Middle East Chauvinism

The international community still insists on dealing with countries through a “state-centric" approach. Implicitly and often explicitly, this excludes the agency of ethnic minorities within those countries. Concerning the Middle East, though colonial powers played a decisive role in drawing the map of much of the modern Middle East, one could ask why there are not more states 100 years after the controversial Sykes-Picot agreement. Consider the fact that there are only Arab, Persian, Turkish—and a sole Jewish state in the region. What of the Amazigh, Kurds, Sahrawis, and others?

Self-determination is a fundamental right for all peoples and must be realized through peaceful, democratic means as much as possible. Now more than ever, it is clear that ethnic minorities—patricularly in the Middle East—should be guaranteed equal rights just like the ethnic majorities in those countries. If this is not delivered upon satisfactorily, then other avenues must be considered, and concrete steps must be taken to ensure such rights are upheld.

Merriam-Webster defines chauvinism in part as excessive or blind patriotism and behaving with superiority. For decades many Middle Eastern countries behaved in a superior manner, denying basic rights to ethnic and religious minorities—and in some extreme cases the majority as well. Throughout the region, many countries still operate in such a manner.

On the periphery of the Arab world, Morocco sits as a bridge between Europe and North Africa. Ethnically heterogeneous and long considered stable, Arabs and indigenous Amazigh have intermarried so much over the centuries that in many cases it is hard to account for who is an Arab and who is Amazigh.

However, this “island of stability” has been occupying Western Sahara, considered Africa's last colony for over 40 years. Sahrawis have “... not only [been] denied a right to self-determination but are also having their resources plundered by an illegal occupation” that reaps enormous benefits from the mineral-rich area also known for its abundant coastal fisheries. Earlier this year, Morocco's King Mohammed reiterated that there will be no compromise regarding any final status agreements with Western Sahara, and that “autonomy is the maximum Morocco can offer.”

It was not until after the civil war broke out, in April 2011 that the President of the Syrian Arab Republic “gave” hundreds of thousands of previously stateless Syrian Kurds citizenship, though they had already been living in Syria for over half a century. Rendered second class citizens at best, this mistreatment dates back to Bashar al-Assad's father and former president—at least. Attempting to provide a veneer of reform, in reality, this perfunctory and 'conciliatory' move was too little and came far too late. Given the situation in Kurdish-majority areas of Syria, any serious negotiations regarding Syria's future must include its emboldened Kurds.

While the international community overwhelmingly backs a Palestinian state, it is unfortunate that its leadership may not desire to see others in the region reach similar international recognition.

This past September, though the Palestine Consulate in Erbil denied the statement, Secretary-General of the Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), Saeb Erekat, was quoted in al-Arabiya stating that “Kurdish independence would be a poisoned sword against the Arabs.” Erekat reportedly added, “The Kurds fight for independence against Turkey, Syria, Iran, and now ISIS...but taking issue with Israel above...[and] often to the exclusion of anything else, is such an embedded meme among the Muslim world and Western leftists that the Palestine lobby very often finds itself incapable of showing its solidarity with the Kurds.”

So rather than supporting another groups' right to self-determination, opposing Israel trumps all else. Interesting then that Erekat recently spoke at the left-leaning “Haaretz and New Israel Fund conference” last week, albeit without the Israeli or Palestinian flag behind him.

In 2013, ten years after the US invaded Iraq, the Iraqi Parliament debated whether or not Kurdish would be considered an official language, and where it would granted official status. Then-leader of the Kurdistani bloc in Baghdad lamented, "All the [Arab] Shiite and Sunni blocs in parliament are against Iraq’s official languages bill.” He continued, "The Constitution itself says that Kurdish and Arabic are two official languages in Iraq, but...they are not willing to pass this law because they think it will weaken the Arabic language." The real fear was not that Kurdish would weaken Arabic, but that Iraqi influence, in general, would weaken throughout the Kurdistan Region.

The notion that some countries and communities in the Middle East believe it is “theirs” is historically flawed, non-factual, and often chauvinistic. The belief that only certain ethnic groups have the right to self-determination is anachronistic, dangerous, and perpetuates stagnation and instability in an already tumultuous and rapidly changing region. The political culture of chauvinism is not new, nor is it only endemic to the Middle East. However, if the region genuinely desires progress and stability, it will need to address the valid concerns of its minorities.