THE PHENOMENON OF THE DISINTEGRATION OF STATES AND ITS REPERCUSSIONS ON THE ARAB WORLD
by Abdullah al-Ashaal
Dar Al-Hayat, Lebanon
June 21 2006
The independence of Montenegro in early June 2006 started a phenomenon
that is growing and affecting the future of the World Order. It
also has repercussions in the Arab region. It seems that the second
half of the 20th century had completed a trend created by World War
I. This trend is the disintegration of some major empires, like the
Ottoman, which played a key role in the politics of the East for eight
centuries. Moreover, the Austro-Hungarian Empire was divided into
two states: Austria and Hungary. As for the Russian Empire, it did
not disintegrate, but Moscow replaced Petersburg to be the capital of
the Soviet Union, which absorbed territory that had not been a part of
the Empire. The Soviet Empire was more expansionist than the Tsarist.
After World War II, Europe witnessed the emergence of the Socialist
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and the attempts for Arab unity.
However, in the late 1980s, the wave of disintegration appeared,
starting with the collapse of the Soviet Union, followed by the
Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, and the ensuing ethnic and
religious wars and disputes. Moreover, the right to self-determination
became more clamant. It was initially decided to recognize the
religious and ethnic identities of nations. US President Wilson, who
laid down this right in 1914, aimed to destroy the Ottoman Empire. This
aim was realized by encouraging Torani nationalism and Turkey’s bid
to rid itself of its moribund empire.
Ataturk’s viewpoint, according to his memoirs, was that this empire
obstructed the progress of Torani nationalism and hindered it from
connecting with its natural European affiliation.
Although the international community still insists that the State
is the essential nucleus of the World Order, and that maintaining
it is a very important condition in order to achieve stability in
international relations. However, the disintegration of the states
has become a modern phenomenon.
Maintaining the states’ stability was translated within the African
framework into sanctity and irrevocability of borders. This principle
has protected the African states against separatist attempts so far.
This phenomenon highly spread in the last decade. It may be
said that the next decade will witness a conflict between state
sovereignty-related principles, integrity and respect for its domestic
affairs, which constitute the principles of the UN charter, on the
one hand, and the wave of disintegration, on the other. This wave
will coincide with an increase in the world’s countries to 220 in
the next decade.
In this article, I will try to highlight this wave which I’m afraid
will be a global phenomenon, and will have repercussions in the
Arab region. I will also look at the impact of this phenomenon on
the future of the World Order and its features. It is a glimpse at
the near future, during the coming decade from 2007 to 2017. This
period will witness the appearance of several international and local
studies that may not take into consideration this new phenomenon and
its serious repercussions.
Although any phenomenon consists of similar events, the circumstances
of every event differ from the others. It is known that the US planned
to sever the Arab countries from one another to prevent the emergence
of a united State capable of facing Israel. Washington started with
the most influential Arab and regional countries. It tamed Egypt,
and proceeded to divide Iraq after it paved the way for this by its
alliance with Saddam Hussein when it wanted to clip Iran’s wings by
changing its regime or breaking it. Washington’s attempts in this
regard aimed at isolating Iran and preventing it from taking part,
however remotely, in what was called the Arab-Israeli conflict.
It is obvious that the dismemberment of Iraq is a deliberate policy.
Iraq will not be the last stop in the Arab world. Sudan may take some
steps on the road to disintegration, as the advocates of separatism
see that Khartoum and its surrounding areas, or North Sudan, will
be a historical capital, as Baghdad is. But in the case of Sudan,
Washington tamed the Sudanese government, and then quietly proceeded
to divide Sudan, paying no attention to the opposition of the Sudanese
government. This means that taming is not different from cession. This
idea contradicts the American notion that the targeted countries must
choose between changing their regimes or conduct.
It is also known that the US planned the disintegration of the Soviet
Union. The aftermath was the disintegration of the Socialist Federal
Republic of Yugoslavia. But in the Soviet Union’s case, disintegration
depended on inciting national and ethnic fanaticism.
This led to the implosion of the Soviet Empire. But it seemed that
Washington was not content with this collapse because it feared the
reunification of the former Soviet republics, whether in the form of
the revival of Russian nationalism or under the canopy of the former
Soviet Union.
Washington continued to stamp out the Soviet presence in the former
republics after it battled with Soviet hegemony there. Washington
seeks to disintegrate the Commonwealth of the Independent State
itself. For this reason, Russia opposed the independence of Kosovo.
On the other hand, it supported the independence of the Republic of
Transnistria which declared, late May 2006, its intention to hold an
independence referendum, following the example of Montenegro.
Transnistria’s population speaks Russian. This means that the model
of Kosovo and Montenegro, whose independence from Serbia was decided
through the May 2006 referendum, renewed the rhetoric on what is
meant by the right to self-determination. This right was confined
only to the territories occupied after World War II. It also renewed
the rhetoric on the right of minorities to express their religious,
cultural and ethnic idiosyncrasies.
Since Russia harbors bitter feelings toward Washington and some
of its former republics opposed to its influence, this trend has
taken the form of a cold war inside these republics. As a result,
Moscow backs some rebellious pockets in the republic of Georgia,
especially Ossetia and Abkhazia which enjoy genuine independence,
but have not won international recognition.
However, Chechnya was one of the greatest challenges that faced Russia
after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Chechnya was independent
for several years during the last decade of the 20th century. The
West is playing on the issue by accusing Russia of violating human
rights there. Washington has refused to include Chechnya on its
anti-terrorism list, despite the well known links between the Chechen
fighters and al-Qaeda.
On the other hand, Russia has actively helped Transnistria to gain
its independence from Moldova, whose inhabitants are of Romanian
origin. At the same time, Armenia has gained control over the region
of Nagorno-Karabakh after a long and protracted war with Azerbaijan.
In early June 2006, even the President of the separatist state of
South Ossetia, which broke away from Georgia, called on Russia to
include his state in the Russian Federation. He added that he would
call on the Russian constitutional court to look into the right of
north and south Ossetia to become Russian again in line with its past
as a province of the Russian empire which annexed it in the centuries
of Tsarist expansion. It is worth noting that the Ossentians who used
to be called Alanians, hope for nationhood, even though the population
of both provinces is no higher that 50,000. All this amounts to the
dissolution of the old republic and unity with Russia in return for
less Russian influence in these provinces. This is part and parcel of
the new war between Washington and Moscow. As for the dismemberment
of Yugoslavia, this took place under the auspices of the US and UN
while the most horrid crimes were committed under the eyes of the
international organization.
Fragmentation in Central Asia and Russia and East Timor will accelerate
the drive for fragmentation in the Arab world. And it is known that
breaking Iraq apart for the sake of Israel will lead to regional
complications. The most prominent of these complications are the
Kurdish issue and the right to self-determination of minorities as
opposed to the right of states to maintain their territorial integrity
while these minorities reside in them. We may ignore the complexities
of the Shiite issue the US has left in its wake, and the pressures
exerted by the US on the key Arab states in its fight against Arabism
and Islam and amidst the failure of the Arab nationalist dream of
unity. The occupation of Iraq has led to the most galling debasement
of Arabism and its symbols. All this is happening while Washington
is searching for its Zionist identity and trying to picture it as a
nationality rooted in history. By doing this, Washington is utilizing
nationalism in a contradictory manner.
It encourages nationalist separatist movements for its imperial
interests, while at the same time it demolishes the national bonds
between Arabs and Muslims in the service of Israeli interests.
As for the impact of fragmentation on the World Order, it is obvious
that the fewer states there are the easier it is to manage relations
between countries, either through centralized states or the interaction
of states of different sizes. The UN, which began with less than
50 members, was a very different organization from the one that now
includes almost 200 states. From another perspective, the categories
of medium and large states have had a new classification added to
them, the mini- and micro-states. This leads to much obscurity in
international relations and many conflicts at the exact same time
that the West is coalescing economically and politically, combating
the very same forces of cultural, racial and political separatism
that exist within its fold in Italy, France and Britain, among others.
Nonetheless, the fragmentation of states outside the US and EU demands
new rules for alliances and conflicts in the coming period.
It is an issue worth studying and has already caught the attention
of observers and researchers.
In conclusion, the insistence on ripping Arab states apart separately
after tearing the bonds and alliances that helped the Arab states
demands awareness, caution and hard work. To counteract this tide,
we must revive Arab nationalism and rethink it and insist on the
existence of the Arabs as a people. Arab nationalism has proven that
it fought the notion of separate Arab states, and was the minimum
guarantee for the independence and viability of these states.
Refashioning and rethinking Arab nationalism means learning the lessons
of the past and searching for policies that will insure Arab cohesion
and protect the Arabs from this new enemy.
An Egyptian writer
ributors/06-2006/Article-20060621-f67872ea-c0a8-10 ed-0101-76439b6783d0/story.html