Return of the Crusades: Is It Islam Vs. the Others?

The crusades (1095 - 1291) or “Holy wars” are but a bitter reminder of mortification & wanton destruction that followed the fights for supremacy amongst the leading religions of the world - Islam & Christianity. It started with Pope Urban II’s call to the faithful to liberate the Holy Land – Palestine - for which he proffered an irresistible reward:  heaven to the martyrs. The rise of Church reformation movements in the 16^th century led to the reduction in papal authority & the growth of scientific temper & democratic values led to a more liberal political & religious thought that we witness in Europe today. The Muslim world has not seen such a transition yet. The rise of Islamic fundamentalism today & the lethal war cry “Jihad – Holy war” is based on the same concoction & the familiar reward: HEAVEN. Are we therefore seeing the resurrection of the crusades?  Regretfully: YES; The only difference: It is now a fight not restricted to 2 religions alone.

Of the population of over 7 billion that inhabits the world, 2.2 billion practice Christianity, 1.6 billion profess Islam, 1 billion follow Hinduism & 0.37 billion have embraced Buddhism & the popular current narrative is that all the others are arraigned  against Islam. Animosities amongst religions are not uncommon for sectarian clashes abound: Hindus vs. the Mohammedans in South Asia; Buddhists vs. the Muslims in Sri Lanka, Myanmar & Thailand et al. The Charlie Hebdo cartoons case, perhaps, was a case of journalistic indiscretion but the massacre soon unleashed - by the Islamic terror groups in France - cannot be condoned either. This is but only one manifestation of the resurrection of the crusades.

The Iranian revolution in 1979 & the rise of the Shia cleric, Ayatollah Khomeini, created shock waves in Saudi Arabia which started propagating the most virulent Salafi/ Wahabi Sunni form of Islam as a counter, more to protect the Royalty. Western Christian states, especially the US, found it convenient to support such a venture to take on the Ayatollah in Iran & the Soviet Union in Afghanistan through the Mujahedeen.  Later, Taliban was a force created through religious indoctrination in Islamic seminaries – madrassas – in

Pakistan which today has become the epicentre of world terrorism. It is the Taliban regime that had seized power in Afghanistan in 1996 that was responsible for the destruction of Buddhist statues of the Bamiyan, in 2001, about 6 months before the dastardly events of 9/11 in America. Afghanistan was a secular country till the 9^th Century AD hosting Hindus, Buddhists & Muslims when persecution of Buddhists by Sunni Turks forced them to finally settle in modern day Tibet. That set the Buddhists against the Muslims. Centuries later, the persecution persists; in 2010, in the Tanjung Balai, Indonesia, a Buddhist statue was forced to be removed from a rooftop after complaints by an Islamic organization while In 2012 Islamists attacked a national museum & destroyed Buddhist idols in the Maldives.

While the attacks against Buddhists need to be condemned, they are not entirely peace loving either. In Sri Lanka the Buddhist brigade – Bodu Bala Sena – has unleashed a war against Muslims purportedly with federal support during the Rajapaksa regime. Likewise in Myanmar, Buddhists under a religious leader Ashin Wirathu have railed the Muslims. The dispossession of the Muslim Rohingyas in the Rakhine State, near the Bangladesh border, has created

a humanitarian crisis with refugees rushing either into Bangladesh or trying to escape into Malaysia or Indonesia by boats many of which have capsized in the high seas; countries refusing to accept these refugees has accentuated the situation further. The fight between Buddhist Thailand against their Muslim minority in their southern provinces demanding a separate state is but another example of distrust between these two religions.

Post the crusades & Christian reformation one would have expected Western Christian nations to encourage Islamic reform too. Regretfully it was not to be; on the contrary fundamentalism was encouraged to achieve geo-political objectives which succeeded initially but now the protégés have turned against the patrons.  During WW I, Britain encouraged “Jihad” against the Ottoman Empire in Turkey. Likewise, Al Qaeda - a CIA creation during the cold war – perpetuated  9/11 which led to a “either with us or against us” stirring speech by the then US President George Bush Jr. & the “global War on Terror” that soon followed was used as a pretext to invade sovereign nations: Iraq & Afghanistan. Stangely “weapons of mass destruction” were never found in Iraq & sadly the Middle East is now a seething cauldron that has given rise to the ISIS (Islamic Republic of Iraq & the Levant) – a terror outfit which has a state & resources of its own. Human Right violations – largely of Muslims - happened at

“Guantanamo Bay & Abu Ghraib” which is now well documented by the US Senate.  Mira Nair’s Movie “The reluctant Fundamentalist” or closer home Kabir Khan’s “New York”, allude to how circumstances force even liberal Muslims to convert to fundamentalism. If Islam was seen as the perpetuator of the 9/11 crime & condemned, the unbridled Western Christian retaliation cannot be seen as Kosher either.

While the persecution of the Muslims listed above calls for a sympathetic response, Muslims are not the victims in all cases. Post the independence of India in 1947 & after accounting for the transfers of people across the borders, Hindus accounted for 15% of the population in Pakistan & 22% in Bangladesh; the corresponding fig today is 2% & 10% respectively achieved through forcible conversions & decimation, highlighted by knowledgeable & sensitive writers like Taslima Nazreen for which she endures a death threat which has forced her to remain incognito away from her homeland Bangladesh. Contrast this with liberal India where the Muslim population has grown from 9.8% in 1951 to 14.2% of the population in 2011. Perhaps, Islam too would gain through reforms just as Christianity did post the 16^th century & beyond.

Is the situation therefore a fight between Islam & other religions? The answer is: NO, for that would be a simplistic explanation to a complex problem.

The rise of the ISIS has been a subject of much consternation & debate but is a by-product of the geopolitics in the Middle East & the fight between the Sunni block led by Saudi Arabia & the Shia bloc led by Iran. Initially the rise of the ISIS was credited to Saudi Arabia with an intention to force a Shia regime change in Syria. For details see

http://meetrk.blogspot.com/2015/07/the-middle-east-conundrum-diplomatic.html

Retired Indian diplomat Mahesh Sachdev in an article in The Hindu avers that Islamic terror is not monolithic since ethnicity, caste & tribal affiliations play a major role. The core of the Boko Haram in Nigeria consists of the Kanuri tribe which is spread across Nigeria & its neighbours – Niger, Cameroon & Chad; the efforts of its leader, Abu Bakr Shekhau, to expand appeal using the regional lingua franca – Hausa – has not been successful. Similarly, the Shammar tribe forms the core of the ISIS in the Middle East; the tribe is spread across Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Syria, Iraq & Turkey which is the area where the Daesh (Arabic acronym for the ISIL) is most dominant. While both these outfits are Sunni outfits & Saudi Arabia’s support for the ISIS is well documented, the Hezbollah in Lebanon is a Shia militant outfit which active support from Iran. Hopefully the new Iran deal enforced by the P5+1 would bring a modicum of stability to the Middle East. Ultimately, only a shift from monarchy or a dictatorship to democracy – even if the transition is uneasy – amongst Muslim nations coupled with religious reforms shall provide a lasting peace.

Conclusion

Islam is widely bandied about as a violent religion & the cause of all religious problems plaguing the world, forgetting that Sufism – a strand of the same religion - preached pacifism & co-existence of all faiths. The evangelical zeal by proselytizing faiths with financial support from across the borders has vitiated the situation in many countries leading to violent responses from the other side, largely ignited by politico- religious outfits on the induced fear of the majority being swamped by the minority. Perhaps non-use of religions for geo political gains would serve all actors well. The growth of nationalism is fine as long as it does not turn fanatical into “majoritarian nationalism” which ails many parts of the world today. A deeper understanding of Islam, debate rather than an absolute ban on the use of hijab under the grab of gender equality or prevention of terrorism – as has unfortunately happened in many European nations - & support for liberal Islamic forms like Sufism would help in reconciliation.  

Disputes over Islands in East & South East Asia: A Solution

Tensions have been mounting between members of the ASEAN, China & Taiwan over competing claims on Islands in the South China Sea For details see

http://meetrk.blogspot.in/2015/07/geopolitics-of-artificial-islands.html

They are not alone. East China Sea is the new theatre of conflict between China, Taiwan & Japan over the Senkaku Islands (Diaoyu islands in China) - eight uninhabited islands and rocks with an insignificant area of about 7 sq. km. Likewise Japan & Russia are ranged against each other over the control of islets - called Southern Kurils (Northern Territories in Japan) While Kurils – an island chain - stretches north across the Pacific Ocean from the Japanese island of Hokkaido

to the southern tip of Russia's Kamchatka Peninsula dispute over ownership is restricted to four islands - Kunashir (known in Japanese as Kunashiri), Iturup (Etorofu), Shikotan and the rocky Habomai.

The reasons for claiming ownership is strategic - considering their proximity to shipping lanes & existence or potential for establishment of military bases & economic – availability of fish, gas & oil reserves & the tourism potential. Rare rhenium deposits have also been found on the Kudriavy volcano on Iturup island enhancing its importance further. An understanding of history is necessary to gain an insight into the origins of current claims.

Historical claims of Ownership over the Senkaku Islands

Post the Sino-Japanese war, Taiwan was ceded to Japan under the Treaty of Shimonoseki, in 1895 & the Senkaku islands incorporated into Japanese territory. After World War 2, Japan renounced claims on Taiwan under the 1951 Treaty of San Francisco while the Senkaku islands, came under US trusteeship and were returned to Japan in 1971 under the Okinawa reversion deal. Japan’s claims rest on the fact that neither China nor Taiwan raised any objections to the San Francisco deal then. China with claims over Taiwan suggests that when Japan renounced claims over Taiwan, the islands too, should have been deemed to be returned. Taiwan did not protest then, China avers, because Taiwan's Kuomintang leader, Chiang Kai-shek, depended on the US for support.

Historical Claims of Ownership over the Kuril Islands

Japan ownership of the four southern islands was cemented by the Treaty of Shimoda, in 1855, when diplomatic relations were first established between Russia and Japan.  As per the subsequent Treaty of St. Petersburg, in1875, it was agreed that Japan would give up all rights to Sakhalin on the Kuril Islands. Russia thereafter took control of the islands at the end of WW2 and by 1949 had deported all 17000 residents to Japan. 

Japan renounced rights over Kuril Islands under the 1951 San Francisco Peace Treaty with the Allied forces; since Russia did not sign the treaty and Japan never recognised the four islands as part of the Kuril chain, the issue continued to fester. While a Japan-Soviet Joint Declaration restored diplomatic ties in 1956 a formal peace deal remained elusive despite Russia’s proposal to return the two islands closest to Japan which the latter rejected because the two islands represent only 7% of the land in question.

Current Problem on Senkaku

The current controversy erupted in April 2012, when the right-wing Tokyo Governor Shintaro Ishihara, announced that he would use public money to buy 3 Senkaku islands from their private Japanese owner. The Japanese govt. blocked the move & bought it itself which provoked China to organize both public & diplomatic protests. It upped the ante through incursions into what Japan sees as its territorial waters & escalated the situation further by creating a new air-defence identification zone (ADIZ), in November 2013, which required any aircraft in the zone to comply with their rules which is unacceptable to Japan & the US.

Current Problem on Kuril

Political opportunism & push towards nationalistic jingoism has exacerbated the dispute. Former President, Dmitri Medvedev, became the first leader of Russia to visit the disputed isles, in 2010 & repeated the move again in 2012 prompting an outrage from Japan.  Boosting of Russian defences on the islands in 2011 was not viewed kindly by Japan. The Russia-Japan détente has not been made easier by the recent Russia- China embrace & the September 2010, joint statements committed to “support each other on sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity.”

Analysts argue that the wording is ambiguous on Northern territories while specifically mentioning joint support for their positions on Taiwan, Tibet, Xinjiang, the Caucasus region and former Soviet countries. They buttress their argument further by alluding to the world atlas published by the Chinese People’s Liberation Army, that shows the Northern territories as “Occupied by Russia” next to each of the four disputed islands with names in Japanese & not Russian – a stand maintained by China since the 1960’s; therefore it is unlikely that China & Russia would form a joint front against Japan.

However many in Japan fear a Chinese threat.

Resurgent Japan
Post defeat in WW 2, Japan, changed its constitution to a pacifist one that specifically barred its troops from moving beyond its shores. The US entered into a security alliance with Japan & formalised it in 1960 as per which the US is provided military bases in Japan in lieu of a promise to defend Japan in the event of an attack. The current Japanese, PM Shinzo Abe, has sought to add muscle to the military alliance through the proposed “Diamond” project involving India, US, Japan & Australia to counter the growing Chinese threat. He has also proposed a change in Japanese Constitution to allow Japanese forces to be sent abroad which has since been passed by the Diet albeit with the entire opposition walking out. Its passage in the upper house is still due.  If the same is unlikely to pass muster, Abe has proposed military assistance to like-minded countries to counter the threat. Tensions are on the rise since all the countries have taken maximalist positions.

Likely solutions
If the parties to the dispute are keen on a peaceful “Win - Win “solution then the same is not unreachable. A humanitarian outreach to create the environs for a negotiated settlement should be the first step. The outreach by the erstwhile Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev is a guiding light.

Requests for visits to the graves of the ancestors of displaced Japanese of the Kuril was first made in 1964 & post a long lull allowed after the visit of then Soviet President, Gorbachev to Japan in 1991.  As a provisional measure mutual visits - without passports or visas - between Japanese citizens and the current Russian residents of the Northern Territories was allowed to enhance mutual understanding to prepare grounds for an eventual peace treaty. Once trust is achieved some mechanism of joint investment & administration could be evolved.

Kurile islanders are Russian citizens but live in hardship since fishing proceeds subject to about 80% tax & appropriated by the Russian govt. causing much local angst. Boris Yeltsin unsuccessfully attempted to change that in December 1992, when he issued an order to create Kuril Islands free economic zone, cut taxes, give rights to keep foreign currency earned through trade and the power to impose quotas on foreign vessels fishing in Kuril waters. The proposal floundered when the Duma balked then & the population shrank by a third following the devastating earthquake in 1994. There is immense sense in reopening the proposal & inviting Japan to invest in an arrangement which allows joint administration of the northern territories by a board with equal membership by both the parties. The Taiwan- Japan agreement offers an interesting template.

In April 2013 Taiwan reached agreement with Tokyo to permit Taiwanese fishing vessels access to fishing areas near the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands and inside Japan’s exclusive economic-zone, thereby decoupling the issue of sovereignty & economic rights around the islands. The same template could be employed by China too to freeze the conflict to be revisited at a later state when relations between the neighbours improve.

Michael o’Hanlon, director of research for the Foreign Policy program at the Brookings Institution, Professor Akikazu Hashimoto of the J.F.Oberlin University Graduate School and Wu Xinbo of China’s Fudan University in Shanghai have proposed a permanent solution to the Senkaku problem. As per their proposal Japan would continue to retain formal administrative rights under international law which would be a concession by China while Japan’s concession would be to agree to delegate the administration of the islands to a joint oversight board with equal memberships on the Chinese and Japanese sides, rotating chairmanship, and consensus decision making rules. Patrols for purposes of safety, and tours of the islands for reasons of tourism or ecology or history, would be organized and conducted together by China and Japan and regulated by the board; Unilateral patrols around the islands by any ships or planes from either side would end. All patrolling within the 12-mile zone bordering the islands would be done jointly. The islands would be used solely for non-military purposes such as ecological tourism, with all such activities fully regulated by the oversight board.

Apart from the above both sides would promise to raise no further territorial disputes in future by acknowledging the sovereignty claims over all the islands by the other. This shall potentially prevent China from challenging Japan’s sovereignty over any of the Ryukyu Islands in the future. Likewise the two sides would agree to decouple matters of territory and sovereignty, and the Law of the Sea will not apply to any claims to the islands.

Conclusion

This solution if accepted by the effected parties has the potential to reduce tensions in the region & beyond & if successful would also serve as a model to manage disputes over islands across the world.

Geopolitics of Artificial Islands: China’s attempt to dominate the Seas

The rapid rise of China to a $ 10 trillion economy - the 2^nd largest in the world – is nothing short of spectacular.  If military budget is seen as a proxy of military might, China is the 2^nd largest military power too. It is only a matter of time before China emerges as the Numero Uno, in both the areas, leading to the prediction that the 21^st Century shall be a “Chinese Century” just as the 19^th Century was the British Century or the 20^th Century was the US century. Ideologists though would prefer the term “Asian Century” signalling that India is no pushover & shall fight for its place in the sun. With a $2 trillion economy – the 7^th largest in the world & the 3^rd as per Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) – they are, perhaps, not off the mark.

With a population of about 1.4 billion, China accounts for about 20% of humanity – the largest of any countries -  & therefore its rise is truly epochal & welcome; however its belligerence is not.  The Chinese' fail to appreciate that with “great power comes great responsibility” & their aggression in the South China Sea (SCS) does not instill comfort. While countries in the region were earlier disturbed by Chinese claims on islands like the Paracels & Spratlys, it has now evolved into paranoia post their attempt to create artificial Islands which shall serve as military posts.

Why the Conflict?

As per the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), 1982, every country has 12 nautical miles of territorial sea & a 200 nautical miles Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).  As per the US council on foreign relations report SCS accounts for 11 billion barrels of oil & 190 trillion cubic feet of natural gas.  $5.3 trillion of international trade passes through the SCS - 23% of which is of the US; therefore America too is concerned with the developments in the region.

Historical Claims on Spratlys

China claims exclusivity over almost the entire SCS, vide the “Nine dashed line” which is contested by the other countries in the region because of the above mentioned strategic & economic reasons. Spratlys are hundreds of tiny shoals, reefs and islets in the South China Sea claimed by China, Taiwan, Vietnam, Malaysia & the Philippines. China claims historical “sovereignty” on these land masses for over 2000 years & had released a map in 1947 detailing its claims which are mirrored by Taiwan. Vietnam claims documentary proof of ruling over this territory since the 17^th century & asserts that China never laid claim over these islands before 1940’s. Philippines claims rest on geographic proximity while Malaysia on the principle of EEZ. Brunei has no claims on islands but Malaysia claims a small number of islands in the Spratlys

Conflicts over Paracels, Spratlys & Scarborough Shoal
China supports its territorial claims with military force to achieve strategic objectives. Chinese forces seized the Paracels from Vietnam in 1974 & the Scarborough Shoal from the Philippines in 2012.  In July 2012 China consolidated gains by formally created Sansha city - an administrative body with headquarters in the Paracels – to oversee Chinese territory in the South China Sea. In 2014 Chinese naval and coastguard ships ventured into Vietnam’s exclusive economic zone (EEZ) to support the activities of an oil rig. Clearly the waters are getting muddy & bloody.

Why is China converting reefs into artificial Islands?

Chinese claim on the Spratly Islands has a strategic intent. While Chinese aircraft can patrol the East China Sea from bases in eastern China, it can’t do so in the South China Sea without refuelling and ground support; hence their decision to convert reefs into artificial islands.  China is the only power to have begun turning reefs, which are under water at high tide and therefore not considered land under international law, into permanent islands. As per US Defence Secretary, Ashton Carter, China has reclaimed over 2,000 acres - more than all other claimants combined, and more than in the entire history of the region - in only the last 18 months.

China has built an artificial island covering 75,000 square yards at a land formation called Hughes Reef, which lies about 210 miles from the Philippines and 660 miles from China; the geographical proximity to the Philippines is a giveaway. Similar structures have emerged in Johnson South Reef, Gaven Reefs & Fiery Cross Reef These outposts are self-sufficient for they contain windmills for power and greenhouses for food. As per The South China Morning 

Post report, constructing an artificial island with a five-square-kilometer military base on the Fiery Cross Reef would take 10 years & cost $5 billion, and would ultimately produce, the strategic value “equivalent to that for building an aircraft carrier”.James Hardy, Asia Pacific Editor of IHS Jane’s Defence Weekly says that “Where it (China) used to have a few small concrete platforms, it now has full islands with helipads, airstrips, harbors and facilities to support large numbers of troops, We can see that this is a methodical, well-planned campaign to create a chain of air and sea capable fortresses across the center of the Spratly Islands chain” 

An airstrip in the middle of the South China Sea shall serve as a base for reconnaissance aircraft and unmanned systems. The island shall shorten resupply routes for the Chinese Navy patrols & serves a submarine base. Just as China established an ADIZ (Air Defence Identification Zone) in the East China Sea, which overlapped with South Korea, Japan and Taiwan’s existing ones creating a backlash it would replicate the same strategy for the South China Sea. The Chinese appear to have become more aggressive after President Xi Jinping assumed charge in 2012.

The Reactions from the Neighbourhood

Philippines’ President Benigno Aquino has averred that use of reclaimed lands for military purposes would act as a “game changer” for future settlements of disputed territories. Incidentally, his mother & then President of Philippines, Corazon Aquino was responsible for the US vacating the Subic Bay – the largest US naval base outside of the United States – in 1992. Would China have behaved quite as aggressively had the US been present on Philippines soil is debateable. The Military co-operation between the two countries, however, continues.

The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) countries have tried to work out a solution under the 2002 Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC) – a non-binding agreement with China. While the interested parties - Vietnam, Philippines, Malaysia & Brunei - would like the ASEAN to take a bold stand on the issue, the remaining 6 members do not want to antagonise China. The effected parties are seeking an internationally recognized settlement of the dispute under UNCLOS which China detests since it prefers a bilateral solution under which it can exercise disproportionate power.

Philippines’ has already filed a case with an international tribunal in The Hague challenging China’s territorial claims over most of the South China Sea China under UNCLOS. Vietnam and China have repeatedly clashed over Beijing placing an oil rig in disputed wars. India too is now embroiled in the controversy having picking up an oil block auctioned by Vietnam. The interested parties are better advised to settle outstanding disputes amongst themselves & project a joint front against China; the latter’s intransigence for a negotiated settlement would then be seen negatively by the world community. Else, the interested parties should internationalize the issue by involving the quad – US, India, Australia & Japan – which seems a more likely possibility.

Conclusion

The Chinese aim is to finally be the Lord of the South China Sea & control the crucial international shipping lines which pass through the region. Dominance over the air-space above is a natural corollary. The various outcrops claimed by China cover only 13 square kilometres in total, but are keys to controlling 2m square kilometres of sea and critical routes to the Pacific. It is therefore not surprising that a coalition of countries in the ASEAN along with the US & Japan are opposing the move.

The Middle - East Conundrum: The diplomatic Challenge for the World

The rising temperatures in the Middle - East has created a febrile situation that is consuming much of diplomatic mind-space in major capitals of the world. The divergent geopolitical strategies pursued by the two most important powers in the region - Saudi Arabia & Iran - has contributed to the tempestuous situation eluding a cogent response to the civil war in Syria & the rise of the ISIS. While Saudi Arabia leads a Sunni coalition & Iran commands a Shia one, understanding the historical genesis of the conflict is crucial to appreciate the current quagmire.

Why the animosity between the Shias & Sunnis?

Sunnis account for about 85% of the 1.6 billion Muslims worldwide while Shias account for a majority of the rest. Shias comprise a majority in Iran, Iraq, Azerbaijan, and Bahrain, and a plurality in Lebanon, while Sunnis make up the majority of more than forty countries from Morocco to Indonesia

Prophet Mohammed gave birth to Islam in 610 AD & before his death in 632 AD, had consolidated the faith in Arabia.  In the fight for succession that followed the Sunnis insisted on Mohammed’s disciple & his father-in-law, Abu Bakr, to be made his successor while the Shias pushed for the dynastic succession of Mohammed’s cousin & his son in Law Ali ibn Abi Talib.

Abu Bakr become the first caliph & was followed soon by 2 others whose authority the Shias rejected; they reject them even today. Reconciliation happened & Ali became caliph in 656 AD but was assassinated 5 years later. His sons, Hassan and Hussein, were denied the right of accession to the caliphate. While Hassan is believed to have been poisoned by Muawiyah, the first caliph (leader of Muslims) of the Umayyad dynasty, his brother, Hussein, was killed on the battlefield along with members of his family, in 680 AD, at Karbala, Iraq, by soldiers of the second Umayyad caliph. The Shias, perhaps feeling betrayed, rejected the caliphates that passed from Arabia to the Umayyad dynasty in Damascus and later the Abbasids in Baghdad.

Sunni - Islam dominated for the first 9 centuries till the establishment of the Safavid dynasty in Persia, in 1501, bolstered the latter by making Shia Islam the state religion, . The Safavids fought the Ottomans - the seat of the Sunni caliphate – for the next 2 centuries enlarging the chasm between the two communities. That continues even today.

The Sykes Picot line

Colonization added another layer to the already existing mess in the region. The Caliphate was abolished post the defeat of the Ottoman Empire, in World War 1 & the territory divided between the victors - France & Britain. Mark Sykes of Britain and François Georges-Picot of France - entrusted the task of segregating territories - did so by drawing a line without paying attention to either ethnic & religious divisions nor to natural

demarcations like rivers & mountains. The ethnic groups of the Middle East - Arabs, Persians, Turks & Kurds - were clubbed together & controlled initially through imperialism & later through dictatorships or royalty. Minorities suffered in the bargain. Kurds the 4^th largest ethnic group of the Middle East account for 20% of the population in Turkey & Iraq, 15% in Syria & 10% of Iran but have no independent state of its own – just like the Palestinians. The other end of the spectrum was the usurpation of power by the minorities & maintenance of status-quo through force. Disaster, therefore, was waiting to happen.

Illiberal Minority ruling over a Majority

Iraq’s population of 55% Arab Shia, 18% Arab Sunni, 21% Kurds & 6% others has been ruled by despotic Saddam – a Sunni - between 1979-2003 until the US invasion unseated him & gave the country a Shia Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki; the lack of inclusive politics by the latter too has balkanised the country into the Kurdish north east, Sunni west & the Shia rest.  ISIS holds the western part of the country along with territory in war ravaged Syria. The situation in Syria, Bahrain & Yemen is no different. The appropriation of power & pelf, in Syria, by people belonging to the Alawi sub sect of Shia Islam invited peaceful protests in 2011 but soon turned violent when the regime led by Bashar al-Assad, proceeded with barbaric suppression.  The US has taken an anti-Assad stand while China & Russia has taken a more pro Assad stand rekindling the re-emergence of another Cold war.

Iran: The rise of Ayatollah Khomeini

Khomeini’s “Islamic revolution” in 1979 marked the overthrow of the US backed Shah of Iran, Mohammed Pahlavi. This sent shock waves through the Middle East royalty;  Khomeini’s support to Shia groups in Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, Bahrain, and Pakistan accentuated this displeasure. The US proceeded by imposing diplomatic sanctions to corner the regime

Iran continued to play its own power games to enhance power in the region. It supports the Shia militia, Hezbollah, in Lebanon, the rebels in Bahrain & the Houthi rebels in Yemen; the rebels in both the cases are fighting the Sunni royal families. Success in Yemen shall give Iran a beachhead to the Red Sea much to Saudi chagrin. This was bound to elicit a Saudi counter.

Saudi Counter

The Saudi royal family, concerned with the growing Shia influence in the region, supported the spread of Wahabism – the most puritanical form of Islam. The growth of Al Qaeda was a consequence of such a policy. They backed the Sunni regime of Saddam Husain, in Iraq, in the 1980–1988 war, with Iran, but withdrew support after he attacked Kuwait. To establish a Sunni influence in Afghanistan they sponsored the Afghan Mujahedeen in their fight against the Soviet Union - that had invaded Afghanistan in 1979 & installed the puppet regime of Najibullah. The US & many Western powers supported the Saudi move & used another predominantly Sunni country, Pakistan, as the conduit to supply arms & ammunition & provide training facilities. Gen Zia-ul-Haq, the then President of Pakistan, in a bid to add muscle to the movement, supported the establishment of madrassas to create fanatical forces; these forces have now started to bite their earlier patrons leading to instability in Pakistan. All countries in the Middle East would like to keep the fanatical forces that they had created, engaged outside their boundaries to maintain stability at home. Needless to say, the chickens are bound to come home to roost sooner or later.

Nevertheless, Riyadh monitors its oil rich eastern provinces – home to a Shia minority - & has deployed a coalition of 10 Sunni majority countries to protect the ruling Sunni royal families of Bahrain & Yemen.  Simultaneously, it offers financial support to the Sunni rebels in Syria while denying the same to Al Qaeda & other extremist organizations to keep the US in good humour. This fine balancing act is unlikely to bring stability to the region.

Terrorist Diaspora

Battle hardened Afghan war veterans of the 1980’s were the core of global terror networks like the Al Qaeda earlier. The volunteers, from Western Countries, post the war in Syria, would return to their homelands, as battle hardened veterans & in the words of FBI director, James B. Comey, can be viewed as a potential “terrorist diaspora”. Indoctrination through social media has made enrolment to terror networks easier & the addition of field experience would create a fearsome war machine with global implications. A co-ordinated approach by all like-minded nations is, therefore, an urgent need.

Redrawing of Boundaries

The cartography bequeathed to the region by British and French colonial authorities is currently getting redrawn. The Assad regime in Syria controls a rump state that extends to the Mediterranean coast connecting with Hezbollah strongholds, threatening the territorial integrity of Lebanon. The Shia axis now extends from Iran to the Mediterranean creating unease in Saudi Arabia.  

ISIS, controls the eastern regions of Syria & western regions of Iraq - a region with vast oil reserves that assures a ready access to finance.  The establishment of the Islamic Caliphate & its expansion plans published alongside, has caused international consternation.

Kurdish groups in northern Syria & their Iraqi cousins are seeking their long denied independence. Yemen -unified in 1990 – could re-fracture along sectarian lines. While most politicians in Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon reject attempts to redraw the map of the region, an existential challenge cannot be denied.

Conclusion

The great power games being played in the Middle East has the potential of creating an unnecessary conflagration. The US is attempting through the P5+1 initiative to reintegrate Iran into the world order clearly realizing that sanctions have had limited effect. Neither Israel nor Saudi Arabia is pleased with such a move. The dipping costs of solar energy & availability of shale gas reserves in the US shall ensure a reduced US & Western interest in the Middle East. The reduction of boots on the ground is only a first step. It is therefore imperative that the Arabs led by Saudi Arabia & the Persians led by Iran cast aside their differences & evolve a security architecture for the region. Else, the region risks of becoming the epicentre of global terror & eventually being reduced to cinders.