LOS CICLOS DE LA HISTORIA

Los ciclos de la historia

A lo largo del siglo pasado, el mundo sufrió dos grandes y devastadoras guerras mundiales, cada una provocada por sus factores particulares aunque sin salirse de la dinámica de la evolución social. La Primera Guerra Mundial tuvo como objetivo primordial, ocultado al principio, derrocar a los imperios y monarquías existentes, el imperio Austro-Húngaro, el imperio otomano, el Zarismo en Rusia, y la Segunda Guerra Mundial para deshacerse del colonialismo y apoyar las independencias, aunque se confirmó posteriormente la aparición de independencias encauzadas hacia los mismos intereses colonialistas de antaño. Efectivamente, numerosos países se independizaron de los tradicionales imperios que sobrevivieron hasta iniciado el siglo: Gran Bretaña, Francia, Italia, España como lo más protagonistas para luego caer en las redes de uno de los dos polos mundiales opuestos: los Estados Unidos y la Unión de  Repúblicas Socialistas Soviéticas.

En 1907 el P.M. británico Henry Campbell-Bannerman formó un comité de algunos eruditos famosos de Gran Bretaña, Francia, Bélgica, Holanda, Portugal, España e Italia – especializado en historia, geografía, economía, petróleo, la agricultura y el colonialismo – para estudiar las posibles maneras de asegurar la continuidad de los intereses colonialistas europeos. En sus instrucciones a los miembros del comité, dijo: los imperios crecen en el poder y en cierta medida amplían u territorio y luego  comienzan gradualmente a desintegrarse hacia el colapso. Les pidió encontrar una manera de retrasar esta suerte negativa del colonialismo europeo que había alcanzado su punto máximo. Elaboraron sus propuestas en un informe, que concluyó con una declaración afirmando que los peligros que enfrentan los imperios colonialistas estaba en la tierra árabe siempre y cuando estos son liberados, unidos y entran en progreso. Por ello hay que mantener el status quo de divisiones y subdesarrollo y a la gente desunida, ignorante y con continuas rencillas.  “Estos pueblos tienen un única historia, una sola lengua, única fe…considerando seriamente  todos estos factores, un cuerpo extraño debe de insertarse en el corazón de esta nación para encontrarse siempre en guerras destructivas…”,  Del Informe Campbell-Bannerman, 1907. Parece que el informe no había sido publicado oficialmente hasta ahora debido a su importancia histórica y estratégica y su gravedad[1].

La mayoría de los países árabes estuvo bajo colonialismo europeo en la primera mitad del siglo, y el resto estuvo sometido a la orden y al deseo de los extranjeros gracias a la presencia de gobernadores débiles e ineptos, como en Arabia Saudita y los emiratos del Golfo y Omán. Cuando la influencia británica cayó en manos de los Estados Unidos después de la Segunda Guerra Mundial, éstos comenzaron su era sometiendo a todos los estado árabes. Se creó el estado de Israel. También se crearon en el lado árabe varios estadillos, emiratos, protectorados cada uno independiente del otro y aislado mediante fronteras lineales dibujadas para ocasionar nuevos conflictos territoriales sangrientos (Kuwait e Irak),y enemistades (Arabia Saudita y emiratos en el golfo), fomentadas por occidente. Así fueron las relaciones de los estados árabes durante los últimos sesenta años, conduciendo a represiones, subdesarrollo e ignorancia, pobreza y analfabetismo, corrupción y allegados parásitos, todo ello es motivo de las actuales revueltas.

Las dictaduras y los golpes militares presenciado a lo largo del siglo pasado no consiguieron unir a los pueblos pero lo hizo el mismo sentimiento de la igualdad y la justicia que era el dominador común.

Este nuevo siglo no parece haberse detenido hasta el límite de los cosechados resultados de esas grandes conflagraciones sino que se ha emprendido una revolución en una parte del mundo que ha sido engañada y decepcionada de tantas promesas de una vida mejor, un respeto de los derechos básicos de la ciudadanía, una independencia de la justicia y un reparto equitativo de sus riquezas. Lo que estamos presenciando en el mundo árabe, es una revolución de un estilo que sorprende a todos los que diseñaron su geopolítica y divisiones conspiratorias. Es la revolución contra la tiranía implantada y defendida por muchos países de occidente, quienes han cultivado sistemas políticos tanto autoritarios como corruptos y represivos, y que han conducido a la creación de desequilibrio social que fue y es la causa fundamental de impulsar la intifada de los pueblos sometidos contra su voluntad, a manifestarse contra sus líderes y regímenes de cuestionable legitimidad. Estos regímenes pensaron que sus sociedades, por su quebrantado estado vital, serían incapaces de exigir o llevar al cambio. Tampoco occidente  llegó a sospechar de esa potencial fuerza latente, marginada y de tan serias y radicales reclamaciones que, aunque en voz baja, fueron ignoradas y llegaría a unirse contra los sistemas en vigor en casi todos los frentes, no sólo en las diferentes regiones del país sino extenderse a otros, que forman la mayoría de países árabes, con quien comparten las misma condiciones de miseria social.

Las revueltas en Túnez y Egipto demostraron que el cambio de sus regímenes autoritarios, represivos y tiranos no tenía por qué tener el emblema del radicalismo islámico, ese espantapájaros utilizado por los dirigentes y del cual nos asustaron durante décadas. Occidente debe comprender que no todo musulmán ha de ser a la fuerza un islámico. En Egipto que formó el corazón del movimiento de los hermanos musulmanes desde la caída del imperio otomanos, no han dado señales de participación importante, más bien fueron ausente de la masa popular durante los 18 días de la revuelta egipcia. Sabemos que la proporción de los hermanos musulmanes en las calles egipcias durante la revuelta no sobrepasaba 15% de los manifestantes. Otra vez occidente ha errado al pensar en lo único que estas sociedades son capaces es de producir es el extremismo del sin razón y enemigo de la cultura y democracia occidentales y que estas sociedades nunca serán mejor controladas que con una mano de un tirano déspota. Y ahora se pregunta a Europa en particular y a occidente en general, si entenderán esta real situación o seguirán viendo al mundo árabe con esta perspectiva tirria al islam y con temor a los musulmanes, así como ignorar las posibilidades de democratización interna de estas sociedades, y por el contrario, aliarse a los dictadores tiranos. Si le interesa a occidente cambiar su imagen tan deteriorada por apoyar regímenes expirados y a buscar lavar y recuperar su reputación de ser un defensor de la libertad y el derecho debe cambiar de partida. Es hora de que occidente aclare su política, o seguir al lado de gobiernos déspotas repudiados por sus ciudadanos o ponerse al lado de los demandantes de reformas democráticas y de participación activa de esos pueblos en la gestión de sus países. Si optan a tomar políticas protectoras de vasallos, se enfrentará a la rebelión popular que será capaz de derrocar a esto líderes siervos y a la enemistad  de los pueblos. El mundo árabe tiene más certeza que sospecha en el papel que jugó occidente en el destino de la región y reclama señales  fructíferas para su enmienda.

 

 

Cycles of history

Throughout the last century, the world underwent two great and devastating wars, each provoked by its particular factors but respected at the same time the dynamics of the social evolution. Nothing can stop humanity from seeking its survival. The First World War had as its primary objective, concealed at the outset, to overthrow the existing empires and monarchies, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the Ottoman Empire and the Czarism in Russia. And the Second World War was to design new states and to get rid of colonialism and support states’ independence. Although the materialization of independences were channeled towards the same old colonial interests they were later reigned by new powers and took different emerge. Indeed, many countries became independent from the traditional empires that survived until the beginning of the century: Great Britain, France, Italy, Spain as the main protagonists, and later fell into the networks of one of the two opposing world poles: the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. British lost most of its domain in the India, Middle East and Egypt. France left Southeastern Asia colonies. And Japan draw from China and Manchuria. But did these empires accept losing their colonies? Nevertheless they looked to find some way to survive as it really happened. This time was through the “informal empire” and somehow as “cooperative coexistence” maintained and agglutinated by the selling of weapons and supervised by military missions and the future maintenance.

In 1907 Fr. Henry Campbell-Bannerman (explained in previous chapter),  formed a committee of some famous scholars from Great Britain, France, Belgium, Holland, Portugal, Spain and Italy – specializing in history, geography, economics, oil, agriculture and colonialism – to study possible ways of ensure the continuity of European colonialist interests. In his instructions to committee members, he said: empires grow in power and to some extent expand their territory until they gradually begin to disintegrate into collapse. He asked them to find a way to delay this negative fate of European colonialism that had peaked. They prepared their proposals in a report, which concluded with a statement stating that the dangers faced by colonial empires lay in Arab land as long as they are liberated, united and in progress. For this reason we must maintain the status quo of divisions and state underdevelopment and the people disunited, years behind scientific progress and with continuous quarrels. The Campbell-Bannerman Report, 1907, has not been officially published so far because of its historical and strategic importance and its seriousness[1] and here are its recommendations:

  1. To promote disintegration, division, and separation in the region.
  2. To establish artificial political entities that would be under the authority of the imperialist countries.
  3. To fight any kind of unity—whether intellectual, religious or historical —and taking practical measures to divide the region’s inhabitants.
  4. To achieve this, it was proposed that a “buffer state” be established in Palestine, populated by a strong, foreign presence that would be hostile to its neighbours and friendly to European countries and their interests.”

A specialist in the British Ministry of Colonialism, Side Potam, decided that there is no better choice than the Jews to perform this colonialist task, because the British were not ready to perform the task as they did earlier in Canada and Australia.

As the report was strategically important it was suppressed, and was never released to the public up till today’s date. But lawyer Antoine Canaan referred to it in a lecture entitled “Palestine and the Law,” which he delivered in 1949 in the universities of Florence and Paris, and in 1957 the Union of Arab Lawyers published it under the same title. Arab historians’ and researchers’ points of view differed on whether the document actually existed until the matter was confirmed by the well informed Egyptian writer Muhammad Hasanin Haikal. Haikal mentioned the final recommendation in his book “Secret Negotiations between the Arabs and Israel” (Page 110). It seems that the report had never been officially released before now due to its importance and seriousness.

 

At the time the Arab homeland was divided into European colonies- Sykes Picot treaty- and Ottoman territories, we refer here to  Alexandretta and Scanderoon, which Syria claims that the province was separated from itself against the stipulations of the French Mandate of Syria in the years following Syria’s independence from the Ottoman Empire after World War I. While the Zionist movement had already achieved considerable success in immigration of European Jews to Palestine and colonizing parts of it, especially with the unlimited British support extended to the Zionist movement in this and other fields, and the collusion of the ruling Turkish group of “Unity and Advancement” in the Ottoman Empire at the time after their deposition of the Ottoman Caliph Abdul Al-Hamid II in 1908, and appointing Muhammad Rashad to replace him as Sultan, but in name without powers.

Most of the Arab countries were under European colonialism in the first half of the century, and the rest were subjected to the order and desire of foreigner governments thanks to the presence of weak Arab governors, as in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf emirates And Oman. When British influence changed into the hands of the United States after World War II, and began their era by subjecting all Arab states. The state of Israel was created by then. Also on the Arab side several tiny states, emirates, protectorates in a territory which was common were created too, each independent of the other and isolated by linear boundaries drawn to bring about new bloody territorial conflicts (Kuwait and Iraq), and enmities (Saudi Arabia, Qatar and emirates in the gulf), fomented by West. Thus the relations of the Arab states during the last sixty years had conducted to repression, underdevelopment and ignorance, poverty and illiteracy, corruption and proxy authoritarian regimes, form indeed the reason for the current riots after the called Arab Spring.

The dictatorships and military coups witnessed during the last century failed to unite the peoples. But all the contrary, the same feeling of equality and claims for justice which were the common ruler they did.

This new century does not seem to have stopped to the limit to where these great conflagrations had caused. Again we saw a revolution has arisen in this part of the world that had been deceived and disappointed by so many promises for a better life, respect for the basic rights of citizenship, independence of justice and an equitable distribution of the national wealth. Just for an example the main income of Saudi citizen are 10.000 dollars and the contrast we find in Qatar where the average income are 120.000 US dollars.

What we are witnessing in the Arab world is an unexpected revolution because of its timing that surprised all the intelligentsia and all those who designed their geopolitics and conspiratorial divisions. It is the revolution against the tyranny implanted and defended by many countries of the West, who have cultivated authoritarian, corrupt and repressive political systems. These rejected regimes led to the creation of social imbalance that was and is the fundamental cause of the Intifada of the Peoples who were submitted against their will, who wanted to rebel against their leaders and regimes of questionable legitimacy. These regimes thought their societies would be unable to demand or lead for a change. Nor did the West come to suspect that the latent potential and marginalized force would shout in such serious and radical claims that, albeit sometimes in a low voice were ignored in the past, would unite now globally against the systems and show their force on almost all fronts where the same conditions of social misery are shared.

The riots in Tunisia and Egypt demonstrated that the change of their authoritarian, repressive and tyrannical regimes did not need to have the emblem of Islamic radicalism, that scarecrow used by the leaders and which frightened us for decades. The West must understand that not every Muslim has to be an Islamic jihadist. In Egypt that formed the heart of the Muslim Brotherhood movement since the fall of the Ottoman Empire, they have not shown any significant participation in the uprising of January 2011. They were absent from the masses protests during the 18 days of the Egyptian revolt. We know that the proportion of the Muslim Brothers in the Egyptian streets during the revolt did not exceed 15% of the protesters. As were expected they opportunistically claimed their part in the government.

Again the West has erred in thinking that all these societies are capable of producing only the extremism of the unreasonable and be enemy of Western culture and its democracy and that these societies will never be better controlled than with the hand of a tyrant despot. And now we ask Europe in particular and the West in general, whether they will understand this real situation or continue to see the Arab world with this perspective; rejects Islam and fears Muslims. They mustn’t ignore the possibilities of internal democratization of the Arab societies, and On the contrary, they prefer to be allied with dictator tyrants. If the West is interested in changing its so deteriorated image by supporting expired regimes and seeking to wash and regain its reputation of being an advocate of freedom and law they must start changing. It is time for the West to clarify its policy, or to follow alongside despot governments repudiated by their citizens or to side with the demanders of democratic reforms and their active participation in the management of their countries. If they choose to take protective policies of vassals, they will face the popular rebellion that will be able to overthrow this leaders serfs and the enmity of the peoples. The Arab world has more certainty now than ever as they confirm what was suspected of the role that the West played in the destiny of the region and now demand fruitful signals for its amendment.

[1] http://www.tlaxcala.es/pp.asp?lg=en&reference=4652

 

Anuncios
Esta entrada fue publicada en LOS CICLOS DE LA HISTORIA. Guarda el enlace permanente.

Responder

Introduce tus datos o haz clic en un icono para iniciar sesión:

Logo de WordPress.com

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de WordPress.com. Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Imagen de Twitter

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Twitter. Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Foto de Facebook

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Facebook. Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Google+ photo

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Google+. Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Conectando a %s