The EU could be considered a “pseudo-empire”. It does indeed exercise a certain kind of central control over a collection of nations. But that control is limited to certain areas and is ratified by referenda and national governmental assemblies. The EU was not created through conquest (although it was in part a response to the conquest of Europe by the Nazis).
It was hoped that this kind of peaceful “pseudo-empire” or “pseudo-federation” would serve as a model for political “progress” in the Middle East. Turkish “democracy” was to serve as the shining example of a meeting between East and West, between Islam and the post-Enlightenment liberal political tradition. In time, economic and political development would lead to a real peace between the nations of the Middle East that transcended ethnic and religious lines, a peace built on co-operation and tolerance. No such hope materialized, of course – at least not in the way that Western liberals had hoped.
Closer co-operation between Turkey and Iran (e.g. Turkey’s desire to be a mediator between Iran and the West over her nuclear aspirations), has proved a source of fear – fear that Turkey is embracing a neo-Ottoman narrative as outlined by Ahmet Davutoglu and Recep Tayyip Erdogan. A vexing question regarding this co-operation is both countries’ imperial aspirations in the Middle East. The presence of Iranian soldiers acting as military advisors in Iraq has led to speculations regarding a possible Iranian attempt to annexe Iraq or to control Iraq through a puppet-government. Turkish troops sent to Syria to protect the (empty) tomb of Suleyman Shah was widely regarded as a thinly veiled attempt to establish Turkish sovereignty over Syrian territory (or to provoke a reaction from Syria that would serve as a pretext for invasion).
This question of political boundaries in the Middle East will not go away. For the present ISIS holds its territory while the Kurds, Syrians, and Iraqis chip away at it. But the regime cannot last forever; while many disaffected Muslims are still flocking to their banner, they lack legitimacy in the eyes of leading Islamic authorities – and these authorities still have influence in the Islamic world. At some point they will be defeated or collapse, and that will provoke the question of what should be done with northern Iraq.
The narrative of the Western political elite tends towards nationalism rather than empire for this question. “Create an independent Kurdish state!” is a common enough cry. But will the Kurds and the West be in a position to obtain this “solution”? Neither Turkey nor Iran would support this move – they fear that the Kurds within their own political borders would move to secede and join the new Kurdish state in Iraq. Under the current political climate we have no stomach to upset Iran, and Turkey’s place in NATO limits the ability of the West to restrain the aspirations of Erdogan. Indeed, as Turkey’s democratically-elected leader, the West cannot oppose Erdogan without appearing as hypocrites.
Russia, as Turkey’s long-standing enemy, is the only one in a position to oppose Turkey. But the West has chosen a path of antipathy towards Russia and neither side possesses the humility to admit to this foolishness. We might accuse the East of intransigence over “honour”, but actually our own governments and diplomats have shown the same tendency.
The result of these policy failures of recent years is a set of misalignments. Part of Trump’s popularity springs from the supposition that he and Putin would be able to work together, that they would have a better relationship than Putin and the current administration have experienced. It is not that Putin appears to be a good man to such people – rather, they value a positive relationship with Russia more than other considerations.
The future of our relations with the Middle East is impossible to predict. It is important that governments and electorates in the West consider hard what their real values and principles are, and where they should be flexible. As Christians we need to remember that political constitutions are not the primary consideration for our political theology. Peace, security, justice – these things are more important. S. Paul advised the churches to pray for the well-being of their political leaders, and to respect their authority and power. He told the Romans that leaders were provided by God to administer justice and to protect people.
When asked to give an account of my antipathy towards the current regime in Turkey, I am not concerned if my opponents label me as “undemocratic” – I am concerned about the intentions of the government towards minorities, towards Christians, towards their neighbours in the Middle East.
Ann OHara said:
Not Found!
On 27 Jul 2016 16:28, “All Along the Watchtower” wrote:
> Nicholas posted: “The EU could be considered a “pseudo-empire”. It does > indeed exercise a certain kind of central control over a collection of > nations. But that control is limited to certain areas and is ratified by > referenda and national governmental assemblies. The EU wa” >
LikeLike
Nicholas said:
I withdrew it yesterday so it wouldn’t take attention from C’s piece.
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
Good piece, Nicholas. The idea of the nation state is not native to the region, and the settlement hammered out between Sevres and Lausanne was one which reflected the will of the Western Powers. Erdogan has not forgotten the boundaries of the Ottoman Empire, and the weakness of Iraq and Syria gives him a target for his ambitions. He’s a nasty piece of work and has his eyes firmly on being the successor to the Sultans.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Nicholas said:
Indeed. One can still pick up today the old hatreds between Arab and Turk. While it seems that this uncertain state of affairs will rumble on indefinitely, I suspect there will be new developments in the not-too-distant future.
LikeLiked by 2 people
chalcedon451 said:
Events have rather played into Erdogan’s hands, and the axis with Iran is an interesting – and ominous – one. I suspect now is not the time to make a declared enemy of Russia.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Nicholas said:
My thoughts exactly. I despair of the elites in Westminster and Washington – if they continue to annoy Russia we will be in real trouble.
LikeLiked by 2 people
chalcedon451 said:
They seem to lack the ability to think globally. Putin backed Assad because he knows Erdogan has ambitions in the region, and because he knows those ambitions conflict with his own. We seem to think we have the luxury of being able to condemn who we like as though we have some leverage which the other players will have to recognise; quite mad.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nicholas said:
Alas, I have no idea how to correct this kind of insanity. How do we have an influence on the Foreign Office?
LikeLiked by 1 person
chalcedon451 said:
The FCO does occasionally talk to academics, but whether it listens is another matter.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jock McSporran said:
Nicholas – I find your love-in for Russia rather dangerous. I’m living and working in Poland – and here we fully understand Putin’s wish-list (which is to restore the glorious Soviet empire,) which would be bad news for us. One of the dangers of Britain leaving the EU is that it may well soften the EU resolve to defend itself against Russia and I may find myself teaching in Russian. I don’t particularly want to do this, even though I like the language.
We need a strong American-led NATO, which fully understands just how dangerous Putin is. Fortunately, we seem to have that right now. I find your talk rather dangerous – and I find myself reaching for my copy of Dostoyevskii’s ‘Brothers Karamazov’ with the interlinear translation, just in case there are people in Washington listening to the likes of you.
In this situation, ‘annoy Russia’ simply means ‘show that we’re prepared to defend our borders’. Fortunately, if Russia goes on the rampage against Syria or Turkey, then it has less resources to throw at us.
LikeLike
NEO said:
While I don’t entirely disagree with Jock, Russia does need to be watched, but that’s pretty ingrained in Westminster and Washington, or at least Michael Fallon sounds like he gets it. Brexit should energise the EU to learn to defend itself, for 70 years it has depended on the US and UK, time to grow up.
But Eastern Europe isn;t the world, and the Middle East can make a huge difference, in who lines up on each side. If North Americans are wise (always a doubtful thesis) we will simply re impoverish the entire region, which should make them at least a bit more tractable. Beyond that, Russia and the west do have common interests in the area, and the whole thing is about as clear as mud.
One could I think, define what needs to happen as ‘Think Globally, Act Locally’. But I doubt either America or Britain has any more taste for so-called ‘nation-building’. Not least because it hasn’t worked since Germany and Japan, and that effort strained our economy for 50 years.
And there is still another fly in the ointment, one must not forget what China seems to be up to. Not an existential threat to the US and the UK, perhaps. But it is to our Asian allies.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Nicholas said:
Indeed. I’m not in the dark about Russia’s aspirations, nor about how the average Russian sees things. It is unfortunate that Putin is not conciliatory like Yeltsin – but we can’t do anything about that. We have to live with the world as it is. I submit, we have more in common with Russia than we do with Turkey.
LikeLiked by 1 person
NEO said:
I agree, and such is becoming increasingly clear. Jock is correct though, eastern Europe is a concern, and many of them are full on allies.
But we need to remember also, that it is the same situation, albeit reversed, in Moscow, and they will see the same problems. It’s workable, but it’s going to take some innovative thinking, in my view.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jock McSporran said:
Well, I agree that we have a lot in common with Russia. We certainly have a lot more in common with Russia than we have with Switzerland. Russia gave us Dostoyevskii, Tolstoy, Prokofiev’s late piano sonatas, the Shostakovich string quartets, etc…
As Orson Wells pointed out (The Third Man – the line isn’t in Graham Greene’s novel), the Swiss have only ever given us the cuckoo clock. We do have (culturally) a lot in common with Russia and we owe them a debt of gratitude.
But our allies are Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, the Czech republic, Slovakia – and we have to oppose them when they engage in their characteristic monkey business.
LikeLike
Nicholas said:
It is unfortunate that Russia seeks to distract from its internal failings with this imperialistic narrative. At the moment they are undergoing a terrible cultural and spiritual crisis. There is a kind of shadow civil war going on for the heart of Russia.
LikeLike
Jock McSporran said:
Well, I think that was the point that Orson Wells was trying to make (he compared Switzerland with Italy; not with Russia). If you’re going to produce anything of cultural value, you probably need the occasional terrible cultural and spiritual crisis, which unfortunately probably results in horrible bloodshed.
The problem with the imperialistic narrative is that it is shared by the respectable middle classes, including those who have moved to ‘Western’ countries. Although I express it in general terms, I’m referring to particular examples of Russians whom I know very well. They exchange the vodka for Calvados – and drink enormous quantities of it, while considering that the countries they have moved to are culturally backward. They idolize life in Moscow and are quick to state (when they think they are among friends) that Yeltsin was the worst thing that ever happened to Russia and Putin is a great leader. I’m talking about respectable professors in good universities, well paid with nice houses and in every respect a nice lifestyle. So the imperialist narrative seems to be somewhat entrenched.
LikeLiked by 1 person