For all of that, we've never screwed up quite on the scale as our adventures in the Middle East/South Asia in the 21st century.
At the start of this business, almost a century ago, there was a fellow we didn't listen to, Colonel T.E. Lawrence, aka "Lawrence of Arabia." We didn't listen to him then and that was a screw up. We haven't listened to him ever since and that remains an ongoing screw up.
John Hulsman, president of a global political risk consultancy, writes that it's time we finally accepted the wisdom of Lawrence.
T E Lawrence, a man who through both theory and practice established himself as the regional Middle Eastern expert par excellence in the early twentieth century, followed a very simple but very different analytical route to wisdom: the actual study of others, rather than the narcissistic devotion to being only able to see the world through one’s own point of view.
As Lawrence put it, there is a seminal way to avoid these nasty surprises: “experience of them [local peoples], and knowledge of their prejudices will enable you to foresee their attitude and possible course of action in nearly every case.” In other words, true analysis is more about them, and less about us. US secretary of state John Kerry – a man seemingly perpetually surprised that the world does not operate like a Boston dinner club – would do well to take note.
In psychology, the capacity for taking others’ perspectives onboard is referred to as having a theory of mind, an understanding that others’ internal experiences are different from one’s own. In a common test for autism, a school-aged child is shown a bag of, say, sweets. Then, the child is shown that the sweets have been removed and replaced with pennies. The child is asked, “What would another person think is in the bag?” If the child answers “pennies,” that child has no theory of mind. This deficit can, in extreme forms, render a person almost unable to interact with others in a recognisably social way. The same problem writ large in Western policy has crippled strategy in the Middle East for over a century.
For example, in modern Iraq, failure to determine the true local unit of politics has been the original sin. That unit has remained the fiercely independent ethno-religious groupings of the Sunni, Shia, and the Kurds, rather than the Western preference for some sort of imposed, centralised, Iraqi construct. This analytical failure has unsurprisingly spawned the chaos of the past century.
For example, in modern Iraq, failure to determine the true local unit of politics has been the original sin. That unit has remained the fiercely independent ethno-religious groupings of the Sunni, Shia, and the Kurds, rather than the Western preference for some sort of imposed, centralised, Iraqi construct. This analytical failure has unsurprisingly spawned the chaos of the past century.
For as Sunnis, Shias, and Kurds is how the locals primarily see themselves, rather than as Iraqis, as Westerners desire. The long-time rulers of Mesopotamia, the Ottomans, had known better. They had divided the region up into three separate provinces of Basra, Baghdad, and Mosul, respectively dominated by the Shia, the Sunnis, and the Kurds. For in the end, reality will out.
Lawrence also said that “the beginning and ending of the secret of handling Arabs is unremitting study of them”, at least in part to develop a theory of mind – their mind, to be exact. Until we learn to stand in the shoes of the people of the region and analytically look at the world the way they do, we cannot hope to guess the decisions they will make, the help they will accept, the reforms they will adopt, the deals they will uphold – and the fears to which they will fall prey. Until we demonstrate a theory of mind, Lawrence’s lessons will have to be learned again and again.
Isn't it time we stopped screwing up?
4 comments:
Lawrence understood the age old wisdom that you meet people on their own ground, rather than imperially insisting that they bow and meet us on our ground.
We still are much too impressed with ourselves, Mound.
Yes, Owen, and both their side and ours have paid dearly for our narcissism.
Mound, great post.
Is it possible that Brits and other western countries established the Middle East in the current manner in order to "divide and conquer". Hoping that sectarian wars will keep the west in charge to resolve such problems. Now it is biting them in the butt.
I don't think that was the case, LD. The Brits and French initially sought to deal with the Ottomans via the Treaty of Sevres. Under that treaty the Kurds were to have a legitimate homeland. Turkish nationalists rose up against the Sevres treaty terms which led to the Treaty of Lausanne 3-years later that saw the Ottomans gone and an independent Turkish state arise in their place but also left the Kurds out in the cold. Britain and France were after the oil riches and, accordingly, began carving up the rest of the place.
From my take on it, the victorious Brits and French really didn't put an awful lot of thought and even less vision in the post-WWI Middle East.
Post a Comment