On Dec. 12, the leaders of the G7 issued a statement on the future of Syria. This statement included the sentence, "We call on all parties to preserve Syria's territorial integrity and national unity." But why? Why maintain the territorial integrity of a country that was never meant to be? A country whose borders were determined, not by the national aspirations of the people living in it, but by Western colonial powers.
After World War I, the victorious Allied Powers decided that there should be no multinational empires. Thus, they broke up the Austro-Hungarian Empire, which contained multiple ethnic groups, and created new nation-states drawn along ethnic lines. This is how present-day states like Austria and Hungary were born – real nation-states, where the overwhelming majority of people belong to a certain ethnic or national group.
Tragically, the Allies did not use the same approach in the Middle East. Instead, with little-to-no regard for the national aspirations of the peoples in the region, the Allied powers divided the territories of the defeated and defunct Ottoman Empire into countries composed of multiple ethnic and religious groups that didn't necessarily get along or have any desire to live together in the same country. This is how Syria was created, along with other present-day states like Iraq, Lebanon and Jordan. In fact, the Western powers made this same mistake in many of the lands they colonized. The result of constructing these artificial countries has been endless ethnic and religious conflict, often accompanied by violence and bloodshed.
Indeed, it should be no surprise to anyone that every conflict in the Middle East has an ethnic or religious dimension to it. The civil war that plagued Syria up until the recent fall of the Assad regime is no exception. Different factions fought largely along ethnic and religious lines – Alawites, Sunni Arabs, Kurds, Druze – all competing for their own interests. It would be stupid to maintain the territorial integrity of Syria. Instead, let the different ethnic and religious groups in the country determine their own destinies in their own independent countries.
Hence, the Alawites of the Syrian coast, the Kurds of north and east Syria, the Druze of southern Syria, and the Sunni Arabs who dominate the rest of the country, should be allowed to establish their own states. Forcing the groups of Syria to remain together in one country will only lead to more conflict, more violence, and more bloodshed.
The same principle applies to other countries in the Middle East. After the Iraq War, for example, the prudent thing to do would have been to divide Iraq into three states – one for the Kurds in the north, one for the Sunni Arabs in the center, and one for the Shiite Arabs in the south. But instead, the US-led coalition that removed Saddam Hussein from power decided that Iraq's territorial integrity should be maintained.
Just imagine if the Allied powers had applied the same approach to the Middle East that they did in Europe. Each large ethnic and religious group in the region could have had their own nation-state. Decades of ethnic and religious conflict could have been avoided. But of course, we can't turn back the clock. We can't change history. We can, however, ensure that the mistakes of history are not repeated. And we can start by allowing the peoples of Syria to choose their own destinies in their own states.
