People in our region have long been caught between two conflicting feelings. On the one hand, rosy dreams of Arab unity that would eventually concretise in the form of a single huge Arab state extending from the Atlantic to the Gulf. On the other, the nightmare of a grand conspiracy to fragment the Arab nation, the most notorious evidence for which was the Sykes-Picot Accords struck between London and Paris during World War I. Indeed, from a practical standpoint, our outlook was informed by the Arab experience during that war, which saw the drive to create an Arab kingdom and Anglo-French collusion to partition the Arab region, or the Ottoman legacy in the Middle East. In the grip of vying sentiments of ambition and fear, we hailed curses down on the “nation state” because it fell short of the dream and did not have the power to inspire our hearts. What we lacked was a global overview; an awareness of how the great empires of history — the Hellenic, Roman, Islamic, Ottoman, Portuguese and Spanish empires — all crumbled under the pressures of the emergent nation state. When you look at a map of Europe you will find large countries such as France, Germany and Spain. But you will also find countries that are relative dots on the map, such as Luxembourg, Lichtenstein and Slovenia, as well as a number of other small states that had once been part of a larger empire. Now we are in the age of globalisation whose technological and economic instruments are supposed to link the world into one. Yet amazingly, the maps of the world changed with astounding speed during the last quarter of the 20th century, as larger countries dissolved and new national flags proliferated in front of the UN. Not even the Soviet Union's nuclear might could prevent it from disintegrating into 15 states, and Russia is still staring at the spectre of further disintegration due to strains from Islamic regions. Nor could the bonds generated by the collective relief of liberation from Nazi rule or by the Communist Party keep Yugoslavia from splitting into six states, inclusive of Kosovo. In Africa, Eritrea seceded from Ethiopia, South Sudan seceded from Sudan, and it remains to be seen what will happen with the regions of Darfur and Kordofan. It is commonly believed that dictatorships are unable to preserve their national integrity and unity while democracies are the form of government that can hold their countries together. Germany is often cited as the example of a country that not only did that but also reassembled its dismantled pieces, in spite of the general ideological trend during the Cold War. However, Slovakia seceded from the Czech republic, creating another change at the heart of Europe, and this took place in a democratic context. It was another prime example of history's cutting ironies: secessionist movements continued even as all in Europe were rushing to climb aboard the train of EU unification and everyone elsewhere was trying to catch up with the “one world” being shaped by the process of globalisation. Never before in history had the far-flung corners of the world become closer than they are today. In the Middle East, the situation appears very different, perhaps because we are in the midst of a process of massive upheaval while the game of musical chairs unfolds to the accompaniment of the pangs of a difficult birth, cries that pierce the heavens, neck-high pools of blood, and flying shrapnel that fans out across greater distances than ever before. Evidently, the time of redrawing maps has arrived. The starting point was probably Iraq, which for all practical and psychological purposes has split into three. The disintegration had begun in the era of Saddam Hussein when a Kurdish quasi-state was established in the north, a no-fly zone was created for the south, while the central authority continued to exercise its power over the middle of the country until it was toppled following the US invasion, after which the Iraqi state had little to hold it together but the unity of conflict that binds all in a morass of hatred and bloodshed. Today, Syria has become the focus of attention. Although all parties participating in the diplomatic fray over the Syrian state continue to speak in terms of the preservation of that country's territorial integrity, they all know that once the guns fall silent and the smoke clears Syria will not return to what it was. They know that, in spite of what they may wish, it will not head in the direction of a democratic state founded on the principle of full and equal citizenship in which there is no discrimination between Arab and Kurd, Muslim and Christian, or Sunni, Shia and Alawi. After the blood that has been shed so copiously during this war, each region will recoil into itself and the territorial beads will unravel, as occurred in Croatia and Slovenia and in more horrifying ways in Bosnia, Herzegovina and Kosovo. Outside observers see only a region in the process of reshaping its map. Whether they regard this as a possible route back to stability or just the inexorable logic of things, they predict the rise of an Alawite state on the shores of the Mediterranean and a Kurdish state extending from northern Iraq into Syria, with possible repercussions northwards into Turkey and eastwards into Iran, Azerbaijan and Baluchistan. The process may also extend into North Africa, starting with Libya and possibly ricocheting into neighbouring Algeria and Morocco. The maps are changing. But this region has experienced this before. Territorial boundaries are not immutable. Countries remain united if the unifying factors and advantages of unity outweigh the factors and/or advantages of division. Countries unify and merge either due to the forces of might and domination, or as a product of the growth of a unified market and common interests. Frequently shared ethnic or religious affiliations, or a fear of a common historical enemy, can also be cohesive forces. States begin to disintegrate when such unifying factors no longer exist, or when unity is held together by nothing but a legacy of oppression, tyranny and intransigent despotism. In such cases, local mineral wealth or special international relations may add extra lure to the option of secession. In the Arab world, oil offers the opportunity for collective development and prosperity. But all too frequently it has been a source of discord and conflict over the division of wealth. Kirkuk in Iraq was a flashpoint in the conflict over oil; more recently another emerged in Abyei. In Syria, the major oil fields are located in the Kurdish region and in Libya a secessionist trend in Barqa (Cyrenaica) was fed by the fact that it sits atop most of Libya's oil. We could point to similar instances elsewhere. This is not to suggest that the mere presence of oil is necessarily a centrifugal force. But it cannot be ignored as a possible source of conflict and secessionist trends. Unfortunately, central governments have been so intent on chanting the refrains of a “single social fabric” and a “shared destiny” that they began to believe themselves. Then, when the fabric began to fray and unravel, they blamed the “foreign element”. That element certainly exists, but it only arrives when the ground has been prepared.
