The self-determination of others
Enough has been written (and used to legitimize just causes) about the duplicitous role played by certain national minorities, stateless nations, and even newly independent nations during the rise of Nazism and Fascism to power in the 1930s. It will soon be a hundred years old, it should be noted briefly. If the Flemish had enjoyed their national rights then, probably no one would have been tempted to fall into the clutches of a Hitler who, knowing the situation of this stateless nation, sought to use it against the Kingdom of Belgium. If Ireland had not suffered centuries of British rule, it would surely have acted differently during the Second World War. If minorities oppressed by certain states had not heard of this oppression, Nazism could not have presented itself, in any way, as a potential advocate.
Today, in much of the Western press, comparisons are cheerfully drawn between Nazism and the current Israeli government. I won't delve into this conceptual frenzy (I hold my readers in high esteem and believe they possess the capacity to think for themselves), but I will comment on an episode that has unsettled me considerably.
Let me say a few words to provide some background. In the Middle East, there are several stateless nations, ethnic (national) minorities, religious minorities, and so on. Due to life's circumstances, I have had direct knowledge of some of these stateless nations/religious minorities. Years ago, I wrote two reports for a European international cooperation agency, one on Turkish Kurdistan (capital Amed, in Turkish Diyarbakır) and the other on Iraqi Kurdistan (capital Erbil). And, while carrying out these tasks, I also had the opportunity to interview people from a significant religious minority, which had once been the majority: Christians. I have also had dealings with people from the Druze minority in Lebanon, with Lebanese and Palestinian Christians (from the West Bank), with Iraqi Hasidim, and with a few others I'm leaving out.
I write these thoughts after reading an article in a Catalan publication that supports the self-determination of peoples, criticizing the fact that representatives of these Levantine minorities met in Tel Aviv to discuss their situation, a meeting that had the support of the government.
The argument of the author of the article in question, Eugeni García Gascón, is that the Israelis are using the same old imperialist strategy: strengthening minorities against their current states. Thus, supporting the Kurds under Syrian sovereignty would be an imperialist strategy to prevent the Syrian government from effectively governing all the territory that supposedly belongs to it. Similarly, supporting the Druze would weaken Lebanon; helping the Christians in Iraq would weaken the Iraqi nation; and litigating on behalf of the Yazidis of southern Kurdistan would be little more than donning Uncle Sam's coat to finish off the Iraqi state.
Nobody is looking at the situation from the perspective of the minorities and those who might support them (or withhold support). Given the abandonment by everyone, who can the Armenians, the victims of the first great genocide of the 20th century, trust? And the Kurds, especially the Syrian Kurds? Turkey, the European Union, and the international community as a whole support a Syrian government that leaves them in the same old situation of domination (colonial, moreover). Who can offer the brave women of Rojava, in Syrian-dominated Kurdistan, any support? And what about the most marginalized minorities, like the Christians of Iraq or some of the minorities in Lebanon?
If Europe were to commit to Kurdish self-determination, if Europe were to do everything possible to guarantee the rights of minorities in the Levant, all these good people would have somewhere else, besides Tel Aviv, to meet and work together for their more than justified demands. But the European Union is a behemoth that only prioritizes states (it still hasn't shaken off its Napoleonic legacy), each European state puts statehood above justice and human rights, and Western intellectuals, both right and left, have more faith in raison d'état than in reason of state. Labeling work on behalf of stateless nations and religious minorities as a colonialist strategy can only be understood by considering all this disarray.