יום שלישי, יוני 26, 2007
East and West
Just over three months ago, when musing about the states created by the post-WW II partition of British India, I asked why India succeeded, and...
(But, I wondered, why has even post-second-partition Pakistan been essentially a failed state?) Little could I have imagined just how soon after those remarks Palestine would degenerate into its own separate statelets of East and West.
I have never been convinced that the "two-state solution" was viable. How many states with swaths of another state's territory between its parts have been viable? The US (with Canada separating Alaska and the rest). Not too many others. There is Russia's Kaliningrad, which, from what little I know, is pretty much a failed society. Cabinda has a separatist movement vis-a-vis the rest of Angola. These sorts of arrangements are bound to be difficult at best, if relations with the state between the two separate components are not good. And, even if the two-state solution were implemented tomorrow, mistrust between Israel and Palestine would not go away soon.
The events of the last weeks certainly have not shaken me of the view of non-viability. Which is not to say that I have a better solution. Occupation forever? One state? Three states? Gaza and the West Bank absorbed into neighboring Arab states? None of these looks too likely to succeed, either.
Why not Pakistan? It is almost self-evident that East and West were not going to be viable in one state (lesson for Gaza and the West Bank?)
(But, I wondered, why has even post-second-partition Pakistan been essentially a failed state?) Little could I have imagined just how soon after those remarks Palestine would degenerate into its own separate statelets of East and West.
I have never been convinced that the "two-state solution" was viable. How many states with swaths of another state's territory between its parts have been viable? The US (with Canada separating Alaska and the rest). Not too many others. There is Russia's Kaliningrad, which, from what little I know, is pretty much a failed society. Cabinda has a separatist movement vis-a-vis the rest of Angola. These sorts of arrangements are bound to be difficult at best, if relations with the state between the two separate components are not good. And, even if the two-state solution were implemented tomorrow, mistrust between Israel and Palestine would not go away soon.
The events of the last weeks certainly have not shaken me of the view of non-viability. Which is not to say that I have a better solution. Occupation forever? One state? Three states? Gaza and the West Bank absorbed into neighboring Arab states? None of these looks too likely to succeed, either.
תוויות: Pakistan, Palestinian Territories
יום שני, מרץ 19, 2007
Does Pakistan have a right to exist?
Continuing with an occasional theme here about the notion of a state's "right to exist," via The Moderate Voice I came across a summary of a new book called Divide Pakistan, by Syed Jamaluddin. In the first paragraph of the summary, the author says:
The post-partition fates of India and Pakistan are relevant for comparative analysis of the Israel-Palestine conflict, as both sets of states (or proposed states) came about through UN-mandated partition in the early post-WWII decolonization period. Of course, there are numerous differences between the two cases, and the differences may well be more significant than the parallels. Nonetheless, it is worth thinking about the India-Pakistan partition, for, as in the Israel-Palestine case, one of the post-partition states has been a successful multiethnic and multireligious democracy, while the other is a failed state (or a non-state, which is an even more dramatic degree of failure, I suppose).
However, Jamaluddin's premise is unsatisfactory, and for precisely the reason I just alluded to. India, like Pakistan (and more so than either Israel or, especially, Palestine) is itself an assemblage of numerous "nations" (including various Muslim groups). Yet it has worked. Why not Pakistan? It is almost self-evident that East and West were not going to be viable in one state (lesson for Gaza and the West Bank?), and indeed the former East Pakistan has existed as the separate state of Bangladesh now for more than 35 years (not with great success, though more so than for the remainder of Pakistan). As for the current state of Pakistan, only in hindsight is it "obvious" that Balochis and Sindhis (etc.) can't coexist in one state. Jamaluddin proposes that Pakistan be further partitioned into its eight component nations (as he identifies them). I have no idea whether that would be a good idea (independent of whether it is achievable), but I am not convinced that, at the time of partition, it was so obvious that Pakistan would fail and India would succeed as viable multiethnic states.
India's democratic strength for the last 59 years has proved that its existence was fully justified. On the contrary, Pakistan emerged as a failed state for one single reason that a country which was founded by assembling almost eight different nations in the name of Islam, was unable to justify its existence.
The post-partition fates of India and Pakistan are relevant for comparative analysis of the Israel-Palestine conflict, as both sets of states (or proposed states) came about through UN-mandated partition in the early post-WWII decolonization period. Of course, there are numerous differences between the two cases, and the differences may well be more significant than the parallels. Nonetheless, it is worth thinking about the India-Pakistan partition, for, as in the Israel-Palestine case, one of the post-partition states has been a successful multiethnic and multireligious democracy, while the other is a failed state (or a non-state, which is an even more dramatic degree of failure, I suppose).
However, Jamaluddin's premise is unsatisfactory, and for precisely the reason I just alluded to. India, like Pakistan (and more so than either Israel or, especially, Palestine) is itself an assemblage of numerous "nations" (including various Muslim groups). Yet it has worked. Why not Pakistan? It is almost self-evident that East and West were not going to be viable in one state (lesson for Gaza and the West Bank?), and indeed the former East Pakistan has existed as the separate state of Bangladesh now for more than 35 years (not with great success, though more so than for the remainder of Pakistan). As for the current state of Pakistan, only in hindsight is it "obvious" that Balochis and Sindhis (etc.) can't coexist in one state. Jamaluddin proposes that Pakistan be further partitioned into its eight component nations (as he identifies them). I have no idea whether that would be a good idea (independent of whether it is achievable), but I am not convinced that, at the time of partition, it was so obvious that Pakistan would fail and India would succeed as viable multiethnic states.
תוויות: Pakistan, right to exist, state, Syed Jamaluddin
