World War I and the Middle East
How would you reconcile the ethnic differences in determining state boundaries? Consider cultural, religious, geographical, and historic dimensions.
The Middle East States face conflict and stability as a result of the concept of self-determination. The States have territorial aspirations and differ in terms of their state of being in that some are interested in independence, some want to acquire the tribal kingdom, others want to create colonial powers, among other reasons[1]. The States differ in their national boundaries in that each state has a unique ethnic, religious, and cultural beliefs. Some States do not have a sense of national identity and therefore they want to create their own identity and attain sovereignty[2]. The States need a peaceful resolution to solve the ethnic differences and recognize the right of the other. Therefore, in reconciliation with the ethnic differences, I would use the negotiation method.
First, the role of the negotiation method in solving the ethnic differences is to help the States understand that each State has an independent power[3]. It is important to note that State power is based on having the right to control the economy, social, and cultural status. In considering cultural, religious, geographical, and historic factors, it is important to note that the claims by each State are just. The role of negotiation in peaceful negation is to allow the States to acknowledge that all States have political, religious, and social rights[4]. Thus, all States should exercise tolerance. Each State has the right to define itself in social, cultural, and religious terms. I would also the method of integrative negation to ensure that the States value each other and develop a long-term relationship. States should settle the differences by acknowledging that each State deserves sovereignty, integrity, and independence[5]. Each State has the right to live in a secure State free from threats. The States should build peace and recognize that each State has a right to self-determination.
Should ethnicity have been a consideration in the formation of the new states of Iraq and Palestine? Why or why not?
Ethnicity should have been a consideration in the formation of States. First, it is important to note that where there is not ethnicity consideration, dominant ethnic groups will have control over the minority ethnic groups[6]. The dominant group excludes the other ethnic groups in terms of political, social, and economic benefits. Thus, ethnicity should have been a consideration to give the States of Iraq and Palestine the right to autonomy and freedom[7]. Also, ethnicity is important in allowing Iraq and Palestine States enjoy sovereignty and maintain domestic peace.
References
Fontana, G. Creating nations, establishing states: Ethno-religious heterogeneity and the
British creation of Iraq in 1919–23. Middle Eastern Studies, 46(1), 1-16. 2010
McTague Jr, J. J. Anglo-French Negotiations over the Boundaries of Palestine, 1919-
- Journal of Palestine Studies, 11(2), 100-112.1982
Fontana, G. Creating nations, establishing states: Ethno-religious heterogeneity and the
British creation of Iraq in 1919–23. Middle Eastern Studies, 46(1), 1-16. 2010, pg 1
[2] Ibid, 5
[3] Ibid, 9
[4] Ibid, 11
[5] Ibid, 12
[6] McTague Jr, J. J. Anglo-French Negotiations over the Boundaries of Palestine, 1919-
- Journal of Palestine Studies, 11(2), 100-112.1982, pg, 110
[7] Ibid, 111
