Haroon Moghul: The Six Nation Theory
December 18, 2006 § Leave a comment
Haroon Moghul, of Avari-Nameh infamy and now a main contributor for Eteraz.org, has written a concise and almost clairvoyant look into the inner turmoil of the Middle East. Haroon managed to squeeze out elusive particulars, that remain an enigma to non-Muslim pundits, with clarity of thought as one comprehensible stream of consciousness. In his analysis he suggests that,
“[W]e try to understand the contemporary Middle East as the result of six nations very recently, and very traumatically, cut down to five.“
We have all watched, very attentively, the influx of controversy surrounding the Middle East and Muslims as an after effect since Saddam’s surrender. Subsequently, the region is now inundated with violence. Meanwhile, ‘The Press’ is steadily reporting story after story, of course it yet to be seen whether this benefits the people of the the region and also of the world or a sickening way to acquire historical glory as a proverbial pundit. Consequently, Haroon cuts to the chase minus the partisan politics and explains what lies at the center of the regions destabilization. His analysis is not just a blame game however, there are details of Haroon’s thought process that beckon one to examine more closely what foreign policy means for global stabilization when he claims,
“The six powers were: Turkey, Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Iran. The instability currently characterizing the region is the result of the practical disappearance of one of these six: Iraq, which no longer exists as a state that can compete with these powers or even maintain its own relative independence. There is, thus, a vacuum, and the remaining five powers need to fill the vacuum. (Even Israel’s summer war with Hezbollah fits into this dynamic.) But it is not merely the vanishing of Iraq that has changed the picture; it is the means by which this happened and concurrent, interrelated trends, which exacerbate the internal failures of the six states.” (H. Moghul, Six Nation Theory: Reflections on Power Politics in a Changing Middle East)
In conclusion, I think that the United State’s system of democracy has been well excercised internally (as of recent political developments) and changes in government have been made as a result of political dissent by the people of the U.S. It remains to be seen though, if these ‘political changes’ will translate into policy switch. The fact is that we, as global community, have naturally evolved beyond the social divisions that existed during the Cold War, yet some country’s foreign policy remain fixed in global superpower mode (a quaint euphimism for empirical), born of fire and steel through the industrial age. Times have changed, and diplomacy must progress in order to prosper. But it just seems that the popular opinions on these subjects are moving further and further to the Left and likewise to the Right so where and in what will we find a common ground to bridge the gap?