The serious solution to the middle east problems
DiscussieHistory: On learning from and writing history
Sluit je aan bij LibraryThing om te posten.
Dit onderwerp is gemarkeerd als "slapend"—het laatste bericht is van meer dan 90 dagen geleden. Je kan het activeren door een een bericht toe te voegen.
1Urquhart
How history echoes Syria’s unholy war
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/914a4f24-9845-11e5-9228-87e603d47bdc.html
I think this article is important and have accordingly typed it up for your reading. The FT does not like people to do this but this is the one and only time I have done it. It also took a lot of time to type so hopefully I have used my time well and people will read it.
It goes to the heart of this history group’s motto and the relevance of history to today.
How history echoes Syria’s unholy war
By Philip Stephens
The Middle East reminds us that there is nothing so unholy as a holy war. Europe learnt this in the 17th century. Confessional competition between Catholicism and Protestantism fused with temporal rivalry to provoke the Thirty Years’ War among the continent’s leading powers.
The fighting, bloodier than any previously seen, ended when raison d’état triumphed over theology. The Peace of Westphalia in 1648 marked the end of Europe’s great wars of religion. This should tell us something about the present conflict in Syria.
The wholesale slaughter that followed could not have been imagined in 1618, when mainly Protestant Bohemia rose up against the Catholic Holy Roman Empire. The subsequent wars-there were several-drew in Habsburg Spain and Austria, France, the Netherlands, Sweden, Poland, Russia, Denmark and the big German principalities, England, Scotland, the Ottoman Empire and Russia all claimed walk-on parts.
The fighting was mostly on German soil, but the battles were between armies of foreign mercenaries. As befits wars conducted in the name of God, cruelty and brutality were endemic. By many accounts, the population of Germany was cut by a third or more. Torture and mass burings of alleged witches were commonplace.
For Catholic and Protestant, read Shia and Sunni. There are, I am sure, a hundred differences between th horrors that engulfed Europe and the flames consuming Syria. There are also uncomfortable coincidences. The brutality flowing from the intertwining of the spiritual and territorial is one; the misfortune of a patch of ground-Germany then, Syria now-in becoming a battlefield for outside powers is another.
The Thirty Years’ War began as an assertion of independence by the Protestant princes of Bohemia and Germany against the Catholic Holy Roman Empire. But it was also about France’s fear of encirclement by the Habsburgs of Spain and Austria, the Dutch struggle for independence fromn Spain, Sweden’s bid to assert itself, Poland’s eclipse and Denmark’s last throw as a big power. Half-a-dozen other states also claimed a vital national interest in the outcome.
Confessional loyalties were sometimes elbowed aside by secular ambitions. Thus Catholic France joined with Protestant Sweden against its co-religionists in Spain and Austria-just, perhaps, as Shia Iran now finds advantage in allaying itself with Sunni Hama. Protest Denmark fought at different moments on either side of the confessional divide. Competing Lutherans and Calvinists sometimes questioned if Rome was the real enemy.
By 1648, the wars had recast the geo-political balance. France emerge a victor, the Holy Roman Empire a loser. Westphalia became a foundation for the modern European sate. If there was a thread running through the various treaties that settled the territorial disputes it was that the confessional choices of states should no longer be a casus belli. Today’s Middle East, with the same combustible mix of theological and earthly rivalry, is a long way from reaching such an understanding.
One way of looking at the fight in Syria is an uprising of majority Sunni against the Alawite, or quasi Shia, regime of Bashar al- Assad. This is the obverse, you could say, of what happened in Iraq: the fanatics of the self-styled Islamic State have prospered with the support of Iraqi Sunnis disposed by the toppling of Saddam Hussein.
The dividing lines on the ground are important. But, as in 17th-century Europe, what has kept the fires burning has been the involvement of outside powers. Syria has become the arena for the long-simmering regional contest between (Sunni) Saudi Arabia and its Gulf allies on one side, and (Shia) Iran on the other. Russia sees a vital national interest in sustaining the regime in Damascus; Turkey in overthrowing.
Recep Taryip Erdogan, Turkish president, talks about the enemies of Mr. Assad as his “Sunni brothers”. But the shooting down of a Russian jet by Turkish warplanes patrolling the Syrian border has little to do with rival versions of Islam. Ankara’s fear is the emergence of a powerful Kurdish entity in norther Syria nd Iraq-a concern that explains its danger ambivalence towards ISIS. Russia, like the US and Europe, sees Isis as a serious threat, but does not want to risk losing its Mediterranean naval base.
For Tehran, the preservation of the Assad regime is part of a strategy that has seen Iran push its influence deep into the Arab world. Saudi Arabia and the Gulf monarchies was to counter with they fear is Iranian encirclement. These Sunni states also want to see Isis defeated, but not at the price of a victory for Tehran. And here are just a few of the dizzying complexities of the conflict.
For the US and its allies, the over aching interest is the re-establishment of regional stability and the defeat of the Isis jihadis. But this is a conflict that defies partial solutions. An eventual peace will demand the unravelling of the confessional and the temporal-that religion surrenders to realpolitik.
The Gordian knot is the struggle between Iran and Saudi Arabia, but a settlement would have also to acknowledge Russia’s interests and Turkey’s fears. Impossible, many will say. Maybe. But until it happens, today’s Syria will live the horrors of 17th-century Germany; and Isis will continue to find a safe have for its twisted credo.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/914a4f24-9845-11e5-9228-87e603d47bdc.html
I think this article is important and have accordingly typed it up for your reading. The FT does not like people to do this but this is the one and only time I have done it. It also took a lot of time to type so hopefully I have used my time well and people will read it.
It goes to the heart of this history group’s motto and the relevance of history to today.
How history echoes Syria’s unholy war
By Philip Stephens
The Middle East reminds us that there is nothing so unholy as a holy war. Europe learnt this in the 17th century. Confessional competition between Catholicism and Protestantism fused with temporal rivalry to provoke the Thirty Years’ War among the continent’s leading powers.
The fighting, bloodier than any previously seen, ended when raison d’état triumphed over theology. The Peace of Westphalia in 1648 marked the end of Europe’s great wars of religion. This should tell us something about the present conflict in Syria.
The wholesale slaughter that followed could not have been imagined in 1618, when mainly Protestant Bohemia rose up against the Catholic Holy Roman Empire. The subsequent wars-there were several-drew in Habsburg Spain and Austria, France, the Netherlands, Sweden, Poland, Russia, Denmark and the big German principalities, England, Scotland, the Ottoman Empire and Russia all claimed walk-on parts.
The fighting was mostly on German soil, but the battles were between armies of foreign mercenaries. As befits wars conducted in the name of God, cruelty and brutality were endemic. By many accounts, the population of Germany was cut by a third or more. Torture and mass burings of alleged witches were commonplace.
For Catholic and Protestant, read Shia and Sunni. There are, I am sure, a hundred differences between th horrors that engulfed Europe and the flames consuming Syria. There are also uncomfortable coincidences. The brutality flowing from the intertwining of the spiritual and territorial is one; the misfortune of a patch of ground-Germany then, Syria now-in becoming a battlefield for outside powers is another.
The Thirty Years’ War began as an assertion of independence by the Protestant princes of Bohemia and Germany against the Catholic Holy Roman Empire. But it was also about France’s fear of encirclement by the Habsburgs of Spain and Austria, the Dutch struggle for independence fromn Spain, Sweden’s bid to assert itself, Poland’s eclipse and Denmark’s last throw as a big power. Half-a-dozen other states also claimed a vital national interest in the outcome.
Confessional loyalties were sometimes elbowed aside by secular ambitions. Thus Catholic France joined with Protestant Sweden against its co-religionists in Spain and Austria-just, perhaps, as Shia Iran now finds advantage in allaying itself with Sunni Hama. Protest Denmark fought at different moments on either side of the confessional divide. Competing Lutherans and Calvinists sometimes questioned if Rome was the real enemy.
By 1648, the wars had recast the geo-political balance. France emerge a victor, the Holy Roman Empire a loser. Westphalia became a foundation for the modern European sate. If there was a thread running through the various treaties that settled the territorial disputes it was that the confessional choices of states should no longer be a casus belli. Today’s Middle East, with the same combustible mix of theological and earthly rivalry, is a long way from reaching such an understanding.
One way of looking at the fight in Syria is an uprising of majority Sunni against the Alawite, or quasi Shia, regime of Bashar al- Assad. This is the obverse, you could say, of what happened in Iraq: the fanatics of the self-styled Islamic State have prospered with the support of Iraqi Sunnis disposed by the toppling of Saddam Hussein.
The dividing lines on the ground are important. But, as in 17th-century Europe, what has kept the fires burning has been the involvement of outside powers. Syria has become the arena for the long-simmering regional contest between (Sunni) Saudi Arabia and its Gulf allies on one side, and (Shia) Iran on the other. Russia sees a vital national interest in sustaining the regime in Damascus; Turkey in overthrowing.
Recep Taryip Erdogan, Turkish president, talks about the enemies of Mr. Assad as his “Sunni brothers”. But the shooting down of a Russian jet by Turkish warplanes patrolling the Syrian border has little to do with rival versions of Islam. Ankara’s fear is the emergence of a powerful Kurdish entity in norther Syria nd Iraq-a concern that explains its danger ambivalence towards ISIS. Russia, like the US and Europe, sees Isis as a serious threat, but does not want to risk losing its Mediterranean naval base.
For Tehran, the preservation of the Assad regime is part of a strategy that has seen Iran push its influence deep into the Arab world. Saudi Arabia and the Gulf monarchies was to counter with they fear is Iranian encirclement. These Sunni states also want to see Isis defeated, but not at the price of a victory for Tehran. And here are just a few of the dizzying complexities of the conflict.
For the US and its allies, the over aching interest is the re-establishment of regional stability and the defeat of the Isis jihadis. But this is a conflict that defies partial solutions. An eventual peace will demand the unravelling of the confessional and the temporal-that religion surrenders to realpolitik.
The Gordian knot is the struggle between Iran and Saudi Arabia, but a settlement would have also to acknowledge Russia’s interests and Turkey’s fears. Impossible, many will say. Maybe. But until it happens, today’s Syria will live the horrors of 17th-century Germany; and Isis will continue to find a safe have for its twisted credo.
2Muscogulus
The Financial Times is behind a paywall.
4Urquhart
Now that people have access to the article, it is my hope people will invest a little time in it.
5JerryMmm
Thanks.
you can often google a random line from an article to find a free version online:
http://www.syriahr.com/en/2015/12/how-history-answers-syrias-unholy-war/
google's cache has the article as well on the salmon pages.
you can often google a random line from an article to find a free version online:
http://www.syriahr.com/en/2015/12/how-history-answers-syrias-unholy-war/
google's cache has the article as well on the salmon pages.
8khanPrasad123
Deze gebruiker is verwijderd als spam.
