Log In | Register
I am not usually in the business of quoting Jerry Springer. If the mental image of his tawdry show just flashed into your mind, you know what I mean. A friend of mine verbally hit me on the head with this quote, and it made sense at some level. Apparently Springer said, "if we go back far enough, we all have to get off the land we're on".
He said this about the Israel-Palestine conflict, the world's true long war. It is one of the most inextricable conflicts in the world too. The Israelis claim the land based on their traditions, while the Palestinians have lived there, and were living there at the drawing of modern borders. The state of Israel was created by military force, without recourse to the de facto owners of the land, who being militarily weaker have resorted to terrorism which the world condemns. Should the Israelis give back the land they have taken by UN mandate and military force? Should the Palestinians in turn get off the land which they migrated to. Who originally owned the land?
So Springer was making sense. The sense I make of his statement is that history has a bearing on the present, must be recognised and dealt with, but history can not be reversed.
How about Africa? Nigeria for example, was created out of 250 different ethnic groups. At the time, the British imposed their Pax-britannica at the butt of their maxim guns, the Sokoto Caliphate was waging a succeeding jihad against surrounding Kingdoms in modern day Nigeria. When Independence from Britain was negotiated away and Harold Wilson's "wind of change" blew over the country, the Sokoto Caliphate sought to continue their interrupted war. This explains the religious conflicts that continue to plague the country in contemporary times as the country tries to forge a nation from what the country's citizens have often called a mere geographical expression, artifically constructed by the British.
How about the United States and its southern neighbour and foremost ally? Millions of Mexicans have swarmed the United States from the South in search of the good life. 160 years ago, in the Mexican War, the United States had defeated Mexico and annexed, California, Nevada, Arizona, Utah and New Mexico. Texas, which had previously seceded from Mexico also became a part of the United States. At the present time, some people have claimed that the alleged disrespect of Mexicans of the US borders is a mark of Mexico's bid for reconquista (re-conquest). Whatever the case may be, it is clear that the United States has the Rights and power to defend its borders from Mexico even if not from migrant workers. How much history affects the present immigration debacle in the United States is unclear, though some Mexican immigrants have been heard saying that America (South and North) is one continent and the borders shouldn't restrict flow.
How about Iran, known in ancient times as Persia? The 1907 Anglo-Russian entente witnessed an agreement by the British crown and the Tzarist government of Russia to
respect the integrity and independence of Persia, and sincerely desiring the preservation of order throughout that country and its peaceful development, as well as the permanent establishment of equal advantages for the trade and industry of all other nations".
This entente had a significant impact on the modern borders of Iran but did not prevent both nations from invading Iran in 1941 becoming another in the list of nations; Phoenicians, Arabs, Mongols, etc. who have over the centuries. The Iranians turned to the US when the Soviets, hiding behind an interest in Azerbaijan, started showing signs of expansionist interest and a desire to spread Communist influence in the region through the support of Northern separatists in Iran. The United States helped checkmate this and Iran tilted towards warm relations with the United States.
Eventually, Iran's honeymoon with the United States ended, starting from an American-backed coup against Iran's Prime Minister, Mohammed Mossadegh. Mossadegh, Time Magazine's 1951 Man of the Year, had drawn the ire of the British for nationalising the Anglo-Iranian oil company, an action for which Iran had faced a punitive global embargo on Iranian oil. The United States went on to back the repressive regime of the Shah who brutally frustrated popular campaigns for democracy and social change.
The Soviets were not going to be locked out of the oil-rich nation. Following a 1962 deal in which Iran committed to not allowing military bases or other facilities which may be used to launch an attack on the Soviet Union, given the shared border with Iran. Starting after that, the Soviets began to exchange technology for oil and gas, leading finally into the present nuclear technology deals.
In 1979, the Iranian Revolution led to a replacement of the Persian Monarchy with a theocratic state with elected officials and a constitutional government. This changed Iran's orientation from the US, and Britain but never altered the relationship with the Soviets (and now the Russians).
The United States continued to subvert the Teheran government and with the emergence of Israel and Iraq as dominant military powers in the Middle-East, backed by the United States, it is easy to understand why Iranians would feel the need to defy the US and Britain on nuclear technology.
How about American Neo-cons who want America to "spread democracy" and expand its spheres of influence militarily. These people who tend, in the broadest, most generalistic sense, to be less supportive of immigration forget that American influence is going to force one of the greatest influxes of legal and illegal immigrants to America in the future. Ask the French and Brits, the former imperialists, who are thronged by citizens of their former colonies. They want America to buy what they might break in an imperialistic, sphere-of-influence expansion drive.
To quote M.K.O Abiola, the Nigerian pro-democracy martyr and billionaire (strange that anyone could be both, right); who said, with respect to his campaign for Western reparations for Colonialism and Slavery, that "the most progressive of causes is the drive to right the wrongs of history to and consolidate universal rights".
At the same time, those who wish to reverse history or revise it, by changing the present order to revert to past orders, are as reactionary as the original French reactionaries. Where lies the balance? One can argue that the balance lies in Economics; costs and benefits.
The Palestinians know in their heart of hearts that Israel is there to stay and can not be wished away. It is a net welfare loss to the world for Israel to make Palestinians second-class citizens on their land. Nigeria's need for nationhood (one out of every 7 black people in the world is either Nigerian or of Nigerian origin) is necessary for the progress of negroid people and the Othman Dan Fodio's wars just have to be laid to permanent rest for this to happen.
Mexico and America will be neighbours forever and the people to those countries would move across whatever the borders maybe as long as there are people in the two countries. American attempts to prevent this movement would eventually lead to war, as history shows. Mexico can not take back US territory either. Not in this century.
Iran's bid to establish as a powerful nation, capable of strong national defense is understandable given their ancient and contemporary history. The chances that it would become friendly to Britain and the US are slim looking well into the future. Pacification of Iran would not work given the power configuration of today's world. The only way to contain, and perhaps even restrain Teheran is a clear menu of sticks and carrots, actions and consequences with clear restraints on its ability to aggress, and unambiguous isolation to the extent that Iran transparently looks like a threat to any country. Its drive towards a strong national defence can only be delayed but not prevented.
The state of the world today is a direct result of the history of the United States, Great Britain, France, Germany, China, Japan, Italy, Spain, Russia, their military successes and failures, and the use or abuses of their power.
If we could reverse or revise history, how would the world be different? How many of our present day conflicts, injustices and crises could we avoid?
