Iraq - Then and Now
By Professor Loukis TheocharidesWhether the United States should have invaded Iraq or not has been much discussed, but by now that question is academic. We will leave it to professors of Middle Eastern Studies to argue it back and forth with their students. The burning issues of the day is what to do with a conquered Iraq.
To begin with, there sould never have been an Iraq with the present boundaries. In antquity there was Sumer, a small area near the Persian Gulf were civilization first began. Modern historians speak fondly of Sumer and say "history began in Sumer." After that there were empires of various sizes and names: Babylnians, Assyrian, Persian, etc. What has affinity with today's Iraq was the Arab Empire that controlled Middle East and had Baghdad as its capital. It ws a marvel of a city.
Bahdad had the best university in the world at that time, built around 800 AD by Al-Mamun, the fabled Caliph. Known as the "House of Wisdom,"it was modeled after the famous Alexandrian "Museum," a word whose original meaning was a temple dedicated to the Muses, the inspirers of all learning. Just like the "Museum," the "House of Wisdom" included a school of the highest learning and an extensve library. Plus something new: a bureau of translation, where books in foreign languages, especially Greek, were translated. The Arabs, not only mastered the Greek learning, especially Plato, Aristotle and Euclid, but they also made original contributions in philosophy, astronomy, medicine and mathematics. The word algebra, after all, is Arabic. Then catastophe. The Mongols struck in 1258. Thousands were massacred, the irrigations system was destroyed , the artists and professors scattered, never to return.
That was Iraq then. The Iraq of today begins when the British conquered the area from the Turks in 1917. When they came they declared themselves to be liberators, but they stayed as colonizers. Ancient names were discarded and the area was called Iraq, the land of the cliffs. The British carved out its boundaries, putting together Shias, Sunnies and Kurds to suit their own colonial interests. They really created an artificial state of three feuding elements. The Kurds were crushed.
Recently, Churchill's grandson (also named Winston Churchill) appeared on American television and admitted that his grandfather, as Secretary for the Colonies, was wrong in frustrating the wish of the Kurds for an independent state of their own. Such a state, by the way, was endorsed by the Conference of Versailles as part of the Treaty of Sevres in August 1920. He also said that he hoped that the wrong committed against the hapless Kurds would be corrected by establishing as independent Kurdish state now that the opportunity has arisen. He, nevertheless, tried to be nice to the memory of his dear grandpa by saying that his grandfather did what he did "against" his better judgment." Knowing what a dreadful imperialist the old man was, I doubt that he ever had pangs of conscience. It is true, however, that Churchill was not the only criminal in this case.
Two other artificial states were created at that time: Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia. The first as a bulwark against an expanding Germany! The second against Italy, which, according to Bismark, "had a great appetite, bt it had bad teeth." Neither worked. We know what happened: oppression, rebellions, massacres. Recently the Czechoslovakians had a stroke of good sense. Czechoslovakia split up into two ? the Czech Republic and Slovakia, without firing a shot. You see, even humans can be reasonable at times. As if the creation of Yugoslavia was not bad enough, NATO recently created Bosnia, a mini Yugoslavia. It would have been better to allow the Serbs of Bosnia to join Serbia, the Croats Croatia, and the Moslems to creat a Moslem state with a name of their own choosing. This is what should happen with Iraq as well.
At least this should be the case with the Kurds who desperately need independence. Being part of another state has been very costly for the,. Professor Robert Olson, an authority on the Kurdish question, in a recent article writes that the estimate of the Kurds killed by the Iraqis is 400,000. About 4,000 Kurdish villages were destroyed. It is estimated that the Turks killed 30,000. Is there any guarentee that in the future these atrocities will not be repeayed? Clear-cut solutions are the best, for they permit each nation to establish its own independent nation-state, and be masters in their own house, free from oppression and free to form their own cultures. But for an independent Kurdish state to survive against Turkish threats it needs help.
Mr. Bush of the great state of Texas, don't give your F16's and your billions to the powerful. Give them to the poor and the weak so they can defend their own liberty.
| |
HOME PAGE