Entry details

Chirol
Author

Chirol

Date

June 10th, 2006

Tags

, ,

Comments

27 Comments so far.
Add yours.

The Real Central Asia

In the latest issue of the Armed Forces Journal, Ralph Peters looks at how the greater Middle East may look if the borders were to conform to ethnic and religious distribution. Both Eddie and Lexington Green have written in to recommend the article and I figured it’d be high time to start posting some maps I’ve been working on for some time.

Peters notes:

Even those who abhor the topic of altering borders would be well-served to engage in an exercise that attempts to conceive a fairer, if still imperfect, amendment of national boundaries between the Bosporus and the Indus. Accepting that international statecraft has never developed effective tools — short of war — for readjusting faulty borders, a mental effort to grasp the Middle East’s “organic” frontiers nonetheless helps us understand the extent of the difficulties we face and will continue to face. We are dealing with colossal, man-made deformities that will not stop generating hatred and violence until they are corrected.

As for those who refuse to “think the unthinkable,” declaring that boundaries must not change and that’s that, it pays to remember that boundaries have never stopped changing through the centuries. Borders have never been static, and many frontiers, from Congo through Kosovo to the Caucasus, are changing even now (as ambassadors and special representatives avert their eyes to study the shine on their wingtips).

With that in mind, here’s how Central Asia would look if its borders conformed to ethnic distribution. While I’m not suggesting altering the borders would be easy or solve the regions’problems, the following map will tell you a lot more about the region’s troubled history than the political one.

Comments to this entry

Nathan Hamm
June 10, 2006
10:10 pm
What information on ethnic distribution did you use to make the map?
Chirol
June 10, 2006
10:29 pm
Mostly CIA and Wikipedia. Basically compiled a lot of ethno linguistics and religious maps into one with the map taken from NASA World Wind.
Jay
June 11, 2006
12:31 am
bq.As for those who refuse to "think the unthinkable,"Â? declaring that boundaries must not change and that's that, it pays to remember that boundaries have never stopped changing through the centuries. Borders have never been static, and many frontiers, from Congo through Kosovo to the Caucasus, are changing even now (as ambassadors and special representatives avert their eyes to study the shine on their wingtips).

I dunno man--if one takes that notion too far, wouldn't that make a Mexican/Aztlan "reconquista" seem "reasonable"?

After all, if it's OK to do it to "them," what's to keep it from being done to _us_? The only thing I can think of is power, I guess--but what happens if (or when?) we're no longer powerful? I always dearly hope that the US would always remains at least a reasonably-strong nation, but who knows how history could turn out.

Then again, on a [sort of] "plus" side, maybe Dan Tdaxp's annexation fantasy could...
Nathan Hamm
June 11, 2006
1:07 am
The reason I asked is because, as shown on this map, I'd give big chunks of Uzbekistan to Kazakhstan--mostly parts of Navoiy and Karakalpakistan--and to Tajikistan. Also, some of Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan would go to Uzbekistan. But then again, I'd probably put the Tajiks and Uzbek together despite their ethnic and linguistic differences.
Dan tdaxp
June 11, 2006
2:10 am
I dunno man"”?if one takes that notion too far, wouldn't that make a Mexican/Aztlan "reconquista"Â? seem "reasonable"Â??


No, but it might make Union seem so. ;-)
Catholicgauze
June 11, 2006
2:24 am
Looks like a map of Central Asia sans Stalin
Chirol
June 11, 2006
7:38 am
Nathan: I agree there's surely room for improvement, but that was as detailed as I could get. I'm sure you could get into nitpicking actual borders but I wanted to do a basic ethnic distribution. I have the map you linked too and see what you mean. That's of course the basic problem with political maps and mine, is that there are so many little clusters, where are you supposed to draw the borders?
Michael Hancock
June 11, 2006
7:52 am
I'm just gonna chime in with a little nit pick in Nathan's line of thinking. I agree wholeheartedly that just putting Uzbekistan with Tajikistan would be a good idea -- if you could sell it to the Tajiks, who would be in the minority in a serious way. But that's not what I really wanted to say.

What I want to point out is the Syr Darya, where it runs through Kazakhstan, or at least the South Kazakhstan Oblast', could very easily be turned over to Uzbekistan. According to the Official Census, Kazakhs have a slim plurality, largely thanks to an exodus of Kazakhs from Tashkent who are unable to travel further north. The Uzbeks in that Oblast' have a much higher birthrate than their neighbors [Russians, Kazakhs, Azeris, et al] and are historically more numerous there. Interesting point of evidence - the Oblast center of Shymkent. Before Independence, it bore the name Chimkent, which means the same as Shymkent, except in Uzbek instead of Kazakh.

One could argue that Uzbekistan already has a stranglehold on the Holy Places of Pilgrimmage that exist in Central Asia, and giving them Kazakhstan's only claim to Islamic Importance [Turkestan and the Mausoleum complex of Ahmed Yasa-i, replete with the largest dome in Central Asia] might seem unfair. However, Uzbekistan is the only country that so zealously promotes Amir Temur as a hero of culture, and Turkestan's complex was built at that particular emperor's orders.

All in all, though, I like the map. It gives a good general sense of the diaspora that isn't really a diaspora, since the "pockets" aren't really separated by natural borders. I think that's why I would join Uzbeks and Tajiks -- they seem to be, historically, the most able to coexist with each other.

One more point -- the more control of the Aral Sea's basin that you give to a unified force, the more able you would be, in theory, to do something about it. If someone controlled the Amu Darya and Syr Darya through most of their courses into the Sea, they might be able to better control the situation, or at least be held responsible.

Speaking of which -- anyone hear how tall, exactly, that dam is between the North Aral and its dying older brother, the South Aral? What I mean is, how high can the North Aral recover to before it spills over?
Tagore
June 11, 2006
8:50 am
It is of course disturbing to see Westerns imagining redrawn borders of communities and countries in which they do not live.... However, I will engage this excercise with a few questions:

The Armed Forces Journal map is inconsistent in its stated objective. If the aim is to redraw the map along "organic" (a highly problemmatic and outdated concept) frontiers, here are my questions:

Middle East -

1. Arab Nation: There is no mention of the idea of a unifying Arab nationalism which could also reshape the map of the Middle East. One would like to think this ethnic-ideology died with the end of the UAR, but it is still salient as an idea. Individuals have a tool kit of identities, and what becomes salient in a historical period depends on political entrepreneurs more than any specific "primordial" loyalties.

2. Sacred Islamic State: The idea of internationalizing Mecca and Medina under the control of the OIS was proposed after WWII, but it never gained any serious consideration by the Saudis. Of course, there was no talk of partitioning the Hijaz from the rest of Saudi Arabia. There are relevant distinction between the Najdis, Hijazis, and others, but I don't know of many Hijazis who would argue for secession of their lands.

3. The Gulf States are labeled in red, but seem untouched. This is unclear. Of course, their ethnic population is mainly South Asian, so maybe they should be annexed to India or Pakistan.

4. Lebanon stays in tact and expands? Not if religion matters as a part of "organic" identities in the Middle East. And Syria loses territory? Hmm...

5. Kuwait was settled by Najdis (Saudis) in the eighteenth century. Nevertheless, its autonomy from Basra was not established under the Ottomans. If the map aims to be organic, Kuwait could not survive independently. (The map is unclear as to whether Kuwait is gobbled up by the Arab Shia State.)

6. Greater Jordan spills into Saudi. That seems rather peculiar.

7. The Hatay Province stays a part of Turkey? No. It would either be independent or part of Syria.

Central Asia Map-

1. Punjabistan: So where is Khalistan in this map? Language/ethnicity is not the most relevant marker of "organic" identity in the Punjab. Did you really draw Punjabis occupying the Vale of Kashmir? Hmm...
Chirol
June 11, 2006
8:57 am
Tagore: I agree I'm puzzled at the expanding Lebanon in Peters' map as well as Hatay. While visiting Syria, the maps I bought there still showed Hatay as part of Syria over 80 years later. As for a unified Arab nation, Arabs I met still seemed to buy into it but I think after so much time apart and very different paths, it isn't very likely. Why would Jordan want to join with Syria for example? It'd torpedo Jordan's success.
Eleanor
June 11, 2006
9:19 am
I wholeheartedly agree with Tagore's substantive objections, but I think we should also be raising a prior question about the assumptions underlying the enterprise.

If the goal is to describe some (not all) sources of ethnic conflict, then an ethnic map makes sense, just as a political map would help to explain political conflict, a class-distribution would help to explain class conflict, etc...

BUT, if this is intended to be less a mode of understanding and more a prescriptive approach to managing conflict, it seems woefully misguided for the following reasons:

1) Ideas like "organic" and "real" have little or no place in the study of ethnic politics or any kind of identity politics. Over a quarter century of academic discussions and experimental work have established the common-sense claim that Tagore references: we each have a "toolkit" of identities (cf. Swidler 1986 for the seminal article from which the name derives) from which we draw in different situations. These situations are defined by structural cues, of which borders may be one, but they will certainly not be the only factor.

2) Relative Deprivation Theory further posits that human beings in any number of situations (differentiated by role, class, gender, ethnicity, religion, etc.) have a simultaneous urge to belong and to be distinct. Experimental data shows this to be relevant cross-culturally. We want to be individually distinct up to the point when it would jeopordize group membership.

Taken together, these two ideas suggest that drawing "perfect" ethnic maps (and of course Chirol grants the relative implausibility of this, in the face of critiques like Jay's) would not really solve the problem, but would produce new or different social cleavages around other salient characteristics.

Given that, doesn't it make more sense, thinking prescriptively, to focus on the institutional mediation of conflict, through state structures and nation-building projects? Italy and Germany did it - uniting previously diverse ethnolinguistic and religious groups. The EU is trying it now. Are such projects only possible in some places and not others? If so, what distinguishes those conflicts that can be managed institutionally and those that can't? And who decides?

It seems to me that these basic questions are far more important that redrawing the maps.
Elizabeth
June 11, 2006
9:34 am
1) Just because everyone in Uzbekistan has been forced to put "Uzbek" nationality on their passports does not mean all of Uzbekistan is "Uzbek". Samarkand and Bukhara remain 90% Tajik in composition, as well the Sukhandariyo and Kashkandariyo regions (not 90% but very high). I am disappointed that the map so reflects the recent Uzbekization of Uzbekistan.

2) Likewise, you forgot to give Uzbeks back their parts of south Khatlon province in Tajikistan.

3) Can Kohistan have its own mini-republic?

4) You forgot to give back the Eastern Pamir (Murghob) to Kyrghyzstan. Not that they're itching for it but anyway.

5) Can the Pamiris (Ismaili Shias speaking an eastern Iranian language) have their own mini-republic? They are already a semi-independent province... this would include many parts of the Wakhan (though part of the Wakhan also needs to go to the Kyrghyz).

6) Also, I'd venture to say that Hazaristan is too large. You gave the Hazaras the entire Panjsher- this is a joke. It is almost totally Tajiki. Tajikistan has a straight line, above Pathanistan and Hazaristan, and below Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, that leads through Herat and straight to Iran.

On behalf of all the Tajik and Persian nationalists who are not reading this: Herat, Samarkand, and Bukhara, as well as the nearby areas, are all Tajik cities.
Elizabeth
June 11, 2006
9:37 am
P.S. Sorry for the "you" references- I realize this is Peter's post.

And Nathan- would you put them together because you think it would reduce tensions over Samarkand and Bukhara? I can see how the nobody's-everybody's thing might work, but I also think you underestimate the antagonism between Uzbeks and Tajiks. There is a reason that there are almost no mixed qishloqs in all of Central Asia, only mixed cities.
Humergence®
June 11, 2006
2:55 pm
Globalization and Cultural Shifting

The Mathematical Structure of Terrorism from PhysOrg.com makes reference to a paper titled Universal patterns underlying ongoing wars and terrorism. From the paper's abstract:We report a remarkable universality in the patterns of violence arising in t...
Rommel
June 12, 2006
6:46 am
Wow. What can I say, what a touchy subject and who knew there were so many - well, experts - on Central Asia in our little community. I counted on Elizabeth but damn, I am impressed with you all.

I don't envy those Europeans whose job it was to divy up the world as they saw fit. In hindsight, what an evil, dirty job that was. Surely they are amongst the most hated figures in all of history. Even my personal hero, Churchill, is villified in the Kurdish lands to this day. I can't say I blame the Kurds for hating him either - I likely would to. Do you think the Europeans had the slightest idea of the seeds of hatred, war and despair they were inadvertedly planting when they drew those lines in the sand?
I suppose it hardly matters - those borders likely served Western (or Russian) interests longer than those diplomats served in their posts.

As a lightweight in this field, I won't pretend to contribute anything to Chirol's map. However, I would like to second the criticisms of Peters' map.
- While the article made for good reading, he never did satisfactorily explain why a new "Phoenicia" would come into being. I can't say I have heard of a "Greater Lebanon." In fact, to the contrary, most talk concerns a "Greater Syria" with Lebanon the big (small) loser.
- Similarily, he does not explain Jordan's seizure of parts of Arabia. Sure, the Hashemites had historical claims there, but I am unfamiliar with any contemporary claims. Are there tribal ties I am unfamiliar with?
- Concerning pan-Arabism. Perhaps the idea has some sentimental appeal amongst normal Muslims and ideological appeal amongst a smaller segment of the populace. I can never fathom it working though. Tunisia is not Egypt is not the Levant is not Yemen which is not Oman despite sharing roughly the same part of Arabia! A thousand years from now after the next two world wars, perhaps the Arabian Union can bridge the Gulf - until then.....
- Which brings us to the "Sacred Islamic State". Mesopotamia, in all its tragically savage anarchy (Golden Mosque of Samarra comes to mind) today leads me to believe that right now the Islamic world would utterly destroy Mecca and al-Medinah and then duke it out amongst the ruins rather than share stewardship amongst the various sects and Islamic schools.
Eleanor
June 12, 2006
8:44 am
The territory now called the Republic of Lebanon is, in fact, already "Greater Lebanon," as the French created it, adding additional provinces of Syria to the existing administrative district of Mt. Lebanon in order to create confessional "balance" between the warring Maronites and Druze.

That said, having lived in four very different countries in the Middle East (with at least as many institutional legacies), I couldn't agree with Rommel's basic position more. For the theoretic reasons outlined in my first post, and the substantive concerns raised by others here (and through lived experience) it seems to me that redrawing maps will only shift the contours of the problem, but can't fix the fundamental progress toward disunity and conflict. I would, of course, echo Elizabeth's post on the Mexican-American thread and emphasize that this impulse toward conflict is not simply a Middle Eastern or Central Asian problem...
The Anthropik Network » Spirit of Place
June 12, 2006
4:45 pm
[...] Nowhere in the world do these arbitrary divisions have more impact than in the Middle East. In "Blood Borders" for the Armed Forces Journal, Ralph Peters discusses the ways in which a more "just""”?or a more organic"”?map could diminish the conflict in the Middle East, and why the unjust boundaries dividing the area's organic bioregions are the ultimate source of the continual violence there. "Chirol," an author at an excellent blog I found today, "Coming Anarchy," writes on a similar theme with, "The Real Central Asia." These, in turn, provide fodder for John Robb's latest contribution, "The Melted Map": The big differences between this struggle and those of the past is that first, it will be never ending. Big states, even those drawn along ethnic, religious, or national identity, may never provide the level of support required by those contained within their borders. The drive for a valuable identity, one gives as much as it gets to every member the group, may be a race to the bottom. There is no inevitable equilibrium point. [...]
Elizabeth
June 13, 2006
9:54 am
Rommel- Regarding pan-Arabism, Olivier Roy's "The Failure of Political Islam" has some interesting points about how pan-Arabism has failed in a similar way to political Islam.
germanicus
June 13, 2006
7:45 pm
Rommel, one possible reason for the Jordanian seizure/annexation of part of Arabia was that it was the Hashemite, Faisal, who with British help ala Lawrence of Arabia and others, succeeded in ousting the Ottoman Turks in WW I. It seemed the Brits wanted and expected the Hasemites to rule but the Saud family had other ideas and chased them out. The Hashemites were placated by being set up to rule the new states of Iraq and Transjordan. Fiasal's son, if memory serves me, was put on the throne in Iraq and his brother, Abdullah, on the throne in Transjordan-now Jordan. Saddam and the Baathists ousted the Hashemites in Iraq but they are still on the throne in Jordan. Others with more detailed history than this could add a lot more than my overview.
germanicus
June 13, 2006
10:23 pm
I want to correct my last post. The brother that was placed on the throne in Transjordan was Hussein, not Abdullah. Hussein was assassinated and his son ascended the throne while he was attending Sandhurst, if memory serves me. He took the title of King Hussein II and was the father of the current ruler of Jordan, Abdullah II. The old saying: "haste makes waste" applies to my above post.
Rommel
June 14, 2006
12:00 am
germanicus - Yes I am indeed familiar with that history, but it still doesn't adequately explain to me why Peters apportioned that northwestern corner of Arabia to Jordan. If the Hashemite claim were the basis of his rationale, then why would he not just give them all of Arabia or some logical geographical entity on the peninsula instead of arbitrary swathes of land? Perhaps it is meant to reflect Arabia Petraea? I'm not really all that concerned about this issue though, I realize that Peters probably did not put all that much thought into some portions of his map (some might say the entire thing)
Also I'm not sure why he has the notion that the dynasty of al-Saud will cling on tenaciously to some territory forever - if this is the case though, then let us all pray that it is the Empty Quarter.

One thing I believe everybody could agree on, including most Muslims;
It would have been far more fortuitous had the Hashemites taken control of Arabia rather than the Sauds. Can you imagine how much better the world would have been with men like Hussein and Abdullah II ruling that most strategic and holy of Islamic lands. The Wahabbi's would have been denied the resources and influence to spread/facilitate Salafism, Arabia would be a conservative but less reprehensible society,etc etc. Heck, maybe us Westerners could even get tourist visas and see most of the society without restriction. If only...
Rommel
June 14, 2006
12:02 am
Elizabeth - oh yes, thanks for the tip that book looks like a must read. I was amazed to see the copyright date of 1994 too! He could write a sequel to it now, with all the new events that have transpired since then...
Elizabeth
June 14, 2006
8:40 am
Rommel- Roy has written tens of articles and several books since then. Nearly every single one has been translated into English, but as long as your French is passable, he's a good read in either language. Sometimes the French academic style is a bit turbid and florid for me but the main ideas are the same.
germanicus
June 14, 2006
1:04 pm
Rommel, I posed your question to Ralph Peters, who is a friend of mine, vis-a-vis why he assigned that portion of Saudi Arabia to Jordan. For what it's worth, here is the email exchange:

Me: "Just a quick question: what was your rationale for assigning the particular portion of Arabia to Jordan? Was it because of the Hashemites ruling Jordan originally came from that part of Arabia? Just curious."

RP: "Yes, partly the tribal ties--but also to stick it to the Saudis."

If you've followed Ralph's writings, you know he doesn't have much use for the House of Saud.
Karl
June 19, 2006
2:57 pm
Good Sirs,

The aim of this exercise is to reduce conflict by redrawing borders along ethnic line hence addressing the underlying cause? This neglects other, perhaps more salient factors in the equation such as oil and water. Solving the ethnicity/jurisdiction problem does not solve the jurisdiction/resource problems and may even aggravate them.
Chirol
June 19, 2006
7:14 pm
Karl: You're correct and I especially appreciate that you accurately summarized this undertaking by "to reduce conflict" because many seem to have understood that we could do away with it through redraw borders. This isn't the case. The point is merely:

1) Show and clarifiy colonial borders to illustrate how they've led to certain conflicts

2) Help get an idea of the trouble regions (only clear in some cases) and look at how much (if any) borders could help/hurt. As Catholicgauze noted, the map is essentially the region without Stalin. Just comparing the two goes a long way in realizing why certain conflicts exist and why others have come about.

With Central Asia, the scattered ethnic groups have helped lead to more fluid borders which destabilize states which lead to other problems (smuggling drugs, guns, terrorism etc) which then compound the problem. Sure, different borders wouldn't have magically changed everything, but they could have helped prevent a whole host of downstream problems.

As to your last point, of course there are a number of other probles such as resource scarcity which aren't addressed.
ComingAnarchy.com » Blog Archive » The Real Middle East?
September 7, 2006
12:34 am
[...] Ralph Peters is at it again, this time redrawing the borders of the Middle East and in his new book, Never Quit The Fight. Say hello to Free Kurdistan, Free Baluchistan, the Islamic Sacred State, Greater Jordan, and more. [...]