Nobody had any idea how the Middle East would turn out when the Treaty of Lausanne artificially disintegrated the legacy of the Ottoman Empire. Churchill created the borders we know today as he liked; however, it never occurred to him that this mandatory segmentation of the Middle East would cause a century of turmoil in the region. In the wake of the Treaty of Lausanne, the very same spurious concepts brought about by this disintegration have become a fountain of problems: borders, ethnic identity, and nationalism. The Middle East is not at ease. The conflict in Syria cannot be stopped; the Kurdish minorities feel unrest and so do the Alawites. This is what disintegration has caused in the Middle East. The Western world has always looked for ways to benefit more. The method employed in this pursuit can best be described as “perpetual segmentation — segmentation as far as possible”. This scheme has recently been hatched against Iraq; Iraq has been divided into three parts and thus lost all its power. There are also such plans regarding Turkey. The scheme of creating a weak Turkey, first by the detachment of South East Anatolia, and then the segmentation of coastal areas, one after another, is nothing new. These stealthy plans for the Middle East continue before our very eyes. Just as how disintegration worked for the West in the wake of Lausanne, the circles in power are in pursuit of gaining more power by more segmentation. The efforts to establish a modicum of unity in the Islamic world are appreciable but they deliver no results. The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation announced that “they are about to conclude” efforts of establishing a “Peace, Security and Mediation” unit that was founded a year ago. Within this one-year period, 44,000 people have been murdered in Syria, the conflict in Iraq has continued, and people in Egypt continued staging protests — many of which were met with violence — on the streets. Indeed, will this Peace, Security and Mediation Unit, which could not be established for a year, be capable of rendering the Middle East a region of peace and love? I highly doubt it. As with many other examples of the promise of such associations, meetings and mediators in history, this will also not deliver results. The resignation request of Syrian opposition leader Muaz Al-Khatib, known for his moderate attitude, was based on this deadlock of the institutions in question. Through his resignation, Al-Khatib reacted to the absence of actual deeds, despite rounds of meetings, promises made and the efforts of internationally recognised and established organisations. In the Arab League meeting, it was surely nice to see Al-Khatib representing Syria, but was it a success in the way of resolving problems? Has it changed the course of events? Is there any recovery on the horizon for Syria? Surely not. Looking at the past, we see disintegration as the basis of the Middle East problem. The Islamic world is disintegrated, people are forced to forget the concept of brotherliness, and borders and narrow self-interest has come to the fore. Under these circumstances none of the organisations of cooperation will provide a solution, for no matter how leaders may come together under a single roof, the peoples of the Islamic world are still disunited. The Quran commands the unity of Muslims. But what kind of unity? United as brothers. United as beloved ones. United as protectors of one another. A union in which everyone prefers the benefit of his brothers over and above his own. It is not a union established upon hatred towards one another, assuming an egoistic stance, considering one's own interests first, thinking oneself superior, ignoring problems, nor expressing rage towards other religions and nations. Unity is not meant as an intolerant, merciless, selfish unity. Allah does not grant blessings to such a unity, and He is clearly not granting His blessings currently. That the Syrian problem still persists is again a consequence of the absence of a unity based on love. In our era, a mobilisation that will ensure this unity must be staged in the Middle East. The apology offered by Israel to Turkey for the Mavi Marmara raid may be considered as an important peaceful beginning for this and we must make the most of it. In the Middle East, there is a need for a unity of friendship and power capable of being heeded by the Syrian regime. This unity must also be able to give guarantees to Putin about the new government in Syria. Now that the olive branch offered by Israel has considerably softened the climate, both in the region and especially in Turkey, the course of events will take a turn for the better, one hopes. Words of peace are precious and are often followed by many favourable developments. Right now, together with the cooperation of Israel and Egypt, Turkey may first ensure Bashar Al-Assad can leave Syria together with his family. Once the security measures are taken up, Al-Assad and his family can be relocated to another country, such as Turkey or Jordan. The other Arab countries must especially support this unity, bolster a moderate opposition — free from radical elements — and offer a guarantee on this issue to Russia. Once Russia sees this kind of powerful support, it will immediately withdraw its backing from the Al-Assad regime. Following this stage, it is highly probable that Iran will also withdraw its support, for Iran would not want to remain alone in the region. However, even if Iran sustains its support, as a single entity, it will not be powerful enough to uphold Al-Assad there. If the unity of love and peace among other Middle Eastern countries can be established in this manner, then the ensuing stability can support the requirements of this peaceful atmosphere. To accomplish this unity, Islamic countries must set aside their borders, ethno-centrism, their pasts and self-interests and unite solely for the purpose of love. The recent statement of Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu accentuates the importance of the unity of love. In the statement, Davutoglu said: “In the recent Israel-Palestinian conflict they told us, ‘Egypt has taken over the role of a mediator from Turkey and Turkey has remained in the background.' The fact is, we are in a competition neither with Egypt nor with any other country. We want to grow together with Egypt; we want to grow with all the other Islamic countries. We want to grow as a unity.” This statement is an account of the spirit that has to prevail in this unity. Unity of love means power. Nothing can stand before a power established on love. The unity of love will also take the non-Muslim countries under her wings. Accordingly, it will also be a guarantee for them and become an entity backed by them. First and foremost, Islamic countries can take the first steps into this unity by asking for the removal of passport and visa restrictions among themselves. This is a concrete measure and will solve a good many issues. What is essential is to desire it. If we persistently want it, Allah will certainly make it happen.
The writer is a commentator and religious and political analyst on Turkish TV and a peace activist.
