Monarch Profile: Queen Mavia of the Tanukh

One of the results of the triumph of the feminist movement has been the rediscover and emphasis on significant female leaders of ancient history. Female leaders of more recent centuries have not been emphasized in the same way because, figures like Queen Victoria, Empress Maria Theresa or Queen Isabella of Castile, had very traditional and non-feminist worldviews. In the ancient world, however, figures like Boudicca in Britannia or Queen Zenobia of Palmyra were more attractive to them since they were pagans, they were rebels against the existing Imperial Roman power structure and they were far enough distant that some degree of mystery still surrounds them and so modern feminists can fill in the gaps of their stories with speculation that fits their narrative. All of that is also why you have probably never heard of another dynamic female leader of Roman times, Queen Mavia of the Tanukh, sometimes also referred to as the “Queen of Syria” though the people she ruled over were fairly recent arrivals to that part of the world and lived only in and around what is today southern Syria.

Perhaps even more than Boudicca or Zenobia, much about Queen Mavia remains a mystery and our accounts of her come from only a couple of ancient sources. Nonetheless, though she was a strong leader who fought successfully against the dominant power of the Roman Empire, the rest of her story makes her a subject that most modern writers would not want to touch. In the first place, she was an Arab, which would not in itself be a problem but she was an Arab from the pre-Islamic era and an Arab woman ruling over Arab men is something likely to offend modern Islamic sensibilities. To make matters worse for the modern, politically correct types, she was an Arab Christian, a convert from paganism and a very staunch, Orthodox/Catholic (before those were different) Christian at that. Moreover, the military campaign she fought against the Romans was a rebellion that was not a rebellion. She did not fight to bring down Rome or usurp Roman power, but rather she was fighting a war in defense of her faith and that is something the modernists simply cannot handle. She was not anti-Roman, she was pro-Christian.

We do not know exactly when or where she was born, her given name in Arabic is usually rendered as “Mawiyya” and she came to prominence through her marriage to one al-Hawari, the King of the Tanukhids, a confederation of Arab tribes who had left the Arabian peninsula and eventually settled in southern Syria. She and her husband had no sons and when King al-Hawari died in 375 it was Queen Mavia who took over the leadership of the Tanukhids. They were a sort of subsidiary national group within the Roman Empire and, early on, there was no trouble about this. The Romans were seen by the Arabs as protectors or allies against the Sassanian empire of Persia (Iran). However, a problem arose over the matter of religion, even though the Roman Empire was not yet officially a Christian empire at this point, it was largely Christian and, with a notable exception, the Roman emperors had been Christian for some time. However, this was also the period when the Arian heresy held sway and the Emperor Valens, while a Christian, was also an Arian. Queen Mavia was not and she would not have Arianism for her people and requested an orthodox bishop be appointed over them.

Emperor Valens, however, insisted on an Arian bishop and so Queen Mavia left Aleppo for the deep desert and began preparing for war. She showed considerable diplomatic skill as she gained the support of numerous other nomadic tribes in the area to join her coalition. However, she also sent word to the Romans that this rebellion was about having an orthodox bishop and nothing more. Mavia told them that as soon as a proper bishop was given to them, her resistance would end and the former, cordial relations could be immediately restored. This was not a struggle for power but a struggle for what Queen Mavia regarded as the true faith. By the spring of 378 AD all was prepared and the war began. Historical accounts agree that the campaign of Queen Mavia was quite successful and that she was leading it personally, ‘from the front’ and was quite a formidable military commander.

The Arab forces Mavia commanded had been used extensively by the Romans in their fight to suppress the previous uprising in Syria led by Queen Zenobia and as such the Tanukhids were very familiar with Roman tactics and were able to counter them and make use of them for their own side. The local Roman governors proved unable to mount an effective defense. Their own forces were quite limited and whereas in the past they had been able to organize the loyal elements of the local population to increase their numbers, this time it was those very tribes that they were fighting against and so the Romans were quite isolated. Queen Mavia and her armies swept south and east, driving the Romans from southern Syria, Palestine and finally all the way to the Egyptian border. Being hard pressed in other areas and with no hope of victory in sight, Emperor Valens finally had no choice but to relent before the vital province of Egypt was invaded and he agreed to appoint the orthodox, non-Arian cleric Moses as the first Bishop of the Arabs. According to Socrates of Constantinople, Bishop Moses was a “Saracen” (Arab) himself and was quite a successful and well regarded churchman.

Emperor Valens

With this, as promised, Queen Mavia suspended her campaign and reverted back to the previous relationship her people had had within the Roman Empire. To bond the two sides together, Queen Mavia gave her daughter, Princess Chasidat, in marriage to a prominent Roman commander in the area named Victor, also a Christian, a Catholic of course, and a man who had been appointed Consul in 369 AD. In fact, he had confronted Emperor Valens himself because of the imperial preference for Arianism so this would seem to have been a good match. However, the ending of the story of Queen Mavia was not entirely a happy one though Emperor Valens certainly had the worst of it. Once peace had been restored, the Emperor quickly called on Queen Mavia to assist him in his war against the Goths who were rampaging into the heart of the Eastern Roman Empire. Queen Mavia dispatched forces to aid the Romans as required but they were less successful in Europe. Along with the Romans, they were defeated, pushed back and finally wiped out at the Battle of Adrianople where Emperor Valens himself was killed. Few Tanukhids survived to return to their homeland.

There was another revolt by the Tanukhids against the Romans but it is unknown and perhaps unlikely that Queen Mavia was involved at all with it. This revolt was swiftly crushed and the Romans abandoned the Tanukhids as an ally and made a new alliance with the Salih, a rival Arab tribe. All that remains known of Queen Mavia after her assistance to the doomed Emperor Valens is that she died in Anasartha, east of Aleppo, sometime in 425 AD. Today, she is remembered by few due to the nature of her exploits and the fact that her story does not fit the preferred narrative of today. Nonetheless, she was a significant figure of some admirable qualities who deserves to be better known.

The More Things Change, The More Things Stay the Same for Syria

As most know, recently, for the first time (or at least the first time officially admitted to) the United States has taken direct action against the Syrian government of eye-doctor turned Ba'athist dictator Bashar al-Assad. On its own, it was not terribly significant, a strike of about 60 cruise missiles from two offshore U.S. Navy destroyers on one Syrian air base near Khan Shaykhun but it was certainly not welcome news to me as I very much fear it will lead to further U.S. involvement in the Middle East and (as the archives will show) I have been against any American involvement in Syria since Obama first started toying with the idea in 2013. It is none of America's business, has no impact on American national security or national interests at all. Yes, civilians were killed, children were killed and that is sad but the "intelligence community" that is certain Assad is the guilty party ran out of credibility with me a long time ago. I wouldn't take their word that night is dark and water is wet. As far as I'm concerned, it's just the latest example of our new faith-based government where the line is, "we have the evidence, we just can't show it to you but, trust us, it's damning!"

Does that mean I am signing up to the Bashar al-Assad fan club? Not by a long shot and, frankly, I'm amazed at the likes of some of those gushing over the guy. Mr. "I invented the Alt-Right" Richard Spencer has nothing but nice things to say about Assad. For anyone on the "right" end of the political spectrum at all, this seems quite odd. Assad is the leader of the Ba'athist Party, officially described as an Arab *socialist* party and part of a coalition called the National *Progressive* Front. This is the same party that denounced Saddam Hussein (also a Ba'athist dictator) as a "fascist" when he went to war against their beloved co-religionists in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Socialist progressives who consider the word "fascist" an insult would seem rather out of step with the "Alt-Right" crowd from what I've seen. However, a little confusion is probably to be expected. People seem to be trying to fit this entire region into a western frame of mind when that just does not work and has never work as the Ba'athist regime itself and its problems illustrate. It is also why the most stable countries in the region are absolute monarchies that tend to offend liberal sensibilities.

This is because these countries operate in the traditional way for their people and culture. They are tribal, Islamic fundamentalist absolute monarchies just as they have always been going back many, many centuries, they just have private jets instead of camels these days. No matter what changes others have tried to bring to the region, the old patterns continue to prevail and only those states which have remained within those patterns have survived unscathed. Once upon a time, the whole region was one of Arab tribal monarchies ruled by Sunni princes. However, that was too old-fashioned for some and an era of leftist, socialist Arab nationalism swept the region. This was perhaps best illustrated by the United Arab Republic which consisted of Egypt and Syria coming together under one socialist government. Obviously, that little experiment did not last very long since, for one things, socialism never works and the Arabs of Egypt and the Arabs of Syria actually did not feel like they were exactly the same people after all.

The aforementioned bad blood between the socialist Ba'ath party of Syria and the socialist Ba'ath party of Iraq is another example. Why was there not ironclad solidarity between the socialist Arabs of Syria and the socialist Arabs of Iraq against the totally alien Persian theocrats? Because, once again, despite the effort at secular Arab nationalism, the older divisions remained more important. Many Syrians, particularly the Alawites (from whence the al-Assad family hails) are Shia Muslims just like the Iranians. Most Iraqis are Shia Muslims too but Saddam Hussein was not and he was in charge. Such is why Syria and Iran have been such good friends since the Sunni Muslims were removed from power and replaced by Shia Muslims. This is also why the Arab monarchies all want to see the end of Bashar al-Assad. They are Sunni Muslims and this is part of the Sunni-Shia feud that has been going on almost since Mohammed kicked off. They can get rid of their monarchies and replace them with republics, they can try to ignore past tribalism and promote Arab nationalism but the old tribal and religious divisions still persist. They are not going to change and the United States cannot force them to. The British, to their credit, had the good sense not to try.

For Russia to back the Shia and the United States to back the Sunni doesn't seem like a smart move for either country. Particularly in the west, modern liberal thinking has put religion aside but the Islamic world doesn't see it that way and the west is still the "Crusader states" as far as they're concerned. Similarly, they were calling America "the Great Satan" back in the days when Ricky and Lucy slept in twin beds and Archbishop Sheen had the highest rated show on television. What is going on the Middle East and particularly Syria today is the latest manifestation of very old tribal and sectarian conflict that all outsiders would do well to stay out of. Even if the problem could be solved, the leaders we have in the western world today, with their liberal mentality, are definitely not the ones capable of doing it. And, even if you do what seems to be the "right" thing, you will never gain any credit for doing it. When the U.S. and NATO came to the rescue of the Muslim Albanians and bombed the Christian Serbs on their behalf, there was no wave of gratitude from the Muslim world. When the U.S. led a coalition to drive out a secular dictator and put the Emir of Kuwait back on his throne, it didn't mean the Islamic radicals were going to decide America wasn't all that bad after all. I still think the best thing to do is stay out of the region and keep it quarantined as best as possible.

------------------Additional Info-----------------
The Attempt at a Royalist Syria

Obama and America's Royal Allies

When Barrack Hussein Obama first ran for and was elected President of the United States, one could be forgiven for thinking that there was even greater pro-Obama hysteria outside of America than here at home. Around the world he was treated like a celebrity, drawing huge crowds in Britain, Germany and even being awarded a Nobel Peace Prize regardless of the minor detail of not having done anything to deserve it. However, now that his two terms in office are almost over most of that gushing adoration has died down and, looking at his administration, we can better evaluate how Obama has done in terms of dealing with the official and un-official allies of the United States. For our purposes here, we will be looking at Obama’s relationship with the monarchies of the world, almost all of which are directly or indirectly allied to the United States. The picture that emerges is, unfortunately, not a pleasant one but not one that most conservatives at least would find at all surprising as they alone seemed interested enough to try to find out what sort of man Obama really is rather than falling in love at first sight with like those on the left, both at home and abroad.

In terms of his dealings with monarchs, one of the first things that grabbed public attention in America was Obama bowing to certain monarchs. If one cares to, one can look back at the archives and see that I stuck up for our president on this occasion, the first instance being when, on a visit to the Imperial Palace in Tokyo, he bowed to His Majesty the Emperor of Japan, albeit rather awkwardly while simultaneously trying to shake his hand. However, that was not the end of it. Many Americans lapsed into exaggerated hysterics about how it was an offense to republican principles for the President to bow to the Emperor of Japan, while the White House responded to the issue by saying the President was simply following local custom. As I said at the time, I had and have no problem with the President showing proper respect and bowing to the Japanese Emperor but I later came to have a problem with Obama’s inconsistency on this front. Given what has happened since, I sometimes wonder if he was actually intentionally bowing at all or simply bending low to shake the Emperor’s hand, given that the Japanese monarch is considerably shorter than the President.

No, it was not his behavior toward the Emperor of Japan that was a problem for me but rather where things went from there that showed Obama was not simply being fastidious on the issue of protocol. Later, Obama bowed to another monarch, that being the King of Saudi Arabia. He bowed so low in fact that it almost seemed he was about to pick something up off the floor. But, again, no major cause for alarm. However, when he later had formal meetings with other monarchs such as the King of Sweden, the King of Norway or the King of Spain, did he ever bow to any of them? Not that I noticed and Michelle Obama committed a major faux-pas in London by actually putting her hands on the person of Her Majesty the Queen. Obviously, the bowing was not being done in an effort to follow protocol to the last detail. If not, why does it seem that Obama only shows such respect to non-western, non-Christian monarchs? And, the list does not end there as Obama has, in his own behavior and the policies of his administration, done a great deal to show that America’s royal friends are no friends of his.

We might as well begin with the United Kingdom which, while not our oldest, has certainly been our closest and most important ally. Despite being widely celebrated in the UK, with even conservatives like Tory MEP Daniel Hannan voicing support for him, Obama made it clear as soon as he took office that he was no great friend of the British. His first act upon moving into the Oval Office was to remove and send back the bust of Sir Winston Churchill that his presidential predecessor had placed there. In their first exchange of gifts, Obama sent the Queen some off-the-shelf items from the White House gift shop and an iPod loaded with his own speeches in an act which even many on the left thought arrogant and in very poor taste. These acts caused more than a few to recall how Obama had, in the books he enjoys writing about his favorite subject -himself-, related stories of how his grandfather in Kenya was supposedly tortured by British colonial authorities during the Mau Mau terrorist insurgency and whether the President might just have a strong anti-British grudge he is nursing. However, there is much more to it than mere symbolic gestures as those above.

Obama referred to the French as America’s strongest friend and ally which is language usually reserved for the British with the French traditionally, and correctly, being referred to as America’s “oldest” ally. Obama refused five requests for a private meeting with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown (the Israeli PM could sympathize on that one) and later, in another appallingly bad exchange of gifts, sent Brown a set of various films on DVD which would have been bad enough but to add insult to injury they were DVDs that cannot be played in Britain. Are we expected to believe that Obama and his White House team that is bursting at the seams with Ivy League graduates, hailed as the smartest administration in American history, has no knowledge or understanding of region coding? He also, after the BP oil spill and conveniently right around election time, made a point of constantly referring to BP as “British Petroleum” as if to make it more sinister and foreign sounding, regardless of the fact that no one else calls it that anymore, the company having some time ago dropped the name and stuck only with the initials to stand for “Beyond Petroleum”.

The most serious issues though, are those that deal with actual foreign policy as it relates to Great Britain. Obama has never wasted an opportunity to show his visceral dislike for the British. His primary cohort in this was his Secretary of State and current favored candidate to succeed him, Hillary Clinton. It was Clinton who pushed for the intervention in Libya only to then adopt the “lead from behind policy” and have Europe do all the heavy lifting involved. When the situation resulted in chaos, Obama was quick to blame the Europeans rather than accepting any responsibility for the actions of his own administration. Likewise, when Obama at least pretended like he wanted to go to war with Syria, he blamed British PM “Call me Dave” Cameron for failing to win a vote in the House of Commons for giving the U.S. Congress an example to follow and thus for every bit of bad news that has come out of Syria since. The one point, though, that I found most outrageous was when Argentina began rattling the saber again over the Falkland Islands in 2010, Obama sent Hillary Clinton to act as mediator and basically take the side of Argentina over Britain. Clinton no doubt agreed as it was her husband, President Bill Clinton, who made Argentina a “major non-NATO ally”, and the only one in all of South America, in spite of the fact that this country has an outstanding territorial dispute with Britain, which is already an ally and which the U.S. is obligated to defend.

Finally, we have Obama’s latest effort to insert himself into the debate over Britain staying in or leaving the European Union with Obama very publicly urging British voters to vote to stay in the European Union. This, of course, is just the sort of behavior that would infuriate Americans on the left and/or the right if it were done by a foreign leader in regard to an American issue. I am a big fan of the U.K. and as much as I wish that the British would feel the same about the U.S. the fact of the matter is that Britain should tell Obama to mind his own bloody business and not try to tell them how to vote. They should be concerned with what is best for Britain, not what is best for America (that is for Americans alone to worry about). Furthermore, I cannot regard this as yet more evidence of simple bad manners since I am very, very much of the opinion that staying in the EU is bad for Britain and so, taken along with his history in office, cannot dismiss the notion that Obama is purposely advocating something that has had and will have a very negative impact on a country he clearly dislikes. It is no surprise that more than one prominent figure in the ‘Brexit’ crowd such as Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage (UKIP MEP) have finally been compelled by this to state openly that Obama has been consistently anti-British during his time in office.

Moving beyond Europe, where thanks to the EU national relations between America and individual countries does not count for much anymore as Brussels handles everything, we have the problematic situation in the Middle East where, despite his bowing and scraping, Obama has left the Arab monarchies feeling less than pleased with the United States government. Certainly he has been more attentive to them than to the crowned heads of Europe but for the Arab monarchies there is one overriding issue and that is the Islamic Republic of Iran. For a long time there has been a long-standing tension and recurring open hostilities between Iran and the Arab states over the dominant position in the Middle East (and other than Egypt, the leading Arab states are predominately monarchies; Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the UAE and Oman). Now, one can certainly question whether or not these Arab states are genuine allies of the United States (they leave plenty of room for doubt) but the facts on paper are that such is the case and they have been greatly alarmed by the Iranians, who already had a pliant ally in Syria, expanding their influence into Iraq and they have been trying to do the same in Yemen.

This has greatly alarmed the Arabs and never have they expressed more diplomatic outrage at the United States than after Obama’s notorious “deal” concerning the nuclear program in Iran. This called for the release of billions of dollars to Iran, the lifting of economic sanctions on Iran and left little room for doubt that they will inevitably obtain nuclear weapons. Since the agreement, and in spite of it, they have also been buying more and more conventional weapons from the Russians. Of course, when it comes to Iran, the enemy they like to talk about the most is Israel but since the Islamic Revolution they have made it clear that they are the enemies of the Arab Muslims as well, referring to the Sunnis as the “heretics who hold Mecca”. Obama’s deal with Iran and his overall indecisiveness in the region so infuriated the Saudis that they turned down a temporary seat on the UN Security Council on the grounds that, thanks to Obama, it doesn’t matter anyway. By clearing the way for Iran to obtain nuclear weapons, Obama has set the stage for a nuclear arms race in the Middle East with Saudi Arabia and Egypt sure to obtain their own nuclear arsenals to counter that of Iran.

Moving farther to the east, we have the situation with America’s most important ally in the East Asia-Pacific region: Japan. Here, a great many people, including a great many Japanese, have been fooled by Obama’s empty gestures. He gave, as political pay-back, Japan a “celebrity” ambassador in the person of Caroline Kennedy, never mind that she has no diplomatic experience, could not speak Japanese or any such troubling details, she was a Kennedy after all, she is famous and she was given an uproarious welcome when she came to Japan. However, rather than simply representing the United States in Tokyo, Obama’s chosen ambassador said that her primary goal in Japan was to promote greater participation in politics by women in Japan. Because, it seems, that gender roles in the Land of the Rising Sun are still far too traditional for the liberals of the Obama White House. What does it say that a foreign ambassador’s stated goal upon being posted is to interfere in the internal affairs of the host country? To represent the American government is her job, to promote Japanese-American friendship is great, to promote American interests is fine but to try to tell Japanese voters what sort of people they need to elect is, again, none of her business and none of Obama’s business. And one will notice that none of Obama’s ambassadors to countries where women are treated as little more than property ever said anything similar. She has also stuck her nose where it doesn’t belong with her comments critical of fishing practices in Taiji and the Prime Minister visiting the Yasukuni Shrine.

Other countries, particularly China and Korea, have a history of protesting any time any Japanese official chooses to worship at Yasukuni Shrine but the U.S. had previously always said nothing about it, considering it an internal matter and, shocking as this may sound, none of their business where and in what way a Japanese prime minister chooses to exercise his freedom of religion. But, all of that was before Obama and thanks to Kennedy’s expression of “disappointment” other countries which had previously stayed out of the issue, took the occasion to speak up as well, piling on Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. The idea that someone as far to the left as Obama would find nothing to criticize in a prime minister as far to the right as Shinzo Abe was certainly naïve. What was most outrageous though was something that many in Japan cheered Obama for which was his public statement that the Senkaku Islands, which are Japanese territory but claimed by Communist China, are covered by the Japanese-American security treaty. In other words, if China decides to grab the islands, it will mean big trouble with America.

The Japanese applauded this but it was actually only a re-statement of what was already well established. What many, in all their rejoicing, failed to note was that Obama followed up that comment with the completely asinine statement that the U.S. took no official position on the territorial dispute over the islands between China and Japan. I seem to have been the only one to find this outrageous but I hope I am mistaken in that. Either way you look at it, this was an immensely outrageous thing for Obama to say. By that statement, Obama could only mean one of two things; either he meant that the Senkakus are Japanese territory and we will defend them but that could change at any time depending on how this dispute unfolds, or he just casually announced that he was pledging America’s sons and daughters to possibly give their lives in defense of a cause which he is not even sure is the right one! In any case, it shows that Obama’s attitude toward Japan has been one of tepid support and unfriendly meddling. An aide to Prime Minister Abe went so far as to say that relations were better when there was a Republican in the White House.

Lastly in the region, there is also the case of Obama’s disgraceful record toward the Kingdom of Thailand. The United States and Thailand have been official allies since 1966 but have had friendly relations going back much farther with King Mongkut of Siam famously offering to send President Lincoln a herd of war elephants so he could fight the Civil War properly and illustrated at the worst of times by the United States not responding in kind when Thailand declared war on the United States in World War II. Things began to go wrong when, again, Obama decided to meddle in the affairs of an American ally after the 2014 military coup. Obama’s Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton’s successor, John Kerry caused great offense in the halls of power in Bangkok when he issued a statement expressing how “disappointed” he was in the actions of the Royal Thai Army and that, “this act will have negative implications for the U.S.-Thai relationship, especially for our relationship with the Thai military”.

The Obama State Department has since then made numerous statements and taken actions which have all offended and aggravated our friends in Thailand and all because the military government is out-of-step with Obama’s liberal worldview of how things should be done. And it cannot be said that this has nothing to do with the King, a great man revered in Thailand who was born in America and supported the United States during the Vietnam conflict. The King officially appointed the Thai general who led the coup to the office of prime minister in 2014, effectively giving it his endorsement and was totally correct to do so. Not only is the meddling of Obama unseemly and uncalled for, it is also putting him on the wrong side. The military took action because of the violent acts of radical leftists who were upset that their favorite government had been brought down, a government that was marked by corruption and criminal behavior on a rampant scale. By being so critical of the current government in Thailand, Obama has offended a long-standing friend and pushed them closer toward Communist China which is ever looking to increase its influence in Southeast Asia, made all the easier since Russia abandoned Vietnam in favor of the Chinese. Thailand is our only solid friend in the region and Obama, in true, holier-than-thou, Wilsonian fashion, has needlessly antagonized them and made things worse for Thailand as well as the United States.

It is not terribly dissimilar from his actions in regard to the republican government in Egypt where Obama pushed for the removal of an official Arab ally because he did not meet his lofty, liberal standards, only to then see the country fall into the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood (an organization so radical even Arab monarchies like Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and the UAE have labeled it a terrorist organization). If Obama knew anything about Thailand he would know that the occasional coup is not exactly unprecedented and not the harbinger of disaster as it often is in other countries. He would know that the U.S. military and the Royal Thai military have worked closely together for decades and that the leaders of the Royal Thai Army are not power-hungry tyrants-in-waiting but are largely honorable men, loyal to their King, who want the best for their country and took action to save it from the disruptive, even terrorist and disloyal elements that were threatening it.

Then again, perhaps I am being unkind to Mr. Obama. Perhaps he knows the situation better than that. Perhaps he knows what the “red shirts” were all about, perhaps he approved of Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra and his socialist, welfare-state policies, his easy loans and big spending that made Thai farmers dependent on the government, his cronyism, his rampant bribery and the violence and intimidation used by the supporters of the prime minister and his family. Maybe he sees nothing wrong with the extremely dubious loyalty of his crowd to the fundamentals of Thailand. If so, then he is guilty of nothing less than cheering on the ruination of an American ally and is doing the best he can, short of direct intervention, to kill any chance at recovery. However, whether his policy is malicious or simply ignorant, it has certainly been negative for both countries involved and has only served the interests of powers that have only the worst of intentions for both the United States and the Kingdom of Thailand in the long-run.

There are other issues that could be highlighted, such as Obama’s killing of the Keystone XL pipeline, even going so far, as he did with BP, to invoke national bigotry by constantly complaining how the pipeline would primarily be to the benefit of Canada rather than the United States but, then again, that was when Stephen Harper was in office and I’m sure now that little Justin Trudeau has taken over his opinion of Canada has greatly improved. However, I think the case has been well made. President Obama has certainly been bad for this country and his constant habit of “reaching out” to our enemies while snubbing or taking sides against our allies, has certainly been well demonstrated and had negative consequences. The only problem I have in pointing this out is that, while it upsets me a great deal, from numerous on-line comments I see on a daily basis, I am also constantly having to face the dilemma that there is so much mindless anti-Americanism out there as to mean that in this twisted, upside-down world where many people seem to hate their friends and admire those who want to kill them, that maybe Obama’s antagonistic attitude toward our royal allies will have the opposite effect that it otherwise would have. I hope that is not the case and hope that there is a silent majority out there who wants to be friends rather than enemies but, if that is not the case, change may soon be coming with the next presidential election.

The Example of Jordan

It was on this day in 1999 that Abdullah II succeeded to the throne of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan upon the death of his father King Hussein. The King of Jordan has been in the news a great deal lately with the horrific burning alive of a Jordanian fighter pilot by ISIS terrorists. King Abdullah, a trained combat pilot himself, put on his battle gear and called for swift retaliation against the barbaric criminals, inspiring people all over the world, from the United States to Japan, whose leaders could not or would not do the same in showing such a level of determination against the vicious enemy. With all of this in mind, it should be obvious to the viewing public that Jordan represents something of a ‘framework’ to solving many of the problems in the modern Middle East. Saying that it “should” be obvious, however, does not mean that it will be since no one seems willing to make the monarchist argument on the world stage. At a time when so many are praising the courage and leadership of King Abdullah II, this is the perfect time to point out that the Jordanian model should stand as an example to others of a monarchist solution.

The Kingdom of Jordan stands out in the Middle East as a country which, while having its share of problems and shortcomings as any country does, has a great record of strength and stability compared to those around it. Jordan is a small country, a little larger than the state of Indiana, a population of around six million with very little water and practically no natural resources to speak of. Its chief products has traditionally been barley, fruit and goats. It has nothing like the vast oil reserves of Iraq or even Saudi Arabia and there have been tensions between the native people and the very large number of Palestinians who make up a large part of the population. Yet, while neighbors like Syria and Iraq have had many more advantages, they have known numerous civil wars and spent many decades living under the heel of brutal socialist dictators while Jordan has carried on in internal peace and stability with a strong constitutional monarchy.

The King, like most in the region, has a great deal of power and is expected to actually rule his country and yet it bears almost no resemblance at all to its neighbor Saudi Arabia which is much more restrictive and where power is much more centralized. Likewise, while it is a Muslim country and the Hashemite Royal Family claims descent from the prophet Mohammed, it is not at all as harshly strict as Saudi Arabia is. Starting in the 1950’s women in Jordan gained much more freedom and it has a representative government with a bicameral legislature with the lower body being democratically elected and the upper body appointed by the King. If this sounds somewhat familiar, it should. After British and Allied forces drove out the Ottoman Turks in World War I the country of Transjordan (as it was originally called) was established with the Hashemite prince Abdullah ibn Hussein as Emir. From 1920 Transjordan was a British mandate that made steady progress toward independence so that by the 1940’s only a few British advisors remained. Total independence was recognized in 1946 but if any should doubt that the country was not practically independent before that, it is worth remembering that Jordan was neutral in World War II which, of course, it would not have been if it had been simply a British dependency.

There were many problems, as with every other country in the region, concerning the independence of the State of Israel, Palestinian refugees and lingering ties with Great Britain, particularly as Arab nationalism became trendy in the 1950’s. However, Jordan and Iraq, which was also a Hashemite monarchy at the time, joined together in the Arab Federation or Arab Federal State in 1958 to counter the Egyptian-Syrian union (which was really Egyptian domination of Syria) known as the United Arab Republic. Neither lasted very long and the Iraqi monarchy sadly fell to a republican coup that ushered in an era of instability broken only by the stability of a brutal dictatorship. So, while Syria and Iraq have mostly been known for their wars and torture and tyranny, Jordan has gained a much better reputation around the world. Jordan is known as the country that made peace with Israel (though naturally tensions remain), the country with widely admired and respected leaders, male and female like King Hussein, Queen Alia, Queen Noor or King Abdullah II and Queen Rania today.

Everyone, in light of recent events, who is praising King Abdullah II for his bold stand against ISIS, should ask themselves why it is that Jordan is so often the home for refugees from places like Palestine, Iraq and Syria. They should ask why Syria and Iraq cannot have a ‘King Abdullah’ of their own, because the answer is that they easily could have! Iraq, in fact, did have and Syria had previously -even what is now Saudi Arabia had a Hashemite monarchy in the aftermath of the First World War. The Hashemites had led the Arab revolt against the Turks and were set to rule the newly independent countries that emerged from the fall of the Ottoman Empire. Sharif Hussein was to rule Arabia as King of the Hejaz but he was later overthrown by the Wahhabi-backed House of Saud who established Saudi Arabia as it is today. One son of his, Faisal I, became King of Syria with Prince Zeid (another son) as regent of Iraq and a third son, Abdullah, was made King of Transjordan. However, only the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan has endured. The Hejaz fell to the Saudis, the Kingdom of Syria was overthrown by the French Republic and its monarch, King Faisal, instead became King of Iraq. The monarchy there endured somewhat longer but, as mentioned, was lost in a coup in 1958 when King Faisal II and the Royal Family were brutally massacred. None have benefited from such changes, I think any honest observer would agree.

There are, of course, unique distinctions about the Middle East that make it a particularly difficult region to thrive in these days. However, as people today applaud King Abdullah II and call for greater unity and some sort of Arab coalition to wipe out the terrorist element, we should call attention to the fact that such a thing did exist, albeit very briefly, in the past and that it could, conceivably, come about again if only people and governments would follow the example of the formula that has proven the most successful. If things continue as they are, no one will suffer more than the Arabs. Already rebels backed by the Islamic Republic of Iran have brought down the government of Yemen, the elected government in Iraq is heavily influenced by Iran and the dictator of Syria and the powerful Hezbollah faction in Lebanon are practically Iranian owned. Someone is being encircled here and it isn’t Europe or the United States. This is not ’someone else’s fight’ but an Arab fight that the Arabs must take in hand themselves, as the King of Jordan has been doing. Other powers can give assistance but if we want real lasting peace and stability in the region some things have to change or, to be more precise, change back.

Bombing Syria

The word reached me on Monday night that, for the first time, bombs were falling on the areas of Syria dominated by the terrorist group ISIS. The military effort includes no Europeans with only France participating in the bombing of ISIS targets in Iraq but wanting no part of any attacks on the Syrian side of the border (at least not yet, others may join if they think it prudent later on). The coalition includes the United States of America, the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, the Kingdom of Bahrain and the Emirate of Qatar. Yes, ‘one of these things is not like the other’ and, certainly in my opinion, ‘one of these things just doesn’t belong’. An officially secular democratic republic fighting alongside five Islamic absolute monarchies. Why the United States is involved at all is beyond me. It is certainly not because it takes a military superpower to take on ISIS. The lavishly wealthy gulf states have the means to do the job all by themselves and being fellow Arab Muslims also have some advantages that America lacks. In terms of equipment, much of their military tech was purchased from the United States anyway. I would be pleased if the United States stayed out of this Islamic civil war and focused on keeping terrorists off of American soil and weeding out there sympathizers already in residence (which I think would also be good advice for Europe though Europe has more reason to be interested than America being as they are closer to the region and have economic ties with the areas involved).

Standard of Iraq

Having a look back at my posts on Syria last year, I see that nothing has really changed. My position is still that this is none of America’s business and the U.S. President remains bewilderingly inconsistent. ISIS is not a direct threat to America or Europe and bombing Syria and Iraq into little pieces will do nothing to benefit American or European security, only preventing terrorists from gaining access to these countries and weeding out their sympathizers already in residence will do that. However, ISIS does pose a very real threat to the monarchies of the region and I am glad to see them taking at least a partial role in the campaign against them. The problem here, as I see it, is that there is no way to fight one group of bad guys without inadvertently assisting another group of bad guys. The ISIS fanatics are so nuts that they pose a danger to everyone in the region, whether it is the secular republics in Syria and Iraq, the religious monarchies or even the theocratic state in Iran. ISIS has threatened Europe, America and Russia as well as all of their co-religionists whom they deem ‘not Muslim enough’. Taking down ISIS means taking down a major threat to the Assad regime in Syria (which last year Obama told us was so terrible) and would also be doing a big favor for Iran and their allies that have been in control of Iraq ever since Saddam Hussein was toppled.

Standard of Saudi Arabia

This is why I think it is prudent for Europe to stay out of it and would have preferred for America to do the same. No matter who wins, you still lose. What is most concerning is the threat posed to the monarchies of the region and I say that not simply as a monarchist but because these have been the most stable regimes in an otherwise very violent and chaotic region. They are under threat, they should be maintained and they should take responsibility for their own security and handle this problem themselves. There is at least some small excuse for optimism in the fact that, aside from America, all the current participants are Islamic monarchies. It holds out hope that they understand their situation and can, perhaps, offset any temptation by the Obama administration to try some idealistic nonsense that will only make things worse. This is also something that Saudi Arabia and Qatar in particular should have a hand in because they must accept at least some of the responsibility for the fact that it has come to this. Each have been in competition with the other in promoting their own brand of religious extremism and lately they have begun to feel the consequences of that. Qatar has been a major supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood that has helped destabilize the whole region and for that reason the other monarchies have put Qatar on the “naughty” list. The Saudis too have been spreading fundamentalism and, one must assume inadvertently, inspired a crop of fanatics who see even their kingdom as ‘not Muslim enough’.

King & Queen of Jordan

Many liberal critics of the “War on Terror” in the west liked to point out that Osama bin Laden and most of the 911 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. What they failed to mention was that these same people are not loyal to the government there and want the monarchy overthrown in favor of something similar to what ISIS has tried to establish; a fundamentalist theocracy. Through a combination of force and the largesse their oil wealth gives them, Saudi Arabia and the gulf states have been able to fend off any radical unrest within their own borders but Jordan has had a more difficult time. They have long been the most politically moderate regime in the neighborhood but they also lack oil wealth and bad economic times have been seized on by religious radicals to stir up trouble. This adds further stress to a system already pushed to the limit by refugees flooding into Jordan every time there is a crisis and the Syrian civil war certainly counts. For many in the country, the close ties between the monarchy and the United States and Great Britain and social things like the Queen being best buddies with Oprah and the like all work against them. This places Jordan, and to a lesser degree the other states in the region, in a difficult position. If they try to please the west, they anger the radicals which makes them dependent on western goodwill all the more whereas trying to please the radicals angers the west who then might not come to the rescue if there is trouble.

Prince Ra'ad bin Zeid of Iraq & Syria

These countries need to make up their minds what sort of countries they want to be and forge ahead boldly. Trying to play both sides of the fence has not worked to their advantage. The west, particularly America, would also be well advised, in my view, to stop meddling and drop the conceit that they are responsible for any of this or have any solution to the problems in the region. As someone else recently said, speaking of Iraq, if money and military force could solve the problems there the country would be a paradise by this point. Right now, the only goal is (at least insofar as one can interpret the inconsistent rhetoric of Obama) to defeat ISIS and not to bring down Assad in Syria or do anymore nation-building. However, all the ingredients are present for “mission creep” in Iraq and arming Syrian rebels who started this war by fighting Assad and expecting them to drop that ambition in favor of focusing only on ISIS would be, in my view, unrealistic. What I would like to see would be for the west to wash its hands of the whole nasty business in the region and let the locals handle things. Sell the legitimate monarchies all the weapons they ask for but make it clear that they have to do the fighting. Iraq, like all the others, needs to put on their big boy pants and stop expecting American military power to come to their rescue whenever there is a crisis.

The Emir of Qatar

So, by all means, let the ISIS killers be wiped out but the Sunni monarchies need to take care that what follows does not end up strengthening the hand of Iran and their pliant friends in Iraq and Syria. That would set things up for further instability and conflict. My preference would be for the monarchies to take a more broad-based approach, let the minorities (ethnic and religious) know that they will be better off with them than with the Iranians or their puppets. If Assad should fall, I would not shed a single tear for the vicious tyrant, but would hope that what replaces him would be a restored Kingdom of Syria under the Hashemite heir. Perhaps they might even expel the Iranian puppets from Iraq and redraw some borders to extend some of the existing countries and more of the old Kingdom of “Greater Syria” under the said monarch. There is an opportunity here for something better for the Middle East but I do wish the western world would learn that it has to be something they take in hand themselves, it cannot be imposed by force. That is not to say it couldn’t be done but most western countries as well need to decide what they are going to be first just like those in the Middle East (and other parts of the world for that matter). At this point, all one can do is hope though, under the circumstances, that is a rather difficult thing to do. The idea that any of the countries mentioned above, certainly Saudi Arabia and Qatar, acting in accordance with any of my preferences seem extremely remote indeed.

The Attempt at a Royalist Syria

Today, with all of the controversy over Syria, it is worth remembering that Syria, as we know it today, was originally a monarchy even if only a short-lived legal formality. Why is this worth remembering? The answer should be self-evident. When one looks at all of the confusion, disorder and violence that has accompanied the so-called “Arab Spring” all of the worst bloodshed and all of the governments that have actually been overthrown have been republics. Tunisia, Libya, Egypt (all republics) have had upheavals and now Syria though it remains to be seen, at this point, if the government will survive or not. Monarchies have known turmoil during this time but none have fallen and none of the unrest has occurred on the same level as that seen in republics. The Kingdoms of Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and, to a lesser extent, the Gulf micro-monarchies have all been shaken but none have fallen nor have they degenerated into civil war. It should be obvious to any impartial observer that monarchy has been good for the Middle East and North Africa whereas republics have only caused confusion and disorder. Even when the republics have been stable it has only been because of the rule of barbaric tyrants who enforced such stability through the butchery of their own people. So, what about the original, Syrian monarchy? To understand the situation, as is not uncommon, one must go back to the First World War.

King Hussein

For centuries prior to that conflict Syria, like most of the rest of the region, was part of the Turkish Ottoman Empire. As soon as the Ottoman Empire entered the war on the side of the Central Powers, the Allies, primarily Great Britain, began to make diplomatic overtures to the Arab population. This campaign proved to be a resounding success with the Arabs, armed and equipped by the British, rising up against the Turks and fighting alongside the Allies, primarily Britain and France. The Arabs were led by Hussein bin Ali, Emir and Sharif of Mecca since 1908. Although not a nationalist by nature, Sharif Hussein had grown alienated from the Ottoman Empire since the takeover of the “Young Turks” in Constantinople and the subsequent effort to restructure and modernize the empire. When the British reached out to him, he first demanded their support in the creation of what amounted to an Arab empire that would include all the territory between Egypt, Turkey and Persia and with himself supplanting the Ottoman Sultan as the new Caliph of Islam. The British would not agree to all of this but nonetheless Sharif Hussein led the Arabs in revolt against the Turks in 1916 on the understanding that there would be an independent Arab state when the war was over and the Ottoman Empire was carved up. However, his aims ran contrary to the Sykes-Picot Agreement made by Britain, France and Russia to partition the territory of the Ottoman Empire between them.

The Sykes-Picot Agreement was secret, at least until the Bolsheviks took over Russia and made it public, to the embarrassment of all concerned. It ran rather contrary to what the western Allies at least had been saying about national self-determination as one of their justifications for war. Contrary to what some may think, that idea was not invented by U.S. President Woodrow Wilson, though he certainly made it worse by emphasizing it even more than Britain and France did (Wilson himself later admitting that he had spoken in ignorance when he did so. Oops. Yeah, thanks for that Woody). What is today southern Iraq, Jordan, Palestine and points south were claimed by Britain (with promises of a Jewish state in Palestine coming as early as 1914) with northern Iraq, Lebanon and Syria being claimed by France (Russian gains were to have been in northern Turkey and around Constantinople). The British, with the Balfour Declaration, tried to invalidate the agreement but also renounced any promises made to the Arabs. In any event, under a different name, most of the territorial claims made in the Sykes-Picot Agreement became a reality after the war was over with Palestine, Jordan and Iraq becoming British mandates and Lebanon and Syria becoming French mandates. At the time, of course, there were no such countries and pretty much everything between what is now Saudi Arabia and Turkey was referred to at the time as Syria. The Arabs also had considerable forces on the ground and were determined to claim the territory they wanted regardless of what the Allies in Paris thought.

King Faisal

The problem was that the Arabs were not very united, nationalism still not having replaced the more prevalent tribalism of the region. In Mecca, Sharif Hussein was declared “King of All the Arabs” by the clerics there but it was an empty title. In Damascus a congress was convened but the feuding Arabs were crippled by internal divisions and the situation stagnated. Finally, the idea of an outright Arab empire was dropped but what was hoped for next almost amounted to the same thing. The region was to be divided up between Sharif Hussein and his sons. This is when the Kingdom of Syria came into being, the first independent state of Syria as we know it today though, at the time, it was much larger than modern Syria. Sharif Hussein reigned as King of the Hejaz though he was in a constant struggle against the House of Saud and their Wahhabi supporters (a struggle, obviously, he would eventually lose -ironically the fight had predated World War One but, in those days, the Ottoman Turks had helped keep the Saudis and the Wahhabis in check). What is today Syria, Palestine and northern Iraq were declared the Arab Kingdom of Syria under King Faisal I (son of King Hussein) with Prince Zeid (another son of King Hussein) declared regent of Iraq. Another son, Abdullah, became King of Transjordan.

This was not exactly the Arab empire some had originally envisioned but it was not far removed with Hashemite monarchs reigning over the entire region, though Palestine was never going to remain as the British were intent on keeping the promises they had made to the Zionist movement in 1914. There was simply no way to reconcile the agreements made by Britain and France with the promises for a “Greater Syria” made to the Arabs. Because of this, neither Britain or France recognized Faisal as King of Syria and this would prove problematic since France insisted on exclusive influence and certain controls over Syria. Having been on the throne for only a few months and with chaos still reigning throughout much of the region, King Faisal felt he had little choice but to agree to the conditions of the French republic. This, however, proved unacceptable to the fiery, pro-independence faction which demanded defiance to any limitations on Syrian independence. It was an embarrassing situation for King Faisal who, under intense pressure from his people, was obliged to denounce the agreement he had just made and assert complete independence for the Kingdom of Syria. The French republic responded by announcing their intention to rule directly and dispatched troops to enforce French authority.

French troops in Syria

On July 14, 1920 French General Henri Gouraud sent an ultimatum to King Faisal, demanding that he surrender. With no foreign powers recognizing his government and with his own military lacking heavy weapons, King Faisal felt he had no choice but to surrender rather than see his people butchered in a fight they had no realistic chance of winning. In spite of this, his minister of war decided to defy the King and confront the French army. The result was the disastrous battle of Maysalun in which the Syrian forces were easily crushed. Damascus fell a few days later and the remnants of the Syrian army fled the country or surrendered to the French. King Faisal was officially deposed and forced out of the country, going into exile in Great Britain. There were rebellions later on, none of which were successful, and under one name or another direct or indirect French rule was maintained in Syria until 1946, a Republic of Syria having been created along the way. The exiled King of Syria was not out of the picture however. When the British effort at direct rule over Iraq proved rather problematic, King Faisal I of Syria was brought back to the Middle East and enthroned as King Faisal I of Iraq. Hashemite rule and the Kingdom of Iraq lasted until 1958 when King Faisal II was murdered in a military coup. As an aside, only one of the Hashemite monarchs was able to persevere. The Kingdom of Syria was brought down by the French, the Kingdom of Iraq was brought down by nationalist radicals and the Kingdom of the Hejaz was overthrown and replaced by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Only the Emir of Transjordan, later the Kingdom of Jordan, under King Abdullah remained and the Hashemite dynasty still reigns in Jordan to this day.

As most know, the subsequent history of Syria (and Iraq for that matter) stands in stark contrast to the relative peace and stability of the Kingdom of Jordan. After the departure of the French the Syrian Republic was rocked by numerous coups, rebellions and disastrous wars. In 1958 Syria was merged with Egypt to form the United Arab Republic but another military coup in 1961 took Syria out of that union. It was one coup after another for a short time until a dictatorship was established by the Arab Socialists of the Ba’ath Party (which had branches in Syria and Iraq). There were still coups and factional feuds within the Ba’ath Party that ruled Syria which, of course, further ruined the country. This was a dictatorship where the trains did not run on time, so to speak. Stability, but certainly not peace and calm, came for a time with the coming to power of Hafez al-Assad in 1970. He held power until his death in 2000 when he was succeeded as President by his son, the currently embattled Bashar al-Assad. Again, the contrast could not be more stark between the republics of Syria and Iraq, both of which ultimately fell to brutal Ba’athist dictatorships, compared to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan which has maintained order and stability, with friendly relations with countries all over the world and which is a respected country by almost everyone in the region.

Colonialism and the Middle East

Today with all the problems in North Africa and the Middle East, the actual conflicts between governments and between the people and their own governments are often matched by an equally contentious fight over where to place the blame for all of this. We are, after all, living in the age of irresponsibility, where it is certainly never, ever “my” fault. It is always easier, of course, to blame someone else. Blame another country, blame another religion, blame another race, blame another party or political system. This, of course, absolves one of the very painful and difficult duty of critical reflection and self-improvement; of taking it upon yourself to solve your own problems. Why try to fix things when all of your problems are the fault of another? In many cases, though, this can lead to downright comical twists and turns and downright acrobatic contortions of logic. In the United States, for example, many of the same people who cheered on the Bush administration in spreading the gift of democracy to the people of Iraq have lately been condemning the present occupant of the White House for supporting popular rebellions against dictators in the name of democracy when that democratic process leads to anti-American regimes.

Similarly, many of those who cited the existence of the terrorist prison camp in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba under George W. Bush as being at fault for making people hate the USA are now quiet as church mice after President Obama failed to make good on his oft-repeated promise to close the facility. The blame now must reside elsewhere I suppose. Likewise, it is almost funny to see the leadership of the European Union congratulate the people of North Africa on achieving democracy when they are so adamantly opposed to submitting themselves to the democratic will of their own peoples. However, the Muslim community, and particularly the Arab Muslim community, are no less adept at these blame games than the western and (hardly even nominally these days) Christian countries. I find it particularly strange to see so many disgruntled Arab Muslims shouting abuse at the west and calling for Islamic unity and the creation of a new Islamic caliphate considering that, during World War I, it was Arab Muslims who fought alongside the Christian Allied powers in bringing about the destruction of the last, legitimate Caliph of Islam who was the Turkish Sultan of the Ottoman Empire.

My favorite, though, is when they blame the problems in the failed republics of North Africa and the Middle East on western colonialism. Though “western” is really casting too wide a net as the only European countries that colonized North Africa and the Middle East were Great Britain, France and (very briefly) Italy. Spain had a tiny foothold but it never came to much. However, if you just blamed everything on the British, French and Italians you inadvertently let America off the hook based on the silly technicality that the United States has never had a colony or mandate in the region, so it is better to just say “western” colonialism just so everyone from America to Norway will be warned. Though, with Gaddafi gone, at least Switzerland will be able to sleep a little easier at night from now on. This is also a smart move because most people in the world think colonialism to be an inherently evil thing and even most people in Europe, even most people in the countries which had the largest colonial empires in the world (Britain and France) consider colonialism a terrible and shameful thing.

Just to be clear, for anyone new to this game, I am not among those who think it so. I do not pretend it was all good, but I think it was more positive than not and, while I speak only for myself in this, I find it a little absurd that anyone in the Americas in particular would decry colonialism considering that none of the countries and most of the people of the Americas today would not exist without it. That being my mentality, I am particularly sensitive to colonialism being the modern whipping boy for every problem in the contemporary Third World, to say nothing of the Middle East and North Africa. Of course, everything that is today is based to some degree on all that has been but when it comes to colonialism I think the negative aspects are being exaggerated. I think this is particularly true considering North Africa and the Middle East which were under European colonial rule for a period of time that amounts to a mere speck on the world history timeline when compared to the length of time the region was under the colonial rule of the non-Christian, non-western and non-European Turkish Ottoman Empire.

Consider this: Algeria was a colony of the Ottoman Empire for 300 years and was only a French colony for 132 years and during much of that time French rule was quite limited. Tunisia was an Ottoman colony for more than 131 years and was a French protectorate for only 75 years. The territories that are now Libya were colonies of the Ottoman Empire for 360 years then were an Italian colony for less than 32 years. Egypt was under Ottoman sovereignty for 365 years while the British held control over Egypt for only 40 years. Palestine was under Ottoman rule for 401 years and a British mandate for 26 years. Syria was ruled by the Ottomans for 402 years and was a French mandate (along with Lebanon) for a mere 21 years. Iraq was part of the Ottoman Empire for 387 years and was then a British mandate for a mere 12 years. That is pretty much the whole of North Africa and the Middle East (the “Middle East” being defined in my education as the area from Egypt to Iran) other than Iran which had never, officially, been under the rule of a European power though it did have a British sphere of influence in the south and a Russian sphere of influence in the north (though not every Russian would consider Russia a “European” country by any means). So, how is it that “western colonialism” is held to blame for nearly every problem in the modern Middle East and North Africa when in most cases European rule lasted less than fifty years rather than the colonialism of the Turks who ruled the region for centuries?

Now, it should be obvious but I will point it out just to be on the safe side, this does not mean I think the Middle East and North Africa should instead blame modern Turkey for their current problems instead of “the west” (which Turkey is trying to join, but that’s another story). As mentioned, if anything, the Turks would have more reason to blame their problems on the Arabs for turning on their Muslim brethren in the First World War to fight alongside Britain, France and Italy in bringing down the Ottoman Empire. Even after the Turkish Sultan, the Caliph of Islam, called upon all Muslims to unite in a jihad against the Allied powers, Muslims from the Empire of India to the Arabian peninsula and French Algeria disregarded this call and did their part to bring down the Islamic Ottoman Empire -along with her own allies which were Orthodox Bulgaria, Roman Catholic Austria-Hungary and the Protestant and Catholic Empire of Germany. The Arabs have no room to blame the Turks for their present situation and the western powers should not attempt it either. Today the western world complains endlessly about the conflicts and civil wars and unrest in the Middle East, conveniently forgetting that before their predecessors brought down the Ottoman Empire, this was a fairly pacific region and when there were troubles it was the Turks who had to deal with it, not the French, British or Americans. As with any empire, critics can point to examples in the Ottoman Empire that were not so nice but then there was no Assad regime in Syria, no Saddam Hussein in Iraq and no Gaddafi in Libya under either the Turks or the Italians.

Everyone, from individuals to entire nations, rise or fall and live or die based on the choices they make. Blaming colonialism for modern problems is pointless and provably false. The Korean peninsula was, for a time, under the colonial rule of Japan and the Japanese did not always treat the Koreans with absolute loving kindness, however, South Korea still managed to become an extremely successful and prosperous country. North Korea, obviously, did not but, as South Korea proves, the Japanese cannot be held to blame for that. North Korea is a failed state because it adopted an astoundingly stupid political and economic system. North Africa and the Middle East are no different. Where they have problems, it is the result of choices they have made. For the Middle East and North Africa the choices made include cutting colonial ties, pursuing bad policies and, in the cases of Libya, Egypt and Iraq, overthrowing existing monarchies in favor of militaristic republics. Sometimes it only takes one mistake to derail things if that mistake is big enough and as long as you play the blame game that one big mistake will never be corrected.

The Ottoman Empire is a good example again. Their big mistake was getting involved in World War I. If it makes the Turks feel any better, that was a common mistake at the time as it was a mistake for everyone who got involved in the Great War who had a choice in the matter (I say for the benefit of the Belgians) even if they were on the winning side. Everyone says that the Ottoman Empire was in decline and doomed to inevitable collapse. True, compared to periods in the past, Ottoman Turkey was in decline but, again, that was based on choices and the collapse of the Ottoman Empire was not inevitable. This is something people seem to like to say to avoid having to think about real problems and their consequences. They said the same thing about Austria-Hungary; that it was doomed to collapse and there was nothing anyone could do about it, war or no war. As we have talked about before, that was nonsense. Had it not been for the war, it is entirely possible Austria-Hungary would have gone on and might still be with us today. Similarly, the Ottoman Empire was in pretty bad shape but they were making changes, they were developing, updating, making some poor decisions but some wise ones as well. The Ottoman government had control of its own territory, maintained law and order, was in the process of developing a modern infrastructure and when war came managed to threaten the Suez Canal, force the biggest surrender of British forces since the siege of Yorktown in America, had troops in southern Russia and drove the Allies off of Gallipoli. They didn’t win, but that is a respectable list of accomplishments for an empire in decline, supposedly on the doorstep of “inevitable” collapse.

The last Sultan

If the Ottoman Empire had stayed out of World War I, and better yet if the other major powers had as well, with the discovery of vast Arabian oil reserves in 1938 they may well have made one of the biggest recoveries in history and there would have been none of the subsequent regional conflicts that have bedeviled the world from then to the present day. However, what was done is done. How about the countries as they exist today? A simple look around would be much more beneficial than playing the blame game. Which countries have been the most poor and oppressive -and thus unstable? Libya, Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Tunisia all have one thing in common: republicanism. Which have been the most stable in the region? Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar, the UAE and Oman. What do they all have in common? Monarchy! I know, you were going to say oil but that’s not entirely true (though you cannot deny it certainly helps). The Sultanate of Oman has very limited oil reserves and the Kingdom of Jordan has practically none at all while even with considerable oil wealth, republican dictatorships like Libya and Iraq still managed to make the lives of their people miserable. So, there are good examples to follow, there are successful models to draw upon. All that needs to happen is for people to stop blaming colonialism, stop blaming foreign countries, stop blaming movies or cartoons no one has even seen and take responsibility for your own recovery. Step one in that recovery should be the restoration of the one form of government that had, across North Africa and the Middle East, proven to provide the most stability and genuine progress while still respecting time-honored traditions -monarchy.

MM Video: Royals of Kuwait

Consort Profile: Queen Zenobia of Palmyra

From Hannibal of Carthage and Attila the Hun to Queen Boudicca in Britain it often seems that Romans attributed as much fame to their enemies as to their own heroes and one of those famous for her opposition to the power of Rome was Queen Zenobia of Palmyra. Born in 240, in Palmyra (in what is now Syria) Zenobia was known for her beauty, intelligence and athletic physique. Mostly of Arabian descent she was also extremely proud of Ptolemy connection through her mother, a relative of the famous Cleopatra of Egypt and who taught the young Zenobia to speak fluent Egyptian. The country was to play a major part in her future and her first step on the road to world fame came when she entered into an arranged marriage with King Odaenathus of Palmyra. The country took its name from the wealthy merchant city of Palmyra which had broken away from the Roman Empire and tried to grow to rival them with their own Palmyrene empire.

Queen Zenobia fully embraced this vision of the future and was just as aggressive and determined as her husband was. She was also known for accompanying the King on hunting trips and bagging more than her share of game. However, she was less enthusiastic about accompanying her husband to bed and would only share his company for the purposes of procreation. Widely revered and respected among her people there was no controversy when she took control of Palmyra herself following the assassination of the King and his son by his first wife in 267. Officially ruling on behalf of her own son by the King, Vaballathus, she showed her ambition by assuming the titles of Augusta and Augustus for herself and her son. Determined to carry on the goals of expansion and greatness, Queen Zenobia shocked the world when she invaded Egypt, a shock which only increased when she succeeded in conquering the ancient country and making herself Queen of Egypt.

The Romans had been wary but hopeful about Zenobia and the rising power of Palmyra. Early on she had taken the Palmyrene line that their goals were benevolent towards the Romans; to protect the Eastern Empire from their old enemy the Sassanids. However, her violent conquest of Egypt (carried out with the aid of a faction of Egyptian sympathizers) and her defeat of the Roman prefect, who was captured and beheaded, caused horror and outrage across the Roman Empire. The Romans tried to make peace with her and bring her back on side, but Queen Zenobia was having none of that, she was doing quite well all on her own. With her realm already stretching from Syria to Egypt she launched further campaigns north, eventually reaching as far as Ankara, Turkey. She marched with her infantry and rode with her cavalry and became quite a celebrity by the standards of the day. After taking control of what is now Egypt, Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, half of Turkey and the vital trade routes that passed through this area the warrior Queen of Palmyra finally attracted the attention of the Emperor himself.

The Roman Emperor Aurelian had been fighting Gaul, defeating the Alamanni in northern Italy and the Goths in the Balkans. Deciding to take the situation in hand himself, he embarked his legions and headed for Syria. Queen Zenobia was determined to meet them despite an oracle warning her that her forces would be driven off by the Romans like doves chased by hawks. Nonetheless, she led her troops into battle herself against Emperor Aurelian near Antioch. The result was a crushing defeat for Zenobia and another victory for the Romans. Her forces fled and Zenobia was taken prisoner. Turning on the charm, she pretended to be no more than beautiful dupe, an innocent used as a figurehead by her advisors who were responsible for the war. Sadly for her, the Emperor was not so gullible. He took her back to Rome and draped her in gold chains and heavy jewels as he paraded the captured queen consort in his celebratory triumph. What became of the famous Queen of Palmyra after that low point is a matter of some dispute.

Some say the Romans had her beheaded, others that the proud queen starved herself to death rather than live with defeat. Probably the most accepted account, however, is not so dramatic. According to this story she was released by Emperor Aurelian who had mercy on the beautiful, brave queen and gave her a villa in Trivoli. She later married a Roman senator and lived the good life for the rest of her days as a popular socialite and dabbling in philosophy. She had several daughters by her husband and died of natural causes sometime after 274 AD. This would have been quite a step down for a woman who had once dominated the near east, but compared to most of those who set themselves against the Roman Empire and lost, she came out pretty well.

On the Subject of Saudi Arabia

Yesterday was the national holiday of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, marking the unification of the country in 1932. What does this especially matter to me for? Well, these days, tell someone you are a monarchist and they will ask you about Saudi Arabia. After all, monarchies like Britain, Holland, Sweden or Norway are pretty tame but Saudi Arabia is known all over the world as an absolute monarchy and to many the image of the worst sort of state imaginable. This, of course, is not true. There are a number of monarchies in the world that are absolute, not just Saudi Arabia, and while they may not fit the modern standard of a liberal democracy they are surely not the worst out there. Many refer to Saudi Arabia as a dictatorship. While it is true that one person, the King, is ultimately in charge of everything, I would defy anyone to say the state of the people of Saudi Arabia is anywhere even close to being as horrible as that of North Korea. In spite of their laws, brutal by western standards, they have nowhere near the blood on their hands as our “good friends” the communist Chinese. So, let us try to keep a little bit of perspective on this issue.

I will state up front that there is a great deal I do not like about Saudi Arabia, a great deal I find distasteful and a great deal I disapprove of. My reasons involve not only the actions of the country today, their policies and so on, but going right back to the founding of the current kingdom by the Saud dynasty. However, for all of the terrible things that go on there (again, by western standards and even in my opinion) I sometimes feel there is a tendency to ‘pile on’ Saudi Arabia. Say what you will of the country, they do not pretend to be something they are not. Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy, proudly so, with Islam as the official religion and Islamic law is the law of the land. Even the national motto is the Shahada (“there is no god but Allah and Mohammad is His Prophet”). If you are not Muslim, you are generally neither wanted nor welcome. For this, many westerners condemn Saudi Arabia for being so intolerant but expecting western countries to tolerate them.

In this case, again, I think people are too hard on Saudi Arabia. They are, after all, living as they always have. They did not first demand tolerance from the West, it was the West that offered it. It is not the fault of Saudi Arabia that western nations have largely abandoned their own religion and, in most countries, emphatically stated in law that they have no religion. Western nations could be just as staunchly Christian (they once were) as Saudi Arabia is Muslim and it is not the fault of Saudi Arabia or any other country that they are not. Saudi Arabia is Muslim, officially and legally and they are not welcoming of non-Muslims and do not pretend to be anything else. Yet in the west many countries have no official religion or are not religiously exclusive and so have little room, as I see it, to complain that others do. What concern is it of anyone else what policies Saudi Arabia enacts in its own territory? If you don’t like it, don’t go there. Why do so many obsess over Saudi Arabia but not other equally less “free” or even worse countries around the world?

Where I think Saudi Arabia is to blame is in trying to play both sides of the fence and some of their actions truly baffle me. One is their funding and promotion of schools which teach a very fundamentalist brand of Islam out of which quite a few terrorists have come. What puzzles me about this, aside from any moral issues, is the fact that these people are generally not supporters of the Saudi monarchy. Osama bin Laden himself is an example. Many of those who condemn Saudi Arabia might be surprised to know that Osama bin Laden fully agrees with them. He is, of course, not upset about the lack of equal rights for women or thieves getting their hands cut off. He is upset that Saudi Arabia allows U.S. military bases on its soil, that the Saudi Royal Family is friendly with western powers and lives a rather different lifestyle quite often while abroad than when they are at home.

This, finally, is the most important reason why, despite my opposition to so much that goes on in Saudi Arabia, I remain at least a nominal supporter of the monarchy there. There is no doubt in my mind that if the House of Saud falls it will be a man like Osama bin Laden who replaces them. The change, I am convinced, would be one to make the change from Shah to Ayatollah in Iran seem miniscule in comparison. That is because the enemies of the Saudi monarchy, on the scene, do not oppose it for the same reason that the liberal-minded west does but rather because they do not view them as strict enough. It is also true that the Saudi monarchy has recently, slowly, been moving more toward the moderate direction. The King recently placed certain restrictions on religious leaders and, for the first time, appointed a woman to a government post. If this is the right policy only time will tell but despite outward appearances Saudi Arabia is far from secure. Already most of the oil industry is run by imported foreign workers while the native population to a considerable degree lives off the largesse of the Saudi monarchy. Aside from the radical religious opposition they are going to be in a very tight spot if the “green” movement succeeds in eliminating “our” dependence on oil. If that day ever comes the high standard of living in Saudi Arabia today will be gone and the people will be left with nothing but a giant sandbox and a population of angry, unemployed and religiously motivated young people. Mind your step Saudi Arabia.