Sind die nach dem Ersten Weltkrieg gezogenen Grenzen für das Chaos im Nahen Osten verantwortlich?

„The ‚end of Sykes-Picot‘ argument is almost always followed with an exposition of the artificial nature of the countries in the region. Their borders do not make sense, according to this argument, because there are people of different religions, sects, and ethnicities within them. The current fragmentation of the Middle East is thus the result of hatreds and conflicts – struggles that ‚date back millennia,‘ as U.S. President Barack Obama said – that Sykes and Picot unwittingly released by creating these unnatural states. The answer is new borders, which will resolve all the unnecessary damage the two diplomats wrought over the previous century. Yet this focus on Sykes-Picot is a combination of bad history and shoddy social science. …

The weaknesses and contradictions of authoritarian regimes are at the heart of the Middle East’s ongoing tribulations. Even the rampant ethnic and religious sectarianism is a result of this authoritarianism, which has come to define the Middle East’s state system far more than the Sykes-Picot agreement ever did.

The region’s ‚unnatural‘ borders did not lead to the Middle East’s ethnic and religious divisions. The ones to blame are the cynical political leaders who foster those divisions in hopes of maintaining their rule. … Identity politics play a role in the unfolding struggles for control in the Middle East, but they are not necessarily the root of the region’s conflicts. Instead, it is the style of politics and government chosen by successive Middle Eastern leaders that has pitted their own populations against each other.“ (Der Buchautor Steven A. Cook und Amr T. Leheta auf der Website von Foreign PolicyDon’t Blame Sykes-Picot for the Middle East’s Mess“)

Schreiben Sie einen Kommentar

Schreiben Sie einen Kommentar

Sie müssen angemeldet sein, um einen Kommentar abzugeben.