو رهوا نین. سنورهکان خهڵک له یهک جیائهکهنهوه و خهڵک ناچارئهکهن که پێکهوه بژین. خراپترین سنور دارێژان له ئهفریقا و رۆژههڵاتی ناوهراستدایه. ئهم سنورانه رۆژانێک کێشراون بۆئهوهی خزمهتی بهرژهوهندی یهک لایهنهی ووڵاته کۆلۆنیاله ئهوروپیهکان بکهن. ئهوروپیهکان زۆر بهئاسانی سنوری ئهوانی تریان دارێژا کهچی له ههمانکاتدا دارشتنی سنور له ئهوروپا چهندهها شهر و خوێنێکی زۆری له سهر رژا. ئهم جۆره سنوره کێشراوانه له ئهفریقا ساڵانه دهبێته مایهی مهرگی ملیونهها خهڵکی. له ههمانکاتدا له رۆژههڵاتی ناوهراستدا وینستۆن چرچڵ واتهنی؛ ئهوهنده کێشه ئهخولقێنێ که زۆر له توانای ناوچهکه بهدهره بۆئهوهی چارهسهریان بکات.
ههرچهنده پیتهرس براوای وایه که ههرچهنده ههوڵبدرێت بۆ دارشتنی سنووری ناوچهکه ههرگیز ناتوانرێ سنورێک بکێشرێت که ببێته مایهی رهزامهندی ههموان، به تایبهت لهبهر سروشتی ئیتنی ناوچهکه، بهڵام ئهمه مانای ئهوه نیه که دهبێت ناوچهکه وهک خۆی بهجێبهێڵرێت.
یهکێک لهو پێشنیارانهی پیتهرس ئهیکات سهرلهنوێ دارشتنهوهی سهرتاپا نهخشهی ناوچهکهیه به جۆرێکی ئۆرگانی. مهبهستی لهمه ئهوهیه ئهو گهل و نهتهوانهی که سنور دابهشیکردوون سنورهکان له نێوانیاندا لاببرێت و دهوڵهتی یهک نهتهوهیی پێکبێت. له دهرئهنجامی ئهمهدا دهبێ دهوڵهتێکی کوردی بێته ئاراوه چونکه هیچ گهڵێکی تر نیه له سهرتاپا ناوچهکهدا هێندهی ئهم گهله ناههقی بهرامبهرکرابێت.
ههر لهروانگهی ئهم تێزهوه پرۆفیسۆری کۆمهڵناسی زانکۆی جۆرج واشنتۆن ئهمیتای ئیتزیونی تێزێکی له گهڵ سیناتۆر جۆزێف بایدن له ههژدهی مانگی شهشی ئهمساڵ پێشکهش به کۆنگریس کرد. ئیتزیونی لێکۆلهرهوهیهکی کۆمهڵناس و پسپۆرێکی شارهزای کاروباری سیاسهته. ئهم پرۆفیسۆره دهرچووی زانکۆی بهناوبانگی بێرکلیه له کالیفۆرنیا و له سهردهمی رۆناڵد رێگندا بۆ ماوهیهک راوێژکاربوو. ئیتزیونی کۆمهڵێکی زۆر نوسین و کتێب و بڵاوکراوهی ههیه. جگه له زمانی ئینگلیزی به زمانی ئهڵمانیش دهنووسێ. ههندێ کاریشی دهربارهی ئیسلام و عێراق ههیه. یهکێک له لێکۆڵینهوهکانی دهربارهی عێراق بابهتێکه له ژێر ناونیشانی مزگهوت و دهوڵهت.
تێزهکهی ئیتزینی بۆ چارهسهرکردنی کێشهی عێراق به پلانی ز ناسراوه. دیاره وهک ههموومان دهزانین پیتی ز دوا پیته له زمانی ئینگلیزیدا، بهو مانایه پلانی ز دوا پلانه. لهم پلانهدا ئیتزینی جهخت له سهر چهمکی کۆمهڵ یان جڤات به زمانی ئینگلیزی کۆمیونیتی به زمانی ئهڵمانی گمێنشافت ئهکاتهوه. کۆمهڵ ئهو بوونهیه که له ئهنجامی پێکهوهبوونی کۆمهڵێک خهڵک پێکدێت به ههبوونی ناوهندێکی پتهو بۆ پێکهوه گرێدانیان. ئهم ناوهنده دهکرێ ئاین، نهتهوه، زمان، کهلتور یان ههرشتێکی تری لهم جۆرهبێت. کاری ئهم ناوهنده وهک چیمهنتو وههایه وهک دۆرکایم دهڵێت.
ئیتزینی پێی باشه له سهرهتاوه عێراق بکرێت به ههژده کۆمهڵگاوه پاشان ئازادی بدرێت به ههر کۆمهڵگایهک بۆئهوهی لهگهڵ ههر یهک لهکۆمهڵگاکانی تردا یهک بگرێت. کهواته له سهرهتاوه ئهوه دروستبکرێت که به زمانی ئهڵمانی پێی دهوترێت گزێڵشافت له ئهنجامی ئهمهدا گمێنشافت پێکبێت. ئیتزینی ئهم پرۆسهیه ناوئهنێت دیڤۆلیشنێکی چر. چهمکی دیڤۆلیوشن بهرامبهرهکهی له زمانی کوردیا نیه، بهڵام بۆئهوهی بۆ خوێنهری روونبکهینهوه ئهوا دهڵێین لامهرکهزی. ئهم پرۆسهیه که چهند دهیهیهکه ووڵاتانی (دهوڵهته نهتهوهیهکانی) رۆژئاوا پیاتێپهرئهبن بریتیه له پرۆسهی لاوازبوونی دهسهڵاتی ناوهند. بۆنموونه له ووڵاتی بهریتانیا سکۆتلهندا و وێلز و ئایرلهندای باکور ستاتۆی دیڤۆلیوشنیان ههیه.
ئیتزینی بروای وههایه کاتێک عێراق بووبه کۆمهڵهی جیاوازهوه ئهوا کۆمهڵهکان ئهرکی پاراستنی خۆیان دهکهوێته ئهستۆی خۆیان بۆیه ههر کۆمهڵهیه ناچاردهبێ که له ناوهندا پێکهوه بگونجێ ههتا بتوانێ رووبهرووی مهترسی دهرهکی بێتهوه.
رهخنهگرانی ئیتزینی بهوه تاوانباری دهکهن که پلانهکهی دهبێته هۆی لێکههڵوهشانهوهی عێراق وه ئهمهش دهبێته هۆی کێشه و خوێنی زیاتر. ئهم بههانهیه سهرچاوهکهی روون و ئاشکرایه. بهشێکی گهوره له سیاسهت ههمیشه ههوڵدانه بۆ له قاڵبدانی هۆش و تێروانین. ئهم له قاڵبدانه پرۆسهیهکی بهردهوامه بۆ درێژهدان به ههماههنگیهک که تهنها له خزمهتی ئهوانهدایه که داکۆکی لێئهکهن بهڵام ئهوان وهها ههوڵئهدهن که وهها وێنای بکهن که ئهلتهرناتیڤی نیه، یان بهلانی کهمهوه ئهلتهرناتیڤهکهی ههستانی روباری خوێنه. گوتهی ئهوهی گوایه دهوڵهتی کوردی دهبێته هۆی جهنگێکی سهرتاسهری له ناوچهکهدا یهکێکه لهم قاڵبدانانه. عێراق بوهته مایهی مهرگی ملیونان، پێش ئهوهی ببێته مایهی مهرگی ههموان، ئهرکێکی ئهخلاقی و مرۆڤانهیه که ئهم دهعهجانێیه بکوژین.
سهردار عهزیز
پاش دهرد و ئازار و خوێنێکی زۆر، له سهردهستی دایهنێکی ئینگلیز به ناوی گێرچوید بێل، له سهرهتای بیستهکانی سهدهی رابووردوو له میانهی پرۆسهیهکی گهوره و ساتهوهختێکی مێژووی بۆ سهرتاپا رۆژههڵاتی ناوهراست دهوڵهتی عێراق، به پرۆسهیهکی قهیسهری، له دایک بوو. له دایک بوونی ئهم بوونهوهڕه سهیره، که له دهعهجانێ ئهچێت، ههر له سهرهتاوه مایهی گومان و پرسیاربوو. ههر لهو سهروبهرهی که خاتوو بێل خهریکی دارشتنی پلان و نهخشهی عێراق بوو، قهشهیهکی ئهمریکی که کاری له ناوچهکهدا بڵاوکردنهوهی ئاینی مهسیحی بوو به بێل دهڵێت؛ ههوڵی تۆ بۆ دروستکردنی عێراق دژایهتیکردنی چوارههزار ساڵه له مێژوو. ههر له ئاشوریهکان و بابلیهکانهوه تا رۆژگاری ئهمرۆ ههرگیز ئهم سهرزهمینه یهکگرتوویی به خۆیهوه نهدیوه. ئهگهر ئهتهوێت کارێکی وهها بکهیت دهبێ پهلهی لێنهکهیت، خهڵکی کاتیان دهوێ بۆئهوهی به یهکتری ئاشنابن و بتوانن بهیهکهوه بژین. بهڵام وهک دهزانین بێل ههر سووربوو له سهر پلانهکهی، عێراق دروستکرا بهڵام ههمیشه وهک مناڵێکی زۆڵ بهدوای ناسنامهو رهگی خۆیا ئهگهرێ، ههمیشه بوونهوهرێکی تاقانهو نامۆبووه.
دروستکردنی عێراق رهنگدانهوهی عهقڵی ئینگلیزه. ئینگلیزهکان وهک زۆر کۆلۆنیالیزمی تر به ئاگایی و بێئاگایی ههوڵی ئهوهیان ئهدا دونیا له سهر شێوهی ووڵاتهکهیان دروستکهن. ئینگلتهرا خاوهن حکومهتێکی ناوهندی بههێزه، (یان بههێز بوو) له ههرکوێی تر دهسهڵاتیان ههبووبێ ههردهم حکومهتێکی ناوهندی بههیزیان پێکهوه ناوه. ههروهها دهسهڵاتی ئیمپریالیانه به سروشتی خۆی شێوازی دهسهڵاتێک دهخوازێت که چهق و ناوهندێکی بههێزی ههبێت.
وهک چۆن رۆژگاری ئهمرۆ دهبینین خهیاڵی ئهمریکیهکان بۆ دونیا ههوڵدانێکی ساویلکانهیه بۆ وێناکردنی دونیا له سهر شێوازی ئهمریکی. ههرلهم روانگهیهشهوهیه که پێداگرتنیان بۆ فیدرالیزم له سهر شێوازی ئهمریکی له عێراق دووبارهکردنهوهی ئهو گێلێتیهیه که ئینگلیزهکان کردیان. (ئهم تێزه رهنگدانهوهی بیری مۆدێرنهیه، که گوایه پرۆسهیهک ههیه له ههموو جێگایهک بهبێ جیاوازی کارئهکات، ئهم یونیڤێرسالیزمه له بیرکردنهوهدا کرۆکی بیری مۆدێرنهیه. ئهم دهستهباڵایهی بیر لهبری ناوهند قهیرانێکه که پاشان پۆستمۆدێرنه به چری و بهئاراستهیهکی جودا کاری لهسهر ئهکات). به ههرحاڵ عێراق له دایک بوو بهڵام له ههموو تهمهنیا جگه له خوێن رشتن و دیکتاتۆریهت و شهر هیچی تری به خۆیهوه نهدی. دیکتاتۆریهت و شهر و جیونۆساید زیاتر پهیوهندیان به بونیادی حکومهتی عێراقهوه ههیه تا به کهسهکانهوه. بۆیه بهدڵنیاییهوه ئهگهر عێراق به ههمان بونیادهوه دروستبکرێتهوه دهسهڵات له دهستی ههر لایهنێکا بێت ههمان ئهنجام بهرههم دههێنرێت و ههمان مێژوو دوبارهدهبێتهوه ئهوهی سهیره له میانهی لێکۆڵینهوه له عێراق ئهم لایهنه فهرامۆشکراوه ، زیاتر جهخت لهسهر رۆڵی پارت و کهسهکان ئهکرێتهوه نهک ستراکتۆرهکان.
لهوه ئهچی خۆشبهختانه مهرگی ئهو بوونهوهره فرانکشتاینیه سهیروسهمهرهیه نزیک بووبێتهوه. ئهمرۆ عێراق به ناو خاوهن حکومهتێکی یهکگرتوه بهڵام له راستیدا ووڵات دابهشبووه. ئهم دابهشبوونه له ههموو شتێ زیاتر چاوهروانکراوبوو چونکه ههرگیز هیچ کام له پێکهاتهکانی عێراق نهیانوویستوه به یهکهوه بژین، چونکه ئهوهندهی جوادیی له نێوانیاندا ههیه نیوئهوهنده هاوبهشیان نیه، وهک بهڵگه مێژوویهکان پێمان دهڵێن.
ئهم چهند ههفتهیهی رابووردوو زیاتر له ههموو کاتێکی تر، دهنگ و باسی بهشکردنی عێراق له ئارادایه. بۆ ههموو لایهک زۆر بهباشی روونبوهتهوه که شهری ناوخۆ نهک رووئهدات بهڵکو دهمێکه ههڵگیرساوه. ئهو تهلگرافانهی له بهغاوه دهگهنه واشنتۆن ههواڵی خۆشیان پێنیه. ئیدارهی بۆش و کۆنگریس زۆر دهستهپاچانه به دوای چارهسهرێکا ئهگهرێن. یهکێک لهو چارهسهرانهی که له دهنگوباسدان شێوازێکه که له بنهرهتدا دهگهرێتهوه بۆ سهرهتای مێژووی ووڵاته یهکگرتوهکانی ئهمریکا. وهک له سهرهتاوه ئاماژهمان پێدا، ئینگلیزهکان خهیاڵیان ئهوهنده فراوان نهبوو ههتا بتوانن شێوازێکی تر له حوکم وێنابکهن جگه لهو شێوازه حوکمهی که له لهندهن بهرێوهئهچوو، لهوه ئهچێت ئهمریکایهکانیش بهدهست ههمان دهردهوه بناڵێنن. بۆیه ئهوهی ئهمرۆ پێشنیارئهکرێت پێیدهڵێن (حکومهتی ئێسقان)؛ مهبهست لهمه ئهوهیه که حکومهتێک له بهغدا دابمهزرێت که وهک چۆن ئێسقان له لهشی مرۆڤدا، به مانایهکی تر ووڵاتهکه پێکهوه گرێدات و به ههندێ کاری سهرهکی ههستێ، که وهک پێشنیارکراوه بریتین له؛ کاروباری دهرهوه، پاراستنی سنوور و سهرپهرشتیکردنی داهاتی نهوت. ئهگهر بگهریینهوه بۆ سهرهتای مێژووی ئهمریکا واشنتۆن دی سی ههمان رۆڵی دهبینی وه زاراوهی حکومهتی ئێسقان دهگهرێتهوه بۆ ههمان رۆژگار.
ئهم بیرۆکهیه له ماڵپهری رۆژنامهی واشنتۆن پۆست به فیدرالیزم پلهس ناوزهدکراوه. فیدرالیزم پلهس به مانای له فیدرالیزم زیاتر دێت. واشنتۆن پۆست که له دهزگاکانی بریارهوه نزیکه ههروهها له خۆرایی نهبوو کهله گۆشهی راوبۆچونیان ماڵپهرهکهی بۆ خوێنهران و شارهزایان واڵاکردبوو. ئهگهر هیچ نهبی نیشانهی ئهوهیه که بیرۆکهیهکی لهو جۆره له ناوهندهکانی بریاردا له واشنتۆن بیری لێئهکرێتهوه.
یهكیک لهو تێزه سهرهکیانهی که ئهم دهستهیه تاوتوێ ئهکهن بیرۆکهی دابهشکردنی عێراقه. رهگی ئهم بیرۆکهیه لهوێوه سهری ههڵگرتوه که شهری ناخۆ له عێراق ههڵگیرساوه تهنها چارهسهر ئهوهیه چۆن به زووترین کات کۆتایی پێبهێنرێت. وهک له تاقیکردنهوهکانی ترهوه فێربوون، مێژووی ئهمریکا، ئهم دواییانه له یوگوسلافیا، ههمیشه شهری ناوخۆ دهبێته هۆی جیابوونهوه. بهڵام ئهگهر هاتوو ههر له ئێستاوه جیابوونهوه کاری بۆکرا ئهوا شهری ناوخۆ ئهوهنده درێژه ناکێشێ.
شایانی باسه له نێوکۆنگریسدا چهند ئهندامێک ههن دهمێکه بانگهشه بۆ جیابوونهوهی عێراق ئهکهن. بهڵام له ههموو کهسێ زیاتر پیتهر گالبرێته، پیتهر دۆستی نزیکی کورده و له نزیکهوه پهیوهندی به سهرکردایهتی کوردهوه ههیه بۆ ماوهیهک راوێژکاری حکومهتی ههرێمی کوردوستان بوو. پیتهر به ئاشکرا دهمێکه له نوسینهکانیا که به تایبهتی له نیورک بووک ریڤیودا بڵاودهبنهوه جاری مهرگی عێراق داوه. ئهم نووسینانه بوونهته بابهتی کتێبێک به ناوی کۆتایی عێراق.
بهڵام ئهوهی له ههمووی زیاتر جێی سهرنجه ئهو بابهتهیه که ژمارهی ئهم جارهی گۆڤاری یوئێس ئارمد جۆرناڵدا بڵاوبوهوه. وهک له ناونیشانی گۆڤارهرهکهدا دیاره، گۆڤارهکه تایبهته به کاروباری سهربازی ئهمریکی.
سنووره خوێناویهکان ناونیشانی بابهتهکهیه. له ژێرناونیشانهکهوه دێرێک ههیه که زۆر مانای له خۆیدا ههڵگرتوه ئهویش؛ رۆژههڵاتێکی ناوهراستی باشتر چۆنه، که به مانای ئهوه دێت ئهو رۆژههڵاتی ناوهراستهی که ههیه نهک ههر باش نیه بهڵکو وهک نووسهر پاشان دێته سهری ئهوهنده خراپه که ههمیشه مایهی بهرههم هێنانی رق و تیرۆریزمه. نوسهری بابهتهکه رالف پیتهرسه. پیتهرس له سهرهتای بابهتهکهیدا دهڵێت سنووره نێودهوڵهتیهکان ههرگیز به شێوهیهکی تهواو رهوا نین. سنورهکان خهڵک له یهک جیائهکهنهوه و خهڵک ناچارئهکهن که پێکهوه بژین. خراپترین سنور دارێژان له ئهفریقا و رۆژههڵاتی ناوهراستدایه. ئهم سنورانه رۆژانێک کێشراون بۆئهوهی خزمهتی بهرژهوهندی یهک لایهنهی ووڵاته کۆلۆنیاله ئهوروپیهکان بکهن. ئهوروپیهکان زۆر بهئاسانی سنوری ئهوانی تریان دارێژا کهچی له ههمانکاتدا دارشتنی سنور له ئهوروپا چهندهها شهر و خوێنێکی زۆری له سهر رژا. ئهم جۆره سنوره کێشراوانه له ئهفریقا ساڵانه دهبێته مایهی مهرگی ملیونهها خهڵکی. له ههمانکاتدا له رۆژههڵاتی ناوهراستدا وینستۆن چرچڵ واتهنی؛ ئهوهنده کێشه ئهخولقێنێ که زۆر له توانای ناوچهکه بهدهره بۆئهوهی چارهسهریان بکات.
ههرچهنده پیتهرس براوای وایه که ههرچهنده ههوڵبدرێت بۆ دارشتنی سنووری ناوچهکه ههرگیز ناتوانرێ سنورێک بکێشرێت که ببێته مایهی رهزامهندی ههموان، به تایبهت لهبهر سروشتی ئیتنی ناوچهکه، بهڵام ئهمه مانای ئهوه نیه که دهبێت ناوچهکه وهک خۆی بهجێبهێڵرێت.
یهکێک لهو پێشنیارانهی پیتهرس ئهیکات سهرلهنوێ دارشتنهوهی سهرتاپا نهخشهی ناوچهکهیه به جۆرێکی ئۆرگانی. مهبهستی لهمه ئهوهیه ئهو گهل و نهتهوانهی که سنور دابهشیکردوون سنورهکان له نێوانیاندا لاببرێت و دهوڵهتی یهک نهتهوهیی پێکبێت. له دهرئهنجامی ئهمهدا دهبێ دهوڵهتێکی کوردی بێته ئاراوه چونکه هیچ گهڵێکی تر نیه له سهرتاپا ناوچهکهدا هێندهی ئهم گهله ناههقی بهرامبهرکرابێت.
ههر لهروانگهی ئهم تێزهوه پرۆفیسۆری کۆمهڵناسی زانکۆی جۆرج واشنتۆن ئهمیتای ئیتزیونی تێزێکی له گهڵ سیناتۆر جۆزێف بایدن له ههژدهی مانگی شهشی ئهمساڵ پێشکهش به کۆنگریس کرد. ئیتزیونی لێکۆلهرهوهیهکی کۆمهڵناس و پسپۆرێکی شارهزای کاروباری سیاسهته. ئهم پرۆفیسۆره دهرچووی زانکۆی بهناوبانگی بێرکلیه له کالیفۆرنیا و له سهردهمی رۆناڵد رێگندا بۆ ماوهیهک راوێژکاربوو. ئیتزیونی کۆمهڵێکی زۆر نوسین و کتێب و بڵاوکراوهی ههیه. جگه له زمانی ئینگلیزی به زمانی ئهڵمانیش دهنووسێ. ههندێ کاریشی دهربارهی ئیسلام و عێراق ههیه. یهکێک له لێکۆڵینهوهکانی دهربارهی عێراق بابهتێکه له ژێر ناونیشانی مزگهوت و دهوڵهت.
تێزهکهی ئیتزینی بۆ چارهسهرکردنی کێشهی عێراق به پلانی ز ناسراوه. دیاره وهک ههموومان دهزانین پیتی ز دوا پیته له زمانی ئینگلیزیدا، بهو مانایه پلانی ز دوا پلانه. لهم پلانهدا ئیتزینی جهخت له سهر چهمکی کۆمهڵ یان جڤات به زمانی ئینگلیزی کۆمیونیتی به زمانی ئهڵمانی گمێنشافت ئهکاتهوه. کۆمهڵ ئهو بوونهیه که له ئهنجامی پێکهوهبوونی کۆمهڵێک خهڵک پێکدێت به ههبوونی ناوهندێکی پتهو بۆ پێکهوه گرێدانیان. ئهم ناوهنده دهکرێ ئاین، نهتهوه، زمان، کهلتور یان ههرشتێکی تری لهم جۆرهبێت. کاری ئهم ناوهنده وهک چیمهنتو وههایه وهک دۆرکایم دهڵێت.
ئیتزینی پێی باشه له سهرهتاوه عێراق بکرێت به ههژده کۆمهڵگاوه پاشان ئازادی بدرێت به ههر کۆمهڵگایهک بۆئهوهی لهگهڵ ههر یهک لهکۆمهڵگاکانی تردا یهک بگرێت. کهواته له سهرهتاوه ئهوه دروستبکرێت که به زمانی ئهڵمانی پێی دهوترێت گزێڵشافت له ئهنجامی ئهمهدا گمێنشافت پێکبێت. ئیتزینی ئهم پرۆسهیه ناوئهنێت دیڤۆلیشنێکی چر. چهمکی دیڤۆلیوشن بهرامبهرهکهی له زمانی کوردیا نیه، بهڵام بۆئهوهی بۆ خوێنهری روونبکهینهوه ئهوا دهڵێین لامهرکهزی. ئهم پرۆسهیه که چهند دهیهیهکه ووڵاتانی (دهوڵهته نهتهوهیهکانی) رۆژئاوا پیاتێپهرئهبن بریتیه له پرۆسهی لاوازبوونی دهسهڵاتی ناوهند. بۆنموونه له ووڵاتی بهریتانیا سکۆتلهندا و وێلز و ئایرلهندای باکور ستاتۆی دیڤۆلیوشنیان ههیه.
ئیتزینی بروای وههایه کاتێک عێراق بووبه کۆمهڵهی جیاوازهوه ئهوا کۆمهڵهکان ئهرکی پاراستنی خۆیان دهکهوێته ئهستۆی خۆیان بۆیه ههر کۆمهڵهیه ناچاردهبێ که له ناوهندا پێکهوه بگونجێ ههتا بتوانێ رووبهرووی مهترسی دهرهکی بێتهوه.
رهخنهگرانی ئیتزینی بهوه تاوانباری دهکهن که پلانهکهی دهبێته هۆی لێکههڵوهشانهوهی عێراق وه ئهمهش دهبێته هۆی کێشه و خوێنی زیاتر. ئهم بههانهیه سهرچاوهکهی روون و ئاشکرایه. بهشێکی گهوره له سیاسهت ههمیشه ههوڵدانه بۆ له قاڵبدانی هۆش و تێروانین. ئهم له قاڵبدانه پرۆسهیهکی بهردهوامه بۆ درێژهدان به ههماههنگیهک که تهنها له خزمهتی ئهوانهدایه که داکۆکی لێئهکهن بهڵام ئهوان وهها ههوڵئهدهن که وهها وێنای بکهن که ئهلتهرناتیڤی نیه، یان بهلانی کهمهوه ئهلتهرناتیڤهکهی ههستانی روباری خوێنه. گوتهی ئهوهی گوایه دهوڵهتی کوردی دهبێته هۆی جهنگێکی سهرتاسهری له ناوچهکهدا یهکێکه لهم قاڵبدانانه. عێراق بوهته مایهی مهرگی ملیونان، پێش ئهوهی ببێته مایهی مهرگی ههموان، ئهرکێکی ئهخلاقی و مرۆڤانهیه که ئهم دهعهجانێیه بکوژین.
Wednesday, July 4, 2007
interview with PUK media
نووسهرو لیَكۆڵهر سهردار عهزیز بۆ كوردستانى نویَ:ئهمریكا باش ئاگاداره جگه لهكورد هیچ لایهنیَكی تر نییه دۆستیان بیَت
لهدواى روداوى(11ى سیَپتهمبهر)هوه ئیدى دنیا شیَوهیهكى دیكهى وهرگرت و ئهمریكا وهك ههمیشهو تاكه هیَز ههندیَ هاوكیَشهى گۆرِى و هاوكیَشهى دیكهى لهجیهاندا دروستكردو رووخانى رژیَمى تاڵیبان و رژیَمهكهى سهدامى بهدواداهات، كوردیش لهم سهردهمه نویَیهى سیاسهتى جیهانیداو لهپهیوهندى خۆیدا لهگهڵ ئهمریكییهكاندا رۆڵیَكى دیارى بهركهوتووهو لهناوچهى رۆژههڵاتى ناوهرِاست حسابیَكى دیارو بهرچاوى بۆ دهكریَت. بۆ زیاتر شارهزابوون لهبیركردنهوهى ئهمریكاو ئاسۆكانى پهیوهندیى نیَوان كوردو ئهمریكاو سیاسهتى تازهى جیهانى ئهم چاوپیَكهوتنهمان لهگهڵ رۆشنبیرى تاراوگهو خویَندكارى ماستهرى زانكۆى(كۆك) لهئیَرلهندهو شارهزا لهبوارى ئهمریكاناسیدا(سهردار عهزیز) سازكرد.گفتوگۆی: هیَمن مهحمود*سیستمى نویَى جیهانى كهئهمریكا رابهرایهتى دهكات و دیموكراسى و جیهانگیرى كردووهته دروشمى خۆى وادهردهكهویَت كهئیَستا لهپاشهكشهدا بیَت، ئهوهتا دهبینین ئهمریكا لهعیراقدا بهدهست چ گرفتیَكهوه دهناڵیَنیَت و ئهو نهخشهیهى كهكۆندۆلیزارایس بۆ رۆژههڵاتى ناوهرِاستى گهوره كیَشاى لهبیرى ههمووان چووهتهوهو ئیَرانیَكى ئهتۆمى لهدهركهوتنایهو لهبرى دیموكراسى و پاراستنى مافى مرۆڤ و ئازادى زیاتر، تیرۆرو تۆقاندن و شهرِى مهزههبى و ناسنامهى جیاواز باڵادهسته، بهراى تۆ ئایندهى ئهم سیستمه بهرهوكویَ دهرِوات؟- ئایندهی ئهم سیستمه بهرهوكویَ دهرِوات؟ وهڵامدانهوهی پرسیاریَكی وائاسان نییه. لهبهر ئاڵۆزیی سیستمی نیَودهوڵهتی و ئهو گۆرِانه خیَرایهی بهسهر پۆلهتیكدا دیَت. ئهم پرسیاره تهنها لهلای ئهوانهوه ئاسانه وهڵامبدریَتهوه كهههڵگری ئایدۆلۆژیایهكن ئیتر ئایا لهگهڵ ئهمریكادا تهبان یان دژى ئهوه مهسهلهیهكی تره، دیموكراسی وهك دروشمیَك یان وهك بههایهك لهسیاسهتی دهرهوهدا ههرگیز ئهو چهمكه ئاسانه نهبووه كهبهرگویَ دهكهویَت. بهمانایهكی تر دیموكراسی لهلایهن گهلانی ترهوه لهدهرهوهی ئهمریكا بهجۆریكیَ زۆر جیاواز دهبینریَت و لیَكدهدریَتهوه لهوهی كهئهمریكا مهبهستییهتی. سهرهتا ئهوهی وای لهئهمریكا كردووه دیموكراسی بكاته دروشمیَك چهند پیَكهاتهیهكی میَژوویی و رامیارییه پیَش ههموو شتیَك ئابوورییه. بۆیه چهمكی دیموكراسی چهمكیَكه كهپیَویسته لهدیدی جیاوه ببینریَت و لهتیَگهشتنه جیاوهزهكانی ئاگاداربین، ئهگهر بیَین تۆزیَك بهزهقیی قسهبكهین دهڵیَین دیموكراسی لای حكومهتی ئهمریكی ئامانج نییه، بهڵكو ئامرِازه، كاتیَك دیموكراسی دهبیَته ئامرِاز ئهوا ئامانج گرنگی زیاتر پهیدادهكات. وهئهگهر ئهم ئامرِازه ئامانجی مهبهستی بهدهست نههیَنا ئهوا دهبیَ بگۆرِدریَت، چونكه وهك وتمان ئامانج باڵادهستتره لهئامرِاز. ئهگهر نموونهیهك وهربگرین؛ ئهمریكا ههمیشه پاڵپشتی ههڵبژاردن بوو لهفهلهستین، بهڵام كاتیَك ههڵبژاردن بووبههۆی سهركهوتنی گروپیَكی تیرۆریستی وهك حهماس ئهوا ئهمریكا خیَرا پاشهكشهی لیَكرد. لیَرهدا رووبهرِووی دوو قوتابخانه لهبیركردنهوه دهبینهوه یهكهم، پاریَزهره نویَكان كهگیَڵانه دیموكراسییان بهدهرمانی دهردان لهرۆژههڵاتی ناوهرِاستدا لهقهڵهم دهدا، قوتابخانهی دووهم قوتابخانهی ریالیزمه كه بهگشتی دیموكراسی بهسهرچاوهی قهیران لهو ناوچهیهدا لهقهڵهم دهدهن، دیاره بهپاشهكشهی پاریَزهره نویَكان ریالیزمهكان هاتنهوه مهیدان و بانگهشهی دیموكراسیش پاشهكشهی كرد. كهواته دیموكراسی وهك دروشمیَك بۆ سیاسهتی دهرهوه میانیَك بوو بۆ ساتهوهختیَك هاتوو ههرزوو، پیَش ئهوهی پیَی بڵیَین كشه كشه پۆپه رهشه وون بوو. بهداخهوه ئهم تیَزه زۆر ئاشكرابوو ههر لهسهرهتاوه، نووسهرانی نوم چۆمسكی و ئهوانی تر دهقی زۆریان لهسهر نووسیوه، بهڵام سهرهرِای ئهمه ئیشكالییهتیَكی تر لهمهسهلهكهدا ههیه، ئهویش دیدی ئیَمهیه بۆ دیموكراسی. ئهم دیدهی ئیَمه وهك نهتهوهیهكی ژیَردهست دیدیَكی كهگوایه دیموكراسی دژ بهدیكتاتۆرییهت و پاڵپشتی خهڵك دهبیَت. ئهم دیده لهگهڵ دیدی ئهمریكا بۆ دیموكراسیدا ناگونجیَ. وهك وتمان لای ئهمریكا دیموكراسی ئامرِازه بۆ بهدیهیَنانی مهبهستیَك ئهم مهبهستهش مهرج نییه ههمیشه مهبهستیَكی دیموكراسییانه بیَت. بۆ نموونه لهههناوی چهمكی دیموكراسیدا كۆمهڵیَك چهمكی تر ههیه كهزیاتر مهبهسته وهك نیولیبرالیزم، سهرمایهداری، بازارِی ئازاد، گلۆبالیزم، كهههموویان لهرِیَگای دهزگا تۆكمهو گهورهكانهوه وهك (imf)، بانكی نیَودهوڵهتی، دهزگای ترهوه بهرِیَوهدهبریَن و چاودیَری دهكریَن. لهههر وڵاتیَكدا كهئهم پلانانه بهریَوهچووبیَت زۆرینهی خهڵكی ئهو وڵاته لهسهروهت و سامانی وڵاتی خۆیان بیَبهش بوون. ئهم سیستمه حكومهت كورت دهكاتهوه بۆ دهزگایهكی پۆلیس و سهربازی دادگا. لهرِیَی ئهمهوه ریَگا خۆش دهكات بۆ سهرمایهداری جیهانی بیَت و لهریَی كریَكاری ههرزان و مادهی خاوی بیَ بهرامبهرهوه وڵات تاڵان بكات، لهههمانكاتدا دهوڵهت بهپیَی ریَساكانی بانكی نیَودهوڵهتی دهبیَ لهخزمهتهكانی بۆ هاووڵاتیانی كهم كاتهوه، بۆنموونه دهبیَ داودهرمان بهپارهبیَت، خویَندن بهپارهبیَت، زۆری تریش. بۆیه تیَرِوانیَنی ئهمریكی بۆ دیموكراسی مهرج نییه ههمیشه لهگهڵ خواست و ئاواتی گهڵانی بن دهستدا یهكبگریَتهوه، ئهمریكا لهپاش جهنگی جیهانی دووهمهوه لهپرِۆسهی بانگهشهكردن بۆ دیموكراسییهت و بڵاوكردنهوهی دیموكراسی ههمیشه شكستی هیَناوه. ئهم پرِۆسهیه ههمیشه هاوشان بووه لهگهڵ كاری سهربازیدا، بۆیه لیَكۆڵهرهوان پرِۆسهی بڵاوبوونهوهی دیموكراسی دهكهنه دوو شیَوازهوه، شیَوازی یهكهم شیَوازی سهربازی لهلایهن ئهمریكاوه، شیَوازی دووهم شیَوازی گفتوگۆو قایلكردن یان شیَوازی نهرم كهشیَوازی ئهوروپایه. (رۆبهرت كیگان) ئهمه ناو دهنیَت شیَوازی هۆبز یان و شیَوازی كانتیانه. ئهگهربیَت و تهماشای میَژووی ئهم دوو شیَوازه بكهین دهبینین شیَوازی ئهوروپی تائیَستا سهركهوتوو تربووه بهبهراورد لهگهڵ شیَوازی ئهمریكی. ئهم ههویره ئاوی زۆر دهكیَشی واباشه لیَرهدا بیبرِینهوه. كیَشهی گهورهی بانگهشهی ئهمریكا بۆ گۆرِانی رۆژههڵاتی ناوهرِاست ئهوهبوو كهئهم پرِۆسهیه دهخوازرا، بهڵام نهدهزانرا چۆن. وهك ئیَستا دهردهكهویَت ئهمریكا بهتهواوی بیَ پلان بووه بۆ ساتهوهختی پاش سهدام لهكاتی هاتنی بۆ عیراق. ئهم بیَ پلانییهو نهبوونی هیچ شارهزاییهك دهربارهی بارودۆخهكه لهلایهك و لهلایهكی ترهوه وهك حكومهتی بریمهر ئهو دهزگایهی كهئهمریكا بۆ بهرِیَوبردنی عیراق پیَكی هیَنابوو پرِ بوو لهخهڵكی گهندهڵ و نهشارهزا، كهمهبهستیان بونیادنانی كهسایهتی خۆیان بوو نهك بڵاوكردنهوهی دیموكراسی. بۆیه ئیَستا باڵیۆزخانهی ئهمریكی بانگهشهی نهبوونی خهڵكی شارهزا دهكات و لهویَب سایتهكهیدا بهدوای خهڵكدا ئهگهریَ بۆئهوهی كاریان بۆبكهن.* دیموكراسییهتى ئهمریكى زیاتر دیموكراسییهتیَكه بۆ ناوهوه نهوهك دیموكراسییهتیَك بیَت بۆ دهرهوه، بهمانایهكى دیكه ئهمریكا رووكارى دهرهوهى ههرچهنده بهدروشمى دیموكراسى پهردهپۆشكردووهو بانگهشهى بۆدهكات، بهڵام لهمیَژووى سیاسهتى دهرهوهیدا ههمیشه ئیشكالییهتى لهجیَبهجیَكردنى ئهو دیموكراسییهدا دروستكردووهو زۆرجار لهپیَناوى بهرژهوهندییهكانی خۆیدا ناچاربووه چاو لهسیستمی سیستمه دیكتاتۆرییهكان و رژیَمه سهركوتكهرهكان بپۆشیَت، بهبرِواى تۆ هۆكارى ئهمه چییه؟ بۆچى ههمیشه عهقڵى عهسكهرگهرا زاڵتره بهسهر عهقڵى بیرمهندهكانیاندا لهسیاسهتى دهرهوهیاندا؟- وابزانم وهڵامی ئهم پرسیاره لهوهڵامی پرسیاری یهكهمدا تارِادهیهك روونبووهوه. كیَشهكه ململانیَی نیَوان عهقڵی سهربازی عهقڵی دیپلۆماسی نییه. بهڵكو كیَشهكه ئهوهیه ئهوه چ دیموكراسییهتیَكه كهئهمریكا دهیهویَت. ئهمریكا چۆن دونیا دهبینیَت. وهك وتمان ئهگهر دونیا ناوهندیَكی هۆبزییانه بیَت ئهوا هیَز پیَویسته بۆ چهسپاندنی سهقامگیری، ئهگهر دونیاش كانتیانه بیَت ئهوا لهرِیَگای بازرگانی و گفتوگۆو ریَزگرتن لهمافهكان و یهكتری ئاشتی ههتا ههتایی دیَتهدی. لهدڵی رۆژئاوادا نهیَنییهكی ئاشكراو لهههمانكاتدا شاراوه ههیه، ئهم نهیَنییه كهئیَستا لهرِووبهرووبوونهوه لهگهڵ چیندا دهردهكهویَت ئهویش ئهوهیه، ئهگهر بیَت و ههموو گهلانی دونیا وهك رۆژئاوا بژین ئهوا گۆی زهوی ویَران دهبیَ، چونكه ئهو كاته نهوزه بهش دهكات نهبواردهبیَ بۆ ههمووان نهژینگه دهتوانیَ بهردهوامی بهخۆی بدات، بۆیه زۆر گرنگه لهپیَناوی باڵادهستی رۆژئاوادا كهرِیَگه بگیریَت لهئهوانی تر بۆئهوهی نهگهنه ئاستیَكی گهشه كههاوشان بیَت لهگهڵ رۆژئاوادا. ئهم راستییه تراژیدییه وههایكردوه كهرِۆژئاواو لهسهرویانهوه ئهمریكا كهههموو هیَزیَكی خۆی بهكاربیَنیَت بۆئهوهی ئهمریكا ببیَته چهق و ئهوانی تریش پهراویَز، لهلایهكی ترهوه ئهگهر سیاسهتی دهرهوهی ئهمریكا بریتییه لهگۆرِین و چهسپاندن و دارِشتنی حكومهت بهپیَی بهرژهوهندی خۆی ئهوا پیَش ههموو شتیَك پیَویستی بههیَزی سهربازییه بۆ ئهنجامدانی ئهم مهبهستانه. ئهمریكییهكان خۆیان باش ئهزانن كهدیپلۆماسییهت بهبیَ ههبوونی بازوویهكی سهربازی بههیَز لهپشتیهوه دهبیَته قسهی بیَمانا، من برِوام نییه دیموكراسییهت بۆ ناوهوه بیَت. ئهمریكا وڵاتیَكه زۆر بهناعهدالهتانه دابهشبووه لهنیَوان دهوڵهمهندان و ههژاراندا. وڵاتیَكه كهنیو سهده نابیَت خهڵك بهگشتی مافی دهنگدانیان ههیه. ههتا كۆتایی شهستهكان رهش پیَستهكان مافی دهنگدانیان نهبوو. ئهمریكا وڵاتیَكی پرِ لهكوشت و كوشتارو توندوتیژییه. وڵاتیَكه تاسهر ئیَسقان رهگهزپهرست. لهسهرووی ههموو ئهمانهوه خهڵكی ئهمریكا بهگشتیی لهنزمترین ئاستی رۆشنبیریدا ئهژین. وهك دهبینین سهرۆك بۆش لهگیَلیَتییا بیَ ویَنهیه. ئهمرِۆ بازارِهكان پرِن لهكتیَب دهربارهی قسه ههلهق مهلهقهكانی. لهدۆخیَكی ئاوادا كهپرِه لهتوندوتیژی و ههژاری و بیَئاگایی دیموكراسییهت ئهستهمه، دونیا بۆئهوهی بهرِیَوهیبهریَت، بۆئهوهی تیایدا ببیته ریَبهر دهبیَت پیَش ههموو شتیَ لیَی تیَبگهی. ئهمریكا ههمیشه كورتبین و بیَ مهعریفانه لهگهڵ دونیادا ههڵسوكهوتی كردووه. نموونهیهك كهئهم چهند ههفتهی رابووردو لهباقوبه روویدا، ئهمریكییهكان چهكیان دایه سوننه توندرِهوهكان تهنها لهبهرئهوهی واخۆیان بهئهمریكییهكان ناساند كهدژ بهقاعیدهن. * كوردو ئهمریكا ئهم چهند ساڵهى دواى لیَدهرچیَت میَژوویهكى خۆشیان پیَكهوه نییه، بهبرِواى تۆ تاچهندیَك ئهمجاره ئهمریكییهكان خاوهنى بهڵیَنى خۆیان دهبن لهبهرامبهر كورددا، هۆكارى گهشبینییهكانى سیاسییهكانى كورد چییه لهو رووهوه؟- من نازانم ئایا هیچ بهڵیَنیَك ههیه. واباشتره كوردانه لهمهسهلهكان نهرِوانین. عهقڵی كوردی عهقڵیَكی خیَڵهكییه كهناتوانیَت لهسیستمی ئاڵۆزی پهیوهندییه نیَودهوڵهتییهكان تیَبگات. ئیَمه وا لهگهڵ ئهمریكادا قسهئهكهین وهك ئهوهی ئهمریكا كوردیَكی خهڵكی گهرمیان یان شارباژیَرِبیَت. پیَی دهڵیَین تۆ دهبیَت خاوهنی قسهی خۆت بیت، تۆ دهبیَت پیاوبیت، چونكه پیاو خاوهنی قسهی خۆیهتی، نابیَ بگۆرِیَت و دهبیَ ئاگات لهدهردو ئازارهكانی ئیَمه بیَت، دهبیَت رابووردووت لهبیربیَت، چهندهها شتی تری لهم جۆره، میَژووی كوردو ئهمریكا كهمن لیَكۆڵینهوهیهكی تایبهتم بهزمانی ئینگلیزی لهسهر نووسیوه، كهكاریَكی دانسقهیه بهبهكاربردنی ئهرشیفی (cia). خویَندنهوهكهی من لهدیدیَكی رۆژههڵاتناسیانهوه بوو. لهسهرهتای پهنجاكانی سهدهی رابووردو ئهمریكا لهرِیَگهی باڵویَزخانهی بهغدایهوه ههوڵیداوه كهپهیوهندی بكات بهكوردوه بۆئهوهی نهبنه دۆستی یهكیَتیی سۆڤییهت. دیاره ئهو زهمانه سهرهتای شهرِی ساردبوو. بهڵام كورد نویَنهری نهبووه ههتا بتوانیَت سوود لهو پهیوهندییه وهرگریَت. زۆربهی كۆلكه رۆشنبیرانی ئهو كاته سهر بهباڵی چهپ بوون. كهبیَئهوهی گویَ بهبهرژهوهندی كورد بدهن دژایهتی ههموو هیَزیَكیان كردووه كهدژ بهیهكیَتیی سۆڤیهت بووه. ئهم دیاردهیه ئیَستا زیاتر لهلای ئیسلامییهكان دهیبینین. دیاریدهیهك ههیه لهمیَژووی سیاسی و ئایدۆلۆژی كوردییا مایهی سهرسورِمانه، بۆچی ههموو كوردیَكی ئیسلامی و شیوعی ئامادهیه دژ بهكورد بجهنگیَ كهچی شیوعی و ئیسلامی گهلانی تر تهنها لهپیَناوی بهرژهوهندی گهلانی خۆیاندا دهجهنگن. شایانی باسه من بهڵگهنامهكانی باڵیۆزخانهی ئهمریكام لهلایه لهداهاتوودا كاریان لهسهر دهكهم.بیَمهوه سهر پرسیارهكهت، ئهگهر بیَتوو ئهم پهیوهندییهی كورد كهئیَستا لهباشترین دۆخیایهتی لهپرِ بگۆرِیَت بپچرِیَت یان پیَچهوانه بیَتهوه نابیَت كهس تووشی خویَن وهستان و شۆك بكات، چونكه كاریَكی وهها ئهگهری ههیه ههركاتیَك پیَویست بوو لهبهرژهوهندی ئهمریكادا بوو ئهوا بهبیَ دوودڵی ئهمریكا ئهنجامی دهدات. ئهوهی مایهی دڵخۆشییه ئهمرِۆ لۆبی كورد لهئهمریكا زیاتر لهههموو كاتیَك باشترو ریَكخراوتره(قوباد) كهسیَكی باش و گونجاوه بۆ ئهو كاره بووهته جیَی بایهخی میدیاو ناوهندهكان لهئهمریكا. سیاسهتمهدارانی كورد ئهگهر بزانن بارودۆخهكه بهرِیَوهبهرن ئهوا ئهمرِۆ لهههموو كاتیَكی تر باشتره، چونكه ئیَمه لهساتهوهختیَكی تایبهتدا ئهژین. ئهمریكا زۆر زۆر پیَویستی بهناوچهكهیه، وهك خۆیان باش ئاگادارن جگه لهكورد وهك گهل و حكومهت هیچ لایهنیَكی تر نییه كهدۆستیان بیَت، بهڵام ئیَمه دهبیَ ههمیشه وهها لهگهڵ ئهمریكادا مامهڵهبكهین كهئهو سبهینیَ دهمانفرۆشیَ. نابیَت ههرگیز دڵنیابین و پاڵی لیَبدهینهوه. دهبیَ ههمیشه به بهردهوامی كاری بۆ بكهین. تهنها ئاورِدانهوهك لهلۆبی جولهكه لهئهمریكاو كاری بیَ پشوویان سهرباری ئهو ههموو پاڵپشت و دۆستایهتییه باشترین نموونهیه.* توركیا یاریكهریَكى سیاسیى گهورهیه لهناوچهكهدا، كوردیش كیَشهى كهركوكى ههیه كههیچ شۆرِشیَكى كوردو سیاسییهكى كورد نهیتوانیوه دهستبهردارى كهركوك ببیَت، مهترسى سهرهكیی توركیاش گهرِانهوهى كهركوكه بۆسهر ههریَمى كوردستان، بهبرِواى تۆ ئایندهى پهیوهندییهكانى كوردو تورك لهدواى جیَبهجیَكردنى ماددهی(140) بهرهو كویَ ههنگاودهنیَت؟ ئایا توركیا لهكاتى ئامادهبوونى ئهمریكاش لهعیراقدا لهتوانایدایه ههرِهشه سهربازییهكانى خۆى جیَبهجیَبكات؟- ترسی توركیا لهسهربهخۆی كوردستانه. توركیا گهرِانهوهی كهركوك بۆ كوردستان بهههنگاویَك دادهنیَت بهرهو سهربهخۆیی. سهربهخۆیی كوردوستان لهلایهن توركیاوه وهك مهترسییهك بۆ سهر ئاسایشی نهتهوهیی ئهو وڵاته تهماشا دهكریَت. توركیا باش ئاگاداره كهئهگهر بیَتوو ناچاربیَت بهرِیَگای سهربازی ئهو كاره ئهنجامدات ئهوا رهنگه لهبری قازانج زهرهرو زیانی زیاتر بكات، توركهكان ئاگادارن كهتیَكدانی بارودۆخی كوردستان پهیوهندییهكی راستهوخۆی بهبهرژوهندی ئهمریكاوه ههیه، ههر لهبهرئهمهشه كهئهمریكاو ناتۆو یهكیَتیی ئهوروپا بهبهردوامی ئاگاداری توركیا دهكهنهوه كهكاریَكی وهها ئهنجام نهدات. لهههمانكاتدا لهوه ئاگادارن كهتوركیا لهساتهوهختیَكی زۆر ناسكدا دهژی، خهڵكی توركیا زیاترو زیاتر بهرهو لای هیَزه ئیسلامییهكان دهرِۆن دژ بهبههاو بهرژهوهندییهكانی ئهمریكا دهبنهوه. ئهمه یهكیَكی تره لهو كیَشانه كهئهمریكا لهتهسكبینی و گیَلیَتیی خۆی بهدهستیهوه دهناڵیَنیَ. نیو سهدهیه توركیا گهندهڵترین سیستمی حوكمی ههیه، ئهم گهندهڵییهیه كهخهڵكی لهعهلمانییهت و حزبهكانی تر دوور خستهوه. ههمان قهیران بهرِیَوهیه لهكوردوستان ئهگهر حكومهتی كوردی دان بهكیَشهكانیدا نهنیَت.
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
What went wrong? Why Middle Eastern countries failed to build a democratic modern Nation State.
Research Proposal for a Master Degree
Sardar Aziz
Graduate of the Department of Government 2006-2007, University College Cork
My supervisor
Dr. Andrew Cottey. Department of Government.
The Title
What went wrong? Why Middle Eastern countries failed to build a democratic modern Nation State.
Fifteen years ago a struggle for power between the new forces of political Islam and the military establishment took place in Algeria paralleling, to an alarming degree, what is happening in Turkey. Turkey, a country that embraced secularism and modernism in the early decades of the last century, is now on the brink of retreating to the old age of the Ottoman Empire i.e. the age of the pre-nation state.
Iran is another example. Despite a long imperial history the country failed to bring about a modern democratic nation state. During the Shah regime there were great efforts to modernise and to westernise but the result was the famous 1979 revolution. As a result a theocratic state was established. For the past three decades, this theocratic government denies every right which belong to modernity. After all, a theocratic state is a pre nation state style of government.
In the Arab part of the Middle East, which forms the largest part of the region, the situations, is not better and may even be worse. Lebanon is the only Arab country that tried to develop a democratic state with modern institutions. Today sectarianism has reached a level previously experienced during the country’s 15-year civil war. While a discourse of national unity has emerged in the post-war period, Lebanon is again paralyzed by feuding among the elite and the neglect of ordinary citizens, nearly a third of who are living in poverty. Does this occur because Lebanon as a unified state is just a result of colonial myth-making as Henri Lammens, in his La Syrie: precis historique imagined?
Iraq is another example. Despite all its economic, strategic and multiethnic potentialities failed miserably to become a modern democratic nation state. Today the country is on the brink of balkanisation.
The pattern is similar in the rest of the Middle East. All the countries, despite their characteristic differences, have many distinctive similarities. They all failed to establish a modern style of the state in Weberian context. They are all run by elites, whether it is the military elite as in Turkey, or the theocratic elites as in Iran, or the tribal elites as in the rest of the Arab states.
The research part of my master degree project will focus on the cause and the root of this failure. Initially I will attempt to diagnose the failure, elaborate its distinctive character, and put it in a comparative framework with the emergence of nation state in Europe. Modernity was introduced into the Middle East as the result of the number of developments, both internal and external. The internal factors consisted of an awareness by Ottoman officials of the relative decline of their empire in comparison to the European powers. But the idea of the nation state has to wait until the fall of the empire at the hands of the European colonials.
In Europe the tale of the modern state starts with the Peace of Westphalia that ended the Thirty Years’ War in 1648. The Thirty Years’ War was a series of wars that began in 1618 because of conflicts between Protestants and Catholics and political struggles involving the Holy Roman Empire. Comparativley I will ask: will the conflict between She’a and Sunni in the Middle East lead to the emergance of the European style of the nation state? If not, why not?
For a more comprehensive and a detailed analysis I will select Iraq as a case study. Iraq is a laboratory manufactured state - a state seeking a nation. In other words it was a state without a nation. Also, recently Iraq went through another attempt at nation building and state creation by the neoconservatives and American government. The country has a geo-strategic location and a mosaic of cultures and if the idea of the nation state works in Iraq it will work in the rest of the region. In addition to the case study and comparative analysis between the Europeans and Middle Eastern style of the nation state, I will be also conducting both qualitative and quantitative research. I have access to the newspapers, journals and the media of the region, and have the requisite language skills.
The title of the project might come across as a common knowledge and there has been a huge amount of literature dedicated to the subject. But the issue of failure to bring about a modern democratic style of the nation state in the Middle East still requires more academic research.
First of all the region is highly significant for the rest of the world in various ways. Oil and gas being essential for the economy the region provides 50% of global energy consumption. The Middle East is located in a highly strategic place linking the West to the East, Islam to Christianity. In term of global security the region, nowadays, is the battlefield for the clash of civilisations or the first war in the twenty first century - the war on terror from the American side and Jihad from the political Islam side.
The novelty of this particular project is that, contrary to most previous studies, it does not come from outsiders with their Orientalist ivory tower view. As a native of the region I have access to the culture, politics, history, tradition and languages. I have Kurdish as my mother tongue, Arabic as a first foreign language and I have a good grasp of the Iranian language, Farsi. Over the last number of years I have actively contributed to the intellectual debate in the region and published around 100 newspaper articles in various newspapers and journals in both Iraq, Iran and on the web as well as English language contributions in Ireland and abroad.
Since this project will be conducted by someone who has a link between both eastern and western civilisations it offers first hand knowledge and access to the rare sources related to the topic in term of literature review.
The concept of nation state could contribute hugely to understanding the many problems of the Middle East. The process of state and nation building is at the heart of the American mission to the region? Why did that fail miserably? The occupations of Iraq, the nuclear threat by Iran, the emergence of political Islam are some among many other problems, which may have serious global consequences.
The project will not touch the Arab (Palestinian) Israeli conflicts, because of its limitation.
Sardar Aziz
Graduate of the Department of Government 2006-2007, University College Cork
My supervisor
Dr. Andrew Cottey. Department of Government.
The Title
What went wrong? Why Middle Eastern countries failed to build a democratic modern Nation State.
Fifteen years ago a struggle for power between the new forces of political Islam and the military establishment took place in Algeria paralleling, to an alarming degree, what is happening in Turkey. Turkey, a country that embraced secularism and modernism in the early decades of the last century, is now on the brink of retreating to the old age of the Ottoman Empire i.e. the age of the pre-nation state.
Iran is another example. Despite a long imperial history the country failed to bring about a modern democratic nation state. During the Shah regime there were great efforts to modernise and to westernise but the result was the famous 1979 revolution. As a result a theocratic state was established. For the past three decades, this theocratic government denies every right which belong to modernity. After all, a theocratic state is a pre nation state style of government.
In the Arab part of the Middle East, which forms the largest part of the region, the situations, is not better and may even be worse. Lebanon is the only Arab country that tried to develop a democratic state with modern institutions. Today sectarianism has reached a level previously experienced during the country’s 15-year civil war. While a discourse of national unity has emerged in the post-war period, Lebanon is again paralyzed by feuding among the elite and the neglect of ordinary citizens, nearly a third of who are living in poverty. Does this occur because Lebanon as a unified state is just a result of colonial myth-making as Henri Lammens, in his La Syrie: precis historique imagined?
Iraq is another example. Despite all its economic, strategic and multiethnic potentialities failed miserably to become a modern democratic nation state. Today the country is on the brink of balkanisation.
The pattern is similar in the rest of the Middle East. All the countries, despite their characteristic differences, have many distinctive similarities. They all failed to establish a modern style of the state in Weberian context. They are all run by elites, whether it is the military elite as in Turkey, or the theocratic elites as in Iran, or the tribal elites as in the rest of the Arab states.
The research part of my master degree project will focus on the cause and the root of this failure. Initially I will attempt to diagnose the failure, elaborate its distinctive character, and put it in a comparative framework with the emergence of nation state in Europe. Modernity was introduced into the Middle East as the result of the number of developments, both internal and external. The internal factors consisted of an awareness by Ottoman officials of the relative decline of their empire in comparison to the European powers. But the idea of the nation state has to wait until the fall of the empire at the hands of the European colonials.
In Europe the tale of the modern state starts with the Peace of Westphalia that ended the Thirty Years’ War in 1648. The Thirty Years’ War was a series of wars that began in 1618 because of conflicts between Protestants and Catholics and political struggles involving the Holy Roman Empire. Comparativley I will ask: will the conflict between She’a and Sunni in the Middle East lead to the emergance of the European style of the nation state? If not, why not?
For a more comprehensive and a detailed analysis I will select Iraq as a case study. Iraq is a laboratory manufactured state - a state seeking a nation. In other words it was a state without a nation. Also, recently Iraq went through another attempt at nation building and state creation by the neoconservatives and American government. The country has a geo-strategic location and a mosaic of cultures and if the idea of the nation state works in Iraq it will work in the rest of the region. In addition to the case study and comparative analysis between the Europeans and Middle Eastern style of the nation state, I will be also conducting both qualitative and quantitative research. I have access to the newspapers, journals and the media of the region, and have the requisite language skills.
The title of the project might come across as a common knowledge and there has been a huge amount of literature dedicated to the subject. But the issue of failure to bring about a modern democratic style of the nation state in the Middle East still requires more academic research.
First of all the region is highly significant for the rest of the world in various ways. Oil and gas being essential for the economy the region provides 50% of global energy consumption. The Middle East is located in a highly strategic place linking the West to the East, Islam to Christianity. In term of global security the region, nowadays, is the battlefield for the clash of civilisations or the first war in the twenty first century - the war on terror from the American side and Jihad from the political Islam side.
The novelty of this particular project is that, contrary to most previous studies, it does not come from outsiders with their Orientalist ivory tower view. As a native of the region I have access to the culture, politics, history, tradition and languages. I have Kurdish as my mother tongue, Arabic as a first foreign language and I have a good grasp of the Iranian language, Farsi. Over the last number of years I have actively contributed to the intellectual debate in the region and published around 100 newspaper articles in various newspapers and journals in both Iraq, Iran and on the web as well as English language contributions in Ireland and abroad.
Since this project will be conducted by someone who has a link between both eastern and western civilisations it offers first hand knowledge and access to the rare sources related to the topic in term of literature review.
The concept of nation state could contribute hugely to understanding the many problems of the Middle East. The process of state and nation building is at the heart of the American mission to the region? Why did that fail miserably? The occupations of Iraq, the nuclear threat by Iran, the emergence of political Islam are some among many other problems, which may have serious global consequences.
The project will not touch the Arab (Palestinian) Israeli conflicts, because of its limitation.
American permanent bases in Iraq sardar aziz
ئهمریکا و بنکهی سهربازی ههمیشهیی
سهردار عهزیز
لهم نووسینهدا بهدوای وهڵامی ئهو پرسیارهدا ئهگهرێین که لهم ماوهی دوایهدا له ناوهنده سیاسی و میدیاکانهوه قسه و باسی زۆری لێوهئهکرێت و دهمێکیشه بوهته پرسیارێکی بێ وهڵام لای خهڵکی کورد. ئهو پرسیارهش ئهوهیه؛ ئایا ئهمریکا بنکهی سهربازی ههمیشهیی له عێراق دروست دهکات؟ ئهگهر وهڵام به ئهرییه، ئهوه ئایا هیچ یهکێک لهو بنکه ههمیشهییانه له کوردوستان دهبێت، وهک ئهوهی ههردوو حیزبه کوردیهکه ههوڵی بۆئهدهن و به جۆشهوه لۆبی بۆئهكهن وه ههروهها زۆرینهی خهڵکی کوردوستان دهخوازێت.
سهرهتا پێش ئهوهی بێینه سهر وهڵامی پرسیارهکه دهبی چهند وورده پرسیاری تر بکهین، ههتا مهودای گشتی پرسیارهکهمان بۆ روونبێتهوه.. بۆ نموونه دهبێ بپرسین، بۆ ئێستا، به تایبهت لهم ئانو ساتهدا ئهم پرسیاره دهکرێت.. ئێستا له ههموو ئانوساتێکی تر زیاتر پرسیارکردن دهربارهی بنکهی سهربازی ههمیشهیی دهکرێت چونکه، ئێستا ههروهها باس له کشانهوه دهکرێت. ئهمه بۆخوی نیشانی ئهوهیه ئێمه پێدهنێنه قۆناغێکی نۆێ و جیاواز له پهیوهندی عێراق و ئهمریکا. ئهگهر سوپای ئهمریکی دهکشێتهوه، دهبێ چۆن چۆنی بێت. ئایا دهبێ سهرتاپا سوپای ئهمریکی بکشێتهوه وه عێراق بۆ خهڵکی عێراق و ناوچهکه بهجێبهێڵن. رهنگه کارێکی وهها لهلایهن باراک ئۆباماوه، یهکێک له کاندیده سهرهکیهکانی دیموکرات بۆ ههڵبژاردنی سهرۆکایهتی ساڵی داهاتوو، تهنها شێوازی کشانهوهی گونجاوبێت. ئۆباما، که باوکی خوێندکارێکی خهڵکی کینیابوو له ئهمریکا که دایکی ئۆبامای بینی، بۆیه ئۆباما ئهگهر ببێته سهرۆک ئهوا دهبێته یهکهم سهرۆکی رهش پێستی ووڵاتێک که تا کۆتایی شهستهکان مافی دهنگدانی به خهڵکی رهش پێشت به رهوانهئهبینی.
ئۆباما له نوسینێکا که له دوا ژمارهی گۆڤاری فۆرن ئهفێری (کاروباری درهوه)، که له لایهن وهزهراتی دهرهوهی ئهمریکیهوه دهرئهچێت، بڵاو دهبێتهوه وه بهشێکی له رۆژنامهی گاردیانی بهریتانی بڵاوبوهوه، داوای ئهوه ئهکات که سوپای ئهمریکی له عێراق بکشێتهوه ، بهبێ جێهێشتنی هیچ بنکهیهکی سهربازیی ههمیشهیی له سهر خاکی ئهو ووڵاته.
لهگهڵ ئۆبامادا زۆری تریش لهوانهی که له چهپی دیموکراتهکانن لهگهڵ ههمان رادان. ئۆباما دهزانێت دهنگی لهوانهوه دێت، بۆیه بۆ ئهوان دهئاخڤێ. بهڵام ئهم بهشهی رادیکاڵهی دیموکرات ههرگیز نههاتوهته کۆشکی سپی. بۆیه ههر له سهرهتاوه چانسی ئۆباما، سهرهرای ئهوهی که که بهکهسی
دووهم دێ له لیستی دیموکراتهکان پاش هیلهری، بۆ هاتنه سهر دهسهڵات لاوازه. ههرچهنده ئهگهر هاتوو، موعجیزه روویدا و ئۆباما هاته سهر دهسهڵات، ئهوا دونیا ئیدارهکردن زۆر جودایه له دونیا ئۆپۆزسیون و کهمپهینی ههڵبژاردن.
رهنگه ئۆباما و دیموکراته چهپهکان تهنها بهرهی سیاسی بن له ئهمهریکا له گهڵ ژمارهیهکی کهمی کۆماریهکان بۆ مهبهستی دهنگ هێنان دژ به ههبوونی بنکهی سهربازی ههمیشهیی بن. ئهگینا بهشێکی زۆری حکومهت و ئۆپۆزسیون لهگهڵ ههبوونی بنکهی سهربازی ههمیشهییدان. بهشێک له دیموکراتهکان لهگهڵ ئهوهدان که سوپای ئهمریکی بکشێتهوه بۆ کوردوستان. دیاره ئهمه لهو روانگهیهوه دێت که دهبێ سوپای ئهمریکی لهو ناوچهیه بمێنێتهوه، ههروهها له ناوچه نزیکهکانی تری عێراق، وهک کوێت و قهتهر بۆ چاودێریکردنی ناوچهکهو ههبوونی هێزی ئامادهباش بۆ شهری تیرۆر. سهرهرای ئهمه مانهوهی بنکهی سهربازی کێشهیهکی سیاسی هێنده ناسکه حکومهتی ئهمریکی تا ئێستا به راشکاوانه باسی نهکردوه. بهڵام وهک ههموو کێشهیهکی تری ناسک و ئاڵۆز به له سهرخۆیی خهریکی ئامادهکردن و رهخساندی زهمینهی لهباره بۆ هێنانه ئارای مهسهلهیهکی وهها. بهڵام کێشهی گهوره لهبهردهم ماناوهی بنکهی سهربازیدا، ئهو بارودۆخهیه که ئێستا سوپای ئهمریکی تیا ئهژی له عێراقدا. ئهم بارودۆخه وههایکردوه له بهشێکی زۆری ئهندامانی کۆنگریس که دژی خهرجکردنی ههر پارهیهک بن بۆ مهبهستی دروستکردنی بنکهی سهربازی ههمیشهیی.
سهرباری ههموو ئهمانه، ههموو لۆجیکێکی، بهرژهوهندی و مهترسی تیرۆر و ململانی نێو دهوڵهتیهکان بهره و ئهوه ئهرۆن که گومانی تیا نیه که ئهمریکا بنکهی سهربازی ههمیشهیی له عێراق دههێڵێتهوه. وهک رۆبهرت گهیتس باسی لێوهکرد، ئهو بنکه سهربازهیه له دۆخی بیر لێکردنهوهدایه ئایا له شێوازی کۆریای باشور بێت یان له شێوازی یابان. (لێرهدا ئهم قسهیهی گهیتس نموونهیهکی باشه بۆ دووفاقهیی سیاسهت له ساتهوهختی دهسهڵات و ساتهوهختی دهرهوهی دهسهڵات. گهیتس یهکێک بوو له ئهندامهکانی دهستهی دارشتنی راپۆرته ناسراوهکهی بیکهر هاملتون. له بهندی 22ی ئهو راپۆرتهدا داوا له حکومهتی ئهمریکی ئهکهن له کاتی کشانهوهیا له عێراق هیچ بنکهیهکی سهربازی ههمیشهیی له پاش خۆی بهجێنههێڵێ. بهڵام بهبوونی به وهزیری بهرگری، گهیتس، بیر لهوه ئهکاتهوه که ئهو بنکه سهربازیه ههمیشهییه له سهر چ شێوازێک بێت). دیاره ئهمریکا پاش جهنگی جیهانی دووهم و جهنگی کۆریا بنکهی سهربازی ههمیشهیی لهو دوو ووڵاتهدا هێشتهوه، ههروهها له ئهڵمانیاش.
سێ هۆکاری گرنگ ههن که بریار له سهر مانهوه و چۆنێتی بنکه سهربازیه ههمیشهییهکان دهدهن. یهکهمیان؛ تیرۆره، ئهمرۆ بهشێکی زۆری تیرۆری دژ به ئهمریکی سهرچاوهکهی له ناوچهکانی عهرهبه سوننهکاندایه، وه ههر ئهم ناوچهیه مهترسی ئهوهی ههیه له داهاتوودا، ئهگهر هاتوو ئهمریکا بهجێیبهێڵی ببێته سهرزهمینێک بۆ گهشه و بوژانهوهی تیرۆری دژ به ئهمریکی و بهرژهوهندیهکانی ئهمریکا له ناوچهکهدا. بۆیه گومانی تیا نابێت که بهشێک لهو بنکه ههمیشهییانهی که له عێراقدا دهبن له ناوچهی سوننه دهبن. ههر ئهمهشه وههایکردوه که ئێستا بهشی زۆری بنکه سهربازیه ئهمریکیهکان له عێراق له ناوچهی سوننهدابن، به بهراورد به ناوچهکانی تر.
ههرچهنده کۆمهڵێ هۆکاری تر ههن که وههایکردوه ئهو ژماره زۆرهی بنکهی سهربازی له ناوچهی سوننهدابن، جگه له تیرۆر هۆکاری لۆجیستی و جوگرافیش رۆڵی گهوره دهبینن. له رووی لۆجستیهوه بنکه ئهمریکیهکان زۆربهیان له وشوێنانهدان که فرۆکهخانهی لێبوو له سهردهمی سهددامدا یان نزیکن له فرۆکهخانهکانهوه. ههروهها بوونی بهغدا وهک پایتهخت و له ههمانکاتدا شوێنی گهورهترین بالوێزخانهی ئهمریکی له دونیادا.
بیرکردنهوه له ئهندازیارێتی و ئهندازهی سهربازی باڵوێزخانهی ئهمریکا له ناوچهی سهوز رهنگه زۆرمان پێبڵێت دهربارهی تێروانینی ئهمریکا بۆ داهاتووی عێراق ئهو ئهگهرانهی که ئهمریکا بیریان لێئهکاتهوه. ئهم بالوێزخانهیه که له قهراخ دیجله دروستکراوه هێندهی ووڵاتی ڤاتیکان گهورهیه. ئهم باڵوێزخانهیه جێگایهکه که دهتوانێت به سهربهخۆ له دهوروبهری خۆی بژی. به مانایهکی تر له کاتی ئابلۆقهدانیا هیچ شتێک پێویست نیه له دهرهوه بێت،. نه ئاو نه ئاوهرۆ نه کارهبا، نه هیچ پێداویستیهکی تر، ئهمه وهها ئهکات له کاتی ئابلۆقهدانی بالیوزخانهکهدا دانیشتوانهکهی دهتوانن بۆ زۆرترین کات تیا بمێننهوه. وه ههروهها به مهبهستی بهستنی بالۆێزخانهکه به دونیای دهرهوه، سهربانی باڵۆێزخانهکه وهها دروستکراوه که بۆ نیشتنهوهی هێلیکۆپتهر بشێت. رهخنهگرانی دهسهڵاتی ئهمریکی ئهندازیاری ئهم باڵوێزخانهیه به باڵوێزخانهی ئهمریکا له هانۆی پایتهختی ڤێتنام دهچوێنن.
هۆکاری بنهرهتی دووهم له دروستکردنی بنکهی سوپایی ههمیشهیی، که به درێژایی چهند نهوهیهک بمێنێتهوه ستراتیژیهتی ناوچهکه و بهرژهوهندی ئهمریکایه. عێراق ئهگهر لهدهست ئهمریکا بچێت ئهوا دهکهوێته دهست ئێران و هێزه سونیه توندرهوهکان. ئهم دوو هێزه، که ههڵگری ئایدهلۆژایی ئاینین دژ به ئهمریکا و دۆستهکانی ئهمریکان له ناوچهکهدا بهتایبهت ئیسرائیل. ئهگهر هاتوو سوپای ئهمریکی کشایهوه ئهوا ئهم هێزانه دهستئهکهنه شهری نێوان خۆیان، که ماوهیهکه بهردهوام دهبێت بهڵام له ههمانکاتدا دهستدهکهن به ناردنی خهڵک و بیروراکانیان بۆ ووڵاتانی دهوروبهر. یهکێک لهم ئهگهرانه ئهوهیه که ئهگهری ئهوه ههیه شهری شیعه و سوننه سهرتاپا رۆژههڵاتی ناوهراست بگرێتهوه. چونکه، نهبوونی ئهمریکا له ناوچهکه و بههێزبوونی شیعه گۆرانێکی بنهرهتی بهسهر بونیادی حوکمدا دێنێت له ناوچهکهدا، چونکه زۆربهی ووڵاتانی ناوچهکه خهڵکی شیعهیان ههیه و زۆربهشیان چهندین سهدهیه به خراپترین شێواز دهچهوسێنرێنهوه.
ههرچهند ئهگهر هاتوو ئهمه رووبدات ئهوا رهههنده ئابووری و نێو دهوڵهتیهکهی رهنگه له ههمووی مهترسیدارتربێت. ووڵاتانی کهنداو زۆرترین و ههرزانترین نهوتی دونیایان ههیه. ههر قهیرانێکی سهرانسهری له ناوچهکهدا رهنگه ببێته هۆی کهمبوونهوهی نهوت به رادهیهکی زۆر و بهرزبوونهوهی نرخ به ئاستێک ببێته هۆی تێکشکانی بازار و ئابووری نێودوڵهتی. بهڵام رهههندێکی تری ئهم مهسهلهیه که کهم باسی لێوهئهکرێت رهههندی چینه. ووڵاتی چین له گهشهیهکی ئابووری بێووێنهدایه، وه بۆ درێژهدان بهم گهشهیه پێویستی به زیاتر و زیاتر نهوت ههیه. چین گوێ بهوه نادات کێ نهوتی پێئهفرۆشێ، له ههموو کهسێکی ئهکرێت. ئهگهر بێتوو ئهمریکا له ناوچهکه بکشێتهوه ئهوا رهنگه ئهو بۆشاییه لهلای چینهو پرکرێتهوه. بۆیه ئهمریکا بۆئهوهی رێگه لهوه بگرێت چین ببێطه هێزێکی گلۆبال ئهوا دهبیت دهست بهسهر سهرچاوه نهوتیهکانی دونیادا بگرێت. پێش ئهوهی چین ببێته هێزێکی وهها که ئهمریکا ناچاربێت بچێته شهری ساردهوه لهگهڵیا.
به مهبست کوردهوه، ئهگهربێتوو ئهمریکا بنکهی ههمیشهیی له عێراقدا بهێڵێتهوه ئهوا بێگوومان یهکێک لهو بنکانه له نزیک شاری کهرکوک دهبێت. سهرهرای ئهوه ئهمریکا له فرۆکهخانهیهکی بچکۆلهی نزیک شهقلاوه و له نزیک سمێل بنکهی ههیه. ئایا له ناوچهی سلێمانی بنکهی تر ئهکاتهوه، ئهگهر بیکاتهوه ئهوا دهبێت نزیک فرۆکهخانهی سلێمانی بێت یان له ههر جێگایهکی تربێت دهبێت فرۆکهخانهی خۆی بۆ بونیادنێت، چونکه ناتوانرێت بنکهیهک بپارێزرێت و له پهیوهندی خێرابێت لهگهڵیا بهبێ بوونی فرۆکهخانه به تایبهت له ناوچهیهکی شاخاوی دووره دهستی وهک کوردوستاندا. پلان وههایه که ئهمریکا 14 بنکهی سهربازی ههمیشهیی له و ناوچهیهدا بهێڵێتهوه.
سهرهرای ئهمانه، بوونی بنکهی سهربازی ئهگهر ناچاری کوردنهبێت شتێکی ئهوهنده باش نیه. سوپای ئهمریکی له خوێری ترین و نامهردانه ترین خهلکی ئهو ووڵاته پێکهاتوه. به جۆرێک که بهتاڵن له ههموو بههاو رهوشتێکی مرۆڤانه. زۆربهی سوپا خهڵکانێکن که هیچ بوارێکی تریان له ژیاندا نهبووه. ئهگهر بوونی کورد لهلایهن درواسێکانیهوه سهلامهت بێت ئهوا نهبوونی بنکهی ههمیشهیی باشتره.
سهردار عهزیز
لهم نووسینهدا بهدوای وهڵامی ئهو پرسیارهدا ئهگهرێین که لهم ماوهی دوایهدا له ناوهنده سیاسی و میدیاکانهوه قسه و باسی زۆری لێوهئهکرێت و دهمێکیشه بوهته پرسیارێکی بێ وهڵام لای خهڵکی کورد. ئهو پرسیارهش ئهوهیه؛ ئایا ئهمریکا بنکهی سهربازی ههمیشهیی له عێراق دروست دهکات؟ ئهگهر وهڵام به ئهرییه، ئهوه ئایا هیچ یهکێک لهو بنکه ههمیشهییانه له کوردوستان دهبێت، وهک ئهوهی ههردوو حیزبه کوردیهکه ههوڵی بۆئهدهن و به جۆشهوه لۆبی بۆئهكهن وه ههروهها زۆرینهی خهڵکی کوردوستان دهخوازێت.
سهرهتا پێش ئهوهی بێینه سهر وهڵامی پرسیارهکه دهبی چهند وورده پرسیاری تر بکهین، ههتا مهودای گشتی پرسیارهکهمان بۆ روونبێتهوه.. بۆ نموونه دهبێ بپرسین، بۆ ئێستا، به تایبهت لهم ئانو ساتهدا ئهم پرسیاره دهکرێت.. ئێستا له ههموو ئانوساتێکی تر زیاتر پرسیارکردن دهربارهی بنکهی سهربازی ههمیشهیی دهکرێت چونکه، ئێستا ههروهها باس له کشانهوه دهکرێت. ئهمه بۆخوی نیشانی ئهوهیه ئێمه پێدهنێنه قۆناغێکی نۆێ و جیاواز له پهیوهندی عێراق و ئهمریکا. ئهگهر سوپای ئهمریکی دهکشێتهوه، دهبێ چۆن چۆنی بێت. ئایا دهبێ سهرتاپا سوپای ئهمریکی بکشێتهوه وه عێراق بۆ خهڵکی عێراق و ناوچهکه بهجێبهێڵن. رهنگه کارێکی وهها لهلایهن باراک ئۆباماوه، یهکێک له کاندیده سهرهکیهکانی دیموکرات بۆ ههڵبژاردنی سهرۆکایهتی ساڵی داهاتوو، تهنها شێوازی کشانهوهی گونجاوبێت. ئۆباما، که باوکی خوێندکارێکی خهڵکی کینیابوو له ئهمریکا که دایکی ئۆبامای بینی، بۆیه ئۆباما ئهگهر ببێته سهرۆک ئهوا دهبێته یهکهم سهرۆکی رهش پێستی ووڵاتێک که تا کۆتایی شهستهکان مافی دهنگدانی به خهڵکی رهش پێشت به رهوانهئهبینی.
ئۆباما له نوسینێکا که له دوا ژمارهی گۆڤاری فۆرن ئهفێری (کاروباری درهوه)، که له لایهن وهزهراتی دهرهوهی ئهمریکیهوه دهرئهچێت، بڵاو دهبێتهوه وه بهشێکی له رۆژنامهی گاردیانی بهریتانی بڵاوبوهوه، داوای ئهوه ئهکات که سوپای ئهمریکی له عێراق بکشێتهوه ، بهبێ جێهێشتنی هیچ بنکهیهکی سهربازیی ههمیشهیی له سهر خاکی ئهو ووڵاته.
لهگهڵ ئۆبامادا زۆری تریش لهوانهی که له چهپی دیموکراتهکانن لهگهڵ ههمان رادان. ئۆباما دهزانێت دهنگی لهوانهوه دێت، بۆیه بۆ ئهوان دهئاخڤێ. بهڵام ئهم بهشهی رادیکاڵهی دیموکرات ههرگیز نههاتوهته کۆشکی سپی. بۆیه ههر له سهرهتاوه چانسی ئۆباما، سهرهرای ئهوهی که که بهکهسی
دووهم دێ له لیستی دیموکراتهکان پاش هیلهری، بۆ هاتنه سهر دهسهڵات لاوازه. ههرچهنده ئهگهر هاتوو، موعجیزه روویدا و ئۆباما هاته سهر دهسهڵات، ئهوا دونیا ئیدارهکردن زۆر جودایه له دونیا ئۆپۆزسیون و کهمپهینی ههڵبژاردن.
رهنگه ئۆباما و دیموکراته چهپهکان تهنها بهرهی سیاسی بن له ئهمهریکا له گهڵ ژمارهیهکی کهمی کۆماریهکان بۆ مهبهستی دهنگ هێنان دژ به ههبوونی بنکهی سهربازی ههمیشهیی بن. ئهگینا بهشێکی زۆری حکومهت و ئۆپۆزسیون لهگهڵ ههبوونی بنکهی سهربازی ههمیشهییدان. بهشێک له دیموکراتهکان لهگهڵ ئهوهدان که سوپای ئهمریکی بکشێتهوه بۆ کوردوستان. دیاره ئهمه لهو روانگهیهوه دێت که دهبێ سوپای ئهمریکی لهو ناوچهیه بمێنێتهوه، ههروهها له ناوچه نزیکهکانی تری عێراق، وهک کوێت و قهتهر بۆ چاودێریکردنی ناوچهکهو ههبوونی هێزی ئامادهباش بۆ شهری تیرۆر. سهرهرای ئهمه مانهوهی بنکهی سهربازی کێشهیهکی سیاسی هێنده ناسکه حکومهتی ئهمریکی تا ئێستا به راشکاوانه باسی نهکردوه. بهڵام وهک ههموو کێشهیهکی تری ناسک و ئاڵۆز به له سهرخۆیی خهریکی ئامادهکردن و رهخساندی زهمینهی لهباره بۆ هێنانه ئارای مهسهلهیهکی وهها. بهڵام کێشهی گهوره لهبهردهم ماناوهی بنکهی سهربازیدا، ئهو بارودۆخهیه که ئێستا سوپای ئهمریکی تیا ئهژی له عێراقدا. ئهم بارودۆخه وههایکردوه له بهشێکی زۆری ئهندامانی کۆنگریس که دژی خهرجکردنی ههر پارهیهک بن بۆ مهبهستی دروستکردنی بنکهی سهربازی ههمیشهیی.
سهرباری ههموو ئهمانه، ههموو لۆجیکێکی، بهرژهوهندی و مهترسی تیرۆر و ململانی نێو دهوڵهتیهکان بهره و ئهوه ئهرۆن که گومانی تیا نیه که ئهمریکا بنکهی سهربازی ههمیشهیی له عێراق دههێڵێتهوه. وهک رۆبهرت گهیتس باسی لێوهکرد، ئهو بنکه سهربازهیه له دۆخی بیر لێکردنهوهدایه ئایا له شێوازی کۆریای باشور بێت یان له شێوازی یابان. (لێرهدا ئهم قسهیهی گهیتس نموونهیهکی باشه بۆ دووفاقهیی سیاسهت له ساتهوهختی دهسهڵات و ساتهوهختی دهرهوهی دهسهڵات. گهیتس یهکێک بوو له ئهندامهکانی دهستهی دارشتنی راپۆرته ناسراوهکهی بیکهر هاملتون. له بهندی 22ی ئهو راپۆرتهدا داوا له حکومهتی ئهمریکی ئهکهن له کاتی کشانهوهیا له عێراق هیچ بنکهیهکی سهربازی ههمیشهیی له پاش خۆی بهجێنههێڵێ. بهڵام بهبوونی به وهزیری بهرگری، گهیتس، بیر لهوه ئهکاتهوه که ئهو بنکه سهربازیه ههمیشهییه له سهر چ شێوازێک بێت). دیاره ئهمریکا پاش جهنگی جیهانی دووهم و جهنگی کۆریا بنکهی سهربازی ههمیشهیی لهو دوو ووڵاتهدا هێشتهوه، ههروهها له ئهڵمانیاش.
سێ هۆکاری گرنگ ههن که بریار له سهر مانهوه و چۆنێتی بنکه سهربازیه ههمیشهییهکان دهدهن. یهکهمیان؛ تیرۆره، ئهمرۆ بهشێکی زۆری تیرۆری دژ به ئهمریکی سهرچاوهکهی له ناوچهکانی عهرهبه سوننهکاندایه، وه ههر ئهم ناوچهیه مهترسی ئهوهی ههیه له داهاتوودا، ئهگهر هاتوو ئهمریکا بهجێیبهێڵی ببێته سهرزهمینێک بۆ گهشه و بوژانهوهی تیرۆری دژ به ئهمریکی و بهرژهوهندیهکانی ئهمریکا له ناوچهکهدا. بۆیه گومانی تیا نابێت که بهشێک لهو بنکه ههمیشهییانهی که له عێراقدا دهبن له ناوچهی سوننه دهبن. ههر ئهمهشه وههایکردوه که ئێستا بهشی زۆری بنکه سهربازیه ئهمریکیهکان له عێراق له ناوچهی سوننهدابن، به بهراورد به ناوچهکانی تر.
ههرچهنده کۆمهڵێ هۆکاری تر ههن که وههایکردوه ئهو ژماره زۆرهی بنکهی سهربازی له ناوچهی سوننهدابن، جگه له تیرۆر هۆکاری لۆجیستی و جوگرافیش رۆڵی گهوره دهبینن. له رووی لۆجستیهوه بنکه ئهمریکیهکان زۆربهیان له وشوێنانهدان که فرۆکهخانهی لێبوو له سهردهمی سهددامدا یان نزیکن له فرۆکهخانهکانهوه. ههروهها بوونی بهغدا وهک پایتهخت و له ههمانکاتدا شوێنی گهورهترین بالوێزخانهی ئهمریکی له دونیادا.
بیرکردنهوه له ئهندازیارێتی و ئهندازهی سهربازی باڵوێزخانهی ئهمریکا له ناوچهی سهوز رهنگه زۆرمان پێبڵێت دهربارهی تێروانینی ئهمریکا بۆ داهاتووی عێراق ئهو ئهگهرانهی که ئهمریکا بیریان لێئهکاتهوه. ئهم بالوێزخانهیه که له قهراخ دیجله دروستکراوه هێندهی ووڵاتی ڤاتیکان گهورهیه. ئهم باڵوێزخانهیه جێگایهکه که دهتوانێت به سهربهخۆ له دهوروبهری خۆی بژی. به مانایهکی تر له کاتی ئابلۆقهدانیا هیچ شتێک پێویست نیه له دهرهوه بێت،. نه ئاو نه ئاوهرۆ نه کارهبا، نه هیچ پێداویستیهکی تر، ئهمه وهها ئهکات له کاتی ئابلۆقهدانی بالیوزخانهکهدا دانیشتوانهکهی دهتوانن بۆ زۆرترین کات تیا بمێننهوه. وه ههروهها به مهبهستی بهستنی بالۆێزخانهکه به دونیای دهرهوه، سهربانی باڵۆێزخانهکه وهها دروستکراوه که بۆ نیشتنهوهی هێلیکۆپتهر بشێت. رهخنهگرانی دهسهڵاتی ئهمریکی ئهندازیاری ئهم باڵوێزخانهیه به باڵوێزخانهی ئهمریکا له هانۆی پایتهختی ڤێتنام دهچوێنن.
هۆکاری بنهرهتی دووهم له دروستکردنی بنکهی سوپایی ههمیشهیی، که به درێژایی چهند نهوهیهک بمێنێتهوه ستراتیژیهتی ناوچهکه و بهرژهوهندی ئهمریکایه. عێراق ئهگهر لهدهست ئهمریکا بچێت ئهوا دهکهوێته دهست ئێران و هێزه سونیه توندرهوهکان. ئهم دوو هێزه، که ههڵگری ئایدهلۆژایی ئاینین دژ به ئهمریکا و دۆستهکانی ئهمریکان له ناوچهکهدا بهتایبهت ئیسرائیل. ئهگهر هاتوو سوپای ئهمریکی کشایهوه ئهوا ئهم هێزانه دهستئهکهنه شهری نێوان خۆیان، که ماوهیهکه بهردهوام دهبێت بهڵام له ههمانکاتدا دهستدهکهن به ناردنی خهڵک و بیروراکانیان بۆ ووڵاتانی دهوروبهر. یهکێک لهم ئهگهرانه ئهوهیه که ئهگهری ئهوه ههیه شهری شیعه و سوننه سهرتاپا رۆژههڵاتی ناوهراست بگرێتهوه. چونکه، نهبوونی ئهمریکا له ناوچهکه و بههێزبوونی شیعه گۆرانێکی بنهرهتی بهسهر بونیادی حوکمدا دێنێت له ناوچهکهدا، چونکه زۆربهی ووڵاتانی ناوچهکه خهڵکی شیعهیان ههیه و زۆربهشیان چهندین سهدهیه به خراپترین شێواز دهچهوسێنرێنهوه.
ههرچهند ئهگهر هاتوو ئهمه رووبدات ئهوا رهههنده ئابووری و نێو دهوڵهتیهکهی رهنگه له ههمووی مهترسیدارتربێت. ووڵاتانی کهنداو زۆرترین و ههرزانترین نهوتی دونیایان ههیه. ههر قهیرانێکی سهرانسهری له ناوچهکهدا رهنگه ببێته هۆی کهمبوونهوهی نهوت به رادهیهکی زۆر و بهرزبوونهوهی نرخ به ئاستێک ببێته هۆی تێکشکانی بازار و ئابووری نێودوڵهتی. بهڵام رهههندێکی تری ئهم مهسهلهیه که کهم باسی لێوهئهکرێت رهههندی چینه. ووڵاتی چین له گهشهیهکی ئابووری بێووێنهدایه، وه بۆ درێژهدان بهم گهشهیه پێویستی به زیاتر و زیاتر نهوت ههیه. چین گوێ بهوه نادات کێ نهوتی پێئهفرۆشێ، له ههموو کهسێکی ئهکرێت. ئهگهر بێتوو ئهمریکا له ناوچهکه بکشێتهوه ئهوا رهنگه ئهو بۆشاییه لهلای چینهو پرکرێتهوه. بۆیه ئهمریکا بۆئهوهی رێگه لهوه بگرێت چین ببێطه هێزێکی گلۆبال ئهوا دهبیت دهست بهسهر سهرچاوه نهوتیهکانی دونیادا بگرێت. پێش ئهوهی چین ببێته هێزێکی وهها که ئهمریکا ناچاربێت بچێته شهری ساردهوه لهگهڵیا.
به مهبست کوردهوه، ئهگهربێتوو ئهمریکا بنکهی ههمیشهیی له عێراقدا بهێڵێتهوه ئهوا بێگوومان یهکێک لهو بنکانه له نزیک شاری کهرکوک دهبێت. سهرهرای ئهوه ئهمریکا له فرۆکهخانهیهکی بچکۆلهی نزیک شهقلاوه و له نزیک سمێل بنکهی ههیه. ئایا له ناوچهی سلێمانی بنکهی تر ئهکاتهوه، ئهگهر بیکاتهوه ئهوا دهبێت نزیک فرۆکهخانهی سلێمانی بێت یان له ههر جێگایهکی تربێت دهبێت فرۆکهخانهی خۆی بۆ بونیادنێت، چونکه ناتوانرێت بنکهیهک بپارێزرێت و له پهیوهندی خێرابێت لهگهڵیا بهبێ بوونی فرۆکهخانه به تایبهت له ناوچهیهکی شاخاوی دووره دهستی وهک کوردوستاندا. پلان وههایه که ئهمریکا 14 بنکهی سهربازی ههمیشهیی له و ناوچهیهدا بهێڵێتهوه.
سهرهرای ئهمانه، بوونی بنکهی سهربازی ئهگهر ناچاری کوردنهبێت شتێکی ئهوهنده باش نیه. سوپای ئهمریکی له خوێری ترین و نامهردانه ترین خهلکی ئهو ووڵاته پێکهاتوه. به جۆرێک که بهتاڵن له ههموو بههاو رهوشتێکی مرۆڤانه. زۆربهی سوپا خهڵکانێکن که هیچ بوارێکی تریان له ژیاندا نهبووه. ئهگهر بوونی کورد لهلایهن درواسێکانیهوه سهلامهت بێت ئهوا نهبوونی بنکهی ههمیشهیی باشتره.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
