Sykes-Picot for instance.
Many ex-colonial countries have borders that were negotiated by their would-be colonisers. This has resulted in many unstable states such as Congo, Syria, Iraq etc.
these countries often seem to have ended up with a ruling elite, drawn from a minority group. (Sunni elite ruling a Shia majority Iraq and Syria visa-versa).
Is it known what the thought behind this configuration was?
IMO it could have happened simply as a negotiation over land, with a total disregard for ethnic and religious groups that were lumped together or divided randomly.
Then the ruling countries chose minorities within the colonised countries as allies, as they needed outside support and were thus controllable.
Or:
Were the countries engineered in such a way that they would be inherently unstable and would provide the possibility of recruiting a minority on the side of the colonisers.
Or is this unknowable as the details of the negotiations were secret?
Many ex-colonial countries have borders that were negotiated by their would-be colonisers. This has resulted in many unstable states such as Congo, Syria, Iraq etc.
these countries often seem to have ended up with a ruling elite, drawn from a minority group. (Sunni elite ruling a Shia majority Iraq and Syria visa-versa).
Is it known what the thought behind this configuration was?
IMO it could have happened simply as a negotiation over land, with a total disregard for ethnic and religious groups that were lumped together or divided randomly.
Then the ruling countries chose minorities within the colonised countries as allies, as they needed outside support and were thus controllable.
Or:
Were the countries engineered in such a way that they would be inherently unstable and would provide the possibility of recruiting a minority on the side of the colonisers.
Or is this unknowable as the details of the negotiations were secret?
via JREF Forum http://ift.tt/1t8mex5
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire