Best Drupal HostingBest Joomla HostingBest Wordpress Hosting
WORLD POLICY ON AIR

World Policy Journal is proud to share our weekly podcast, World Policy On Air, featuring former Newsweek On Air host David Alpern with timely insights from global affairs analyst Michael Moran of Transformative.io, risk and geostrategy consultants. Click here to subscribe on iTunes!

THE LATEST

AddToAny
Share/Save

Mideast Violence: Don't Blame the Brits for Bad Borders

by Nick Danforth

World leaders gathered at the U.N. General Assembly last weekend in New York to debate the proper division of the former British Mandate of Palestine. Looking at this intractable problem over the years, many claim that in addition to Christianity and cricket, the British Empire was also responsible for inflicting half a century of Mideast violence on the world. People as diverse as Vice President Joe Biden and comedian Jon Stewart have accused the British of drawing illogical and arbitrary borders that created the unstable foundations on which generations of regional conflict were built.

This accusation fails not because the borders were particularly good ones, but because it implies that there were better ones available. It suggests that if only the Brits—along with the French in their supporting role as quarrelsome imperial sidekick—had been more careful and tried really hard and maybe brushed away some more of the sand, they could have found authentic, logical borders that left everyone content. In fact, as those who have tried it know, drawing borders is messy business.

When the British and French took control of the Middle East after World War I, the region had been part of the Ottoman Empire for almost four centuries. Provincial boundaries had divided the region through a loose correspondence to the distribution of religious and ethnic groups within the region. These provinces, largely organized around cities such as Baghdad, Damascus, Aleppo, and Mosul, were too small and too economically interdependent to become independent states. Therefore, transforming the Ottoman Empire’s remains into economically viable, ethnically coherent modern nation states required some form of reorganization.

Even if Britain and France had undertaken this reorganization with the best of intentions, which they did not, how they could have done better is unclear. In Iraq, for example, any attempt to use Ottoman provisional boundaries to create smaller independent states would have run into many of the same problems that would accompany a division of Iraq today. A predominantly Kurdish state built around the old Ottoman province of Mosul would almost inevitability have become ensnared in the ongoing conflict between the Republic of Turkey and its own Kurdish minority. Similarly, a small Shiite state based on the Ottoman province of Basra would have proved a constant temptation of Iran, and a state based around the central province of Baghdad would have hated to sit back and watch its neighbors grow rich off oil deposits that it lacked.

What if the British and French had instead endorsed the logic of pan-Arabism and created one large Arab state encompassing the whole region? Such a state would still find difficulty with its Christian, Kurdish, and Shiite minorities. And with Iraq, Egypt, Syria, and Saudi Arabia all claiming preeminence in the Arab world, the question of leadership would have been contentious. Had such a state failed—like the short-lived United Arab Republic—its division would have posed the same problem discussed above. At best, creating more countries would have just meant more borders to fight over while creating fewer large countries would have turned regular wars into civil ones. And those who think things might have gone smoother if the Europeans had just left the region’s inhabitants to reorganize themselves should consider the fate of the Balkans. There, indigenous leaders took the initiative to draw their own borders , and the fighting lasted up through the 1990s.

The fundamental problem is that no “authentic” or “natural” borders exist waiting to be identified and transcribed onto a map. Straight lines always appear suspicious, but the only reason Europe’s squigglier borders appear more natural is because Europeans fought over them for the past millenium. 

Winston Churchill may have drawn the border between Iraq and Jordan with a pen, but he also drew the border between France and Germany over the course of two world wars and millions of casualties. Determining whether Alsace and Lorraine would be French or German was never as simple as just sending a commission to find out where the French people stopped and the German people started. Similarly, no commission, no matter the good intentions, could have been expected to find the magic line that got all the Sunnis on one side, the Shiites on the other, and the oil right in the middle. In fact, the bloodiest war in recent Mideast history, with as many as ten times more casualties than all of the Arab-Israeli wars put together, was the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war, fought over a border that had remained largely unchanged since the 16th century conquests of Suleiman the Magnificent.

Britain and France (and America) deserve some of the blame for this war for other reasons, but their borders were innocent. Saddam Hussein, for his part, went on to invade Kuwait after claiming the British had unjustly separated the territory from Iraq in 1899. Immediately after, he brutally suppressed a Kurdish rebellion in defense of the equally high-handed British decision to attach Kirkuk (and its oil fields) to Iraq.

Today, it is the extremists on both sides of the Arab-Israeli conflict who are endorsing the region’s colonial borders. Israelis eager to annex the West Bank and Palestinians eager to destroy Israel both seek to make their state have the same boundaries with the 1922 British Palestine border.  The 1947 U.N. partition plan’s borders, drawn by an international committee based on economics and demography, go largely unmentioned while reasonable people on both sides look to the 1967 borders, which owe their existence to the 1948 war, as the basis of a lasting two-state solution. Too often, denouncing one set of borders as arbitrary serves little more than a pretext for suggesting another, equally arbitrary arrangement. A better conclusion might be that borders work not because they are the rights ones, but because people living on both sides decide that they should.

*****
*****

Nick Danforth is a doctoral student in history at Georgetown University. 

[Photo courtesy of Magh]

Share/Save

Anonymous's picture
1947 borders


"The 1947 U.N. partition plan’s borders, drawn by an international committee based on economics and demography, go largely unmentioned.." Yes and with good reason Israel will never withdraw to the 1947 borders they would have to move millions of Israelis to do so the country would also be economically ruined.

Anonymous's picture
Internal structure of the states is also a factor.


For some reason, our attempts to create new states usually starts with the assumption that all power will be in the hands of the central government. Combine this with a geographically diverse population and everyone is fighting over a single prize. A federal system COULD, as with our own country, give those diverse religious and ethnic groups a measure of control over their own affairs while still making it easy to band together against larger neighbors. Success, as you noted, would ultimately depend on the willingness of the participants to forge and respect the federal agreement.
Post new comment
The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly. If you have a Gravatar account, used to display your avatar.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image. Ignore spaces and be careful about upper and lower case.
FALL FUNDRAISER

 

Around WPI

Jihad in Sub-Saharan Africa 

This paper, “Jihad in Sub-Saharan Africa: Challenging the Narratives of the War on Terror,” examines the history of Islamic movements in Africa's Sahel region to contextualize current conflicts.

World Economic Roundtable with Vicente Fox 

In this World Economic Roundtable, former Mexican President Vicente Fox discusses his current quest to make his country a hub for technology. 

Intern at World Policy


Want to join our team? Looking for an experience at one of the most highly sought-after internships for ambitious students? Application details here.

 

Al Gore presides over Arctic Roundtable 

As the United States prepares to assume chairmanship of the Arctic Council in 2015, this inaugural convening of the Arctic Deeply Roundtables launches a vital conversation for our times. 

SPONSORED

When the Senate Worked for Us:
New book offers untold stories of how activist staffers countered corporate lobbies in the U.S.


Are the U.S. and China on a collision course?
Get the facts from Amitai Etzioni in “Avoiding War with China.”


MA in International Policy and Development
Middlebury Institute (Monterey, CA): Put theory into practice through client-based coursework. Apply by Nov. 30.

WEEKLY NEWSLETTER

To learn about the latest in media, programming, and fellowship, subscribe to the World Policy Weekly Newsletter and read through our archives.

World Policy on Facebook

FOLLOW US