With an interesting coincidence, the world undergoes a paradigm shift in every century. This global phenomenon is doubtlessly the result of a need for renewal and a century of changes in power balances. The roles of world leadership have been so far played by Portugal, Spain, France, England and the U.S., respectively. During the last five centuries, the world has witnessed the Renaissance, Enlightenment, Reformation, French Revolution, formation of modern nation-states, the Industrial Revolution and the Information Revolution. They were all great successes, and with all those great leaps, the West gained the edge over the East. The Ottoman Empire, the leading power of the East, could not endure those changes and accelerated its dissolution while trying to adapt to them. It is possible to see that during the 19th century, the Ottomans remained ineffective and were torn between the military-centered reform attempts and the undermining effects of those reforms on the state.
In this context, it is understandable why the Ottomans allied with Germany, which fell behind in terms of colonial policies, during World War I just as Japan did during World War II. The Ottomans' and Japan's desire to turn their states into mighty empires and compensate for their losses was their conforming to the unsatisfied imperialist aims of Germany. Currently, there are new developments regarding the borders defined at the end of World War I and the mentality of the Sykes-Picot Agreement made during the war. Europe seems to have compensated the imbalances and insecurities stemming from the two world wars with the European Union. In Europe, only Bosnia and Herzegovina and its neighborhoods have a potential for crisis. That point requires special attention.
However, the picture is quite different in the Middle East – it is tough and grave. With the reactions that arose from the Arab Spring, the dictators that remained from post-colonial period such as Hosni Mubarak and Moammar Gadhafi were deposed; but it could be foreseen that the transition to people's democracies would not be that easy. And unfortunately, they are also the regions rich in oil and gas. The situations in Egypt, Iraq, Syria, Palestine and Libya are evident. Now a junction seems to exist before the world. Based on this disproportionate force, the poor could of course be manipulated for a long time and be shaped as desired through remote control mechanisms. It is not difficult to make an excuse for those designs, and some of them might even sound quite persuasive. In other words, Sykes-Picot 2.0, an updated version of the agreement, could be applied to the current century.
Eastern societies have not yet learned the matter of raison d'etat, or for the good of the country. They could consider that the Western understanding could also allow feelings; for instance, the West could view and evaluate the East based on a Christian understanding. However, in the nation state mentality, nothing is above the state interests. Should this situation continue like this? Or, is this method still effective for the interests of the West? Has the matter of raison d'etat remained the same with its conditions, subjects and parameters over the last two centuries?
What if the interests of the West did not lie behind the domination of the East anymore? What if founding a world based humanity and egalitarianism is for the benefit of everyone? As can be seen, I would not like to mention the problems of ethics, conscience and justice. For the current mentality of the good of the country, they are out of question.;
I would only like to remind you that we might have entered a century in which the current system might be destructive not only for the East, but for the West as well.
Keep up to date with what’s happening in Turkey,
it’s region and the world.
You can unsubscribe at any time. By signing up you are agreeing to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.