Culture of nation against nation of culture
"If the US had invaded, say, Bolivia - Osama bin Laden would have completely ignored it. And those who would have claimed invading Bolivia had nothing to do with the War on Terror would have been correct." - Michael J. Totten
World War I was simple. It was the last great war between nations, each fighting for their own interests. There was no objective good or evil (although individual actions can be perceived as either) and there were no obvious philosophical alliances (the Entente Cordiale could just as well have not happened).
Yet World War I, so I believe now, has been the root of the next three great wars. It has been not necessarily the cause but very clearly the trigger for three even greater conflicts that were to follow. And I will also argue that these three conflicts were not different conflicts but three instances of the same disease, the same meme, if you so will, that has befallen humanity and will not go away unless eradicated wherever it made itself known.
But it will be forgotten.
It would be convincing to say that the disease is the belief that one race or nation is superior to another.
The Emperor of Ethiopia, Haile Selassie, a wholly remarkable man, has already made that point. His country was one of the first victims of the disease when Italy attacked Ethiopia in 1935.
"The very refinement of barbarism consisted in carrying ravage and terror into the most densely populated parts of the territory, the points farthest removed from the scene of hostilities. The object was to scatter fear and death over a great part of the Ethiopian territory. These fearful tactics succeeded. Men and animals succumbed. The deadly rain that fell from the aircraft made all those whom it touched fly shrieking with pain. All those who drank the poisoned water or ate the infected food also succumbed in dreadful suffering. In tens of thousands, the victims of the Italian mustard gas fell." - Haile Selassie in the League of Nations, 1936
The disease in question is the philosophy or idea of pan-nationalism. This idea goes hand in hand with delusions of superiority yet it is, unfortunately, compatible with other powers pursuing the same goals.
The principles of pan-nationalism are extremely simple:
1. Unite all members of your nation in one country, not by moving them there but by invading and taking over all lands and regions where members of your nation live, once did live, or that are simply needed as resources.
2. Exterminate all minorities (i.e. members of other nations) living in the area now ruled.
3. Find that some of your nation live or that needed resources are outside the area.
4. Repeat.
This simple program has ruled huge areas of the world in the last 80 years. Agents of the pan-nationalist program include Hitler's Germany, Mussolini's Italy, Japan in the first half on the 20th century, the United Arab Republic (Egypt and Syria in 1960) and other pan-Arabist nationalists, including religious pan-Arabists, and the Soviet-Union.
Russia has always pursued a pan-Slavist strategy, trying to rule over all Slavs in Europe and thereby uniting several peoples and languages under one ruler. Whether or not the Slavs are one people or several as a fact is beside the point. There is no answer. But whether nationalism in Slavic countries appears as patriotism (based on and connected to the culture of one specific country) or pan-nationalism is the important question.
Poland is a very patriotic country. Polish nationalism is based on patriotism. Russian influence was accepted as a matter of fact but rejected when possible because Poland saw its culture as different from Russia's. Most countries of the former Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact now pursue strategies based on the principles of patriotism and co-operation with other European countries. Such co-operation in the European Union is based on common interests and the fact that one happens to live in the same region as one's neighbours; it is not based on pan-nationalism. The European Union is, or could be, the anti-thesis to the Soviet Union.
Communism was the reason the Soviet Union failed but it was not why the Soviet Union expanded. Stalin's pact with Hitler was not because of communism. Stalin's slaughtering millions of people was not because of communism. Hitler did not attack the Soviet Union because of communism. Hitler attacked the Soviet Union when it was clear that pan-nationalist interests of the two powers in central and eastern Europe clashed. And Stalin made a pact with Hitler when it presented a good chance to expand and take back what was once Russian and lost in World War I.
The Soviet Union was of course born in World War I.
Hitler failed when American and British forces resisted his rule of Europe and broke his power. But this was not before half of France fell into the trap of co-operation and not before millions were killed, among them Jews and Gipsies, omnipresent minorities in Greater Germany.
Italy, after trying to recover what was once the Roman Empire, came to its senses a bit earlier. The futile hunt for the old empire came to an end. And for a while it looked as if pan-nationalism was dead until two new heads of the snake appeared.
The Soviet Union, now a victorious world power, began to manifest itself in eastern Europe. The old Tsarist pan-slavism finally came to be when a new Russian empire ruled, with few exceptions, all Slavic peoples and countries. Eventually communism as a philosophy took over as an excuse, allowing an expansion beyond the borders of the past. One particular such expansion just happened to clash with another instance.
Afghanistan.
The second head was the philosophy of pan-Arabism. Unite all Arabs in one country was the idea, and several great dictators tried to achieve the goal. Most notable are Gamal Abdel Nasser, who united Egypt and Syria and got famous for not managing to connect the two countries on land, and Michel 'Aflaq, founder of the Ba'ath party, a party with similar goals (Michel ‘Aflaq was a Christian). Another popular player is Muammar Abu Minyar al-Qaddafi, dictator of Libya, who was once a strong advocate of pan-Arabism but has since decided that he would rather play the regional co-operation theme, with Libya being an African country rather than a part of an Arab empire.
"Peace will come when the Arabs love their children more than they hate us." - Golda Meir
Arabs do not hate Israelis or Jews. But pan-Arabists hate Jews. They hate Jews, and Kurds, and black Christians, and possibly Iranians and Arabs who simply have a slightly different faith.
Palestinians do not have a country because the propaganda and common theme of Arab wars against Israel was not freedom for the Palestinian people but unification of all Arabs. The Jews were not occupying a country named Palestine with a Palestinian population, they were a non-Arab minority in the area. And Jews in Israel as well as other countries in the area suffered the fate of minorities living in the target area of a pan-nationalism franchise.
The Arab world as it is, of course, is a result of World War I. But a mistake it was probably not, dividing the Ottoman empire as it was done. Apart from maybe a Kurdish home land, which wasn't created, and a Jewish home land, which was, any further borders separating non-Arab or non-Muslim populations from the majority would probably have resulted in several invasions anyway (as happened in Israel).
One of the non-Arab countries that became a target for Arab nationalism and thus a part of the area was Afghanistan. There Arab nationalism clashed with Russia's expansionism. the result was more or less a defeat for Russia and Afghanistan, and then, finally, when the Americans and British invaded, the Arabs.
The Nasserites were earlier beaten by Israel and the Ba'athists took control of Syria and Iraq. Syria then took control of Lebanon and attempted to take over Jordan, an Arab kingdom with a king who participated when he had to but did not show much enthusiasm for pan-Arabist ideals. Both moves were opposed by Israel, and Jordan was indeed saved.
Iraq became one of the centres of pan-Arabism when Saddam Hussein supported anti-Israel terrorism and attacked Iran (which is not Arab). When after nearly ten years of war Iraq suddenly turned towards Kuwait, an ally in its war against Iran, the beginning of the end of pan-Arabism was triggered.
Suddenly other Arab countries realised that pan-Arabism involves a great danger. Saudia Arabia and the gulf nations were very frightened. They were so frightened that the Americans and British were allowed to solve their problem for them. Thus happens Gulf War II and Iraq is driven out of Kuwait.
The immediate result is that Kuwait changed sides. No longer pan-Arabist, Kuwait supported the west, its best and only defence against the dangers of pan-Arabism. The "Palestinian cause" lost sympathy when pan-Arabism showed its real face. And Saddam was eventually removed from power in 2003.
What is most remarkable, I think, about these events is not that they were all triggered by World War I in one way or another, although that is in itself a remarkable coincidence; but the support the instances enjoy among people in the democratic world.
Even now there are supporters of Nazi Germany and very prominent are, of course, the so-called war protesters, who seem to protest any war against pan-Arabism but not any other. It is often believed that wars can be avoided by staying away from them, but the history of pan-nationalism shows that the opposite is true.
The Kurds did not attack the Arabs but Saddam attacked them anyway. The United Kingdom did think that war with Germany could be avoided but history has shown that it could not.
If there is one thing we can learn from the history of pan-nationalism it is that pan-nationalism, if not attacked, will itself attack.
And nobody is out of reach.
It merely takes longer for some targets.