MIDDLE EAST
Relations over the last 20 years
Published
on
The appointment of two prominent and seasoned Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) officers with close ties to the Taliban as the new Ambassador and Deputy Ambassador of Iran in Afghanistan, and the handing over of the Afghan Embassy in Tehran to the Taliban, have been met with surprise, frustration and indignation by Afghan citizens and politicians who, under the spell of cultural, linguistic and religious affinities and sensibilities, used to think of the Islamic Republic of Iran as “a friend in need”, and whose feelings of affinity bordering on infatuation were corroborated by Iran’s cooperation with the Afghanistan’s resistance movement in the past. Inter-national relations, however, should be based on national interests in a specific temporal context, not on sentimental friendships and enmities.
Considering the current situation in the region and the standpoints of regional players, while keeping in mind their divergent views on matters of religion, the rapprochement between the two religious autocracies can only be understood in terms of their respective interests and the inevitable facts on the ground, namely the three-way hostilities between Iran/Taliban, the US and ISIS-K, each party’s ambitions regarding their sphere of influence, alternative alliances, the need for evading sanctions and the ongoing disputes regarding access to the waters of Hirmand.
Before having a closer look at each of the above-mentioned five elements, and in order to have a better understanding of the various factors at work behind this rapprochement, it is necessary to have a quick look at the history of relations between the Islamic Republic of Iran, Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, over the last two decades, after which we can move on to the current situation and the challenges facing the region today.
The History of Relations Over the Last 20 Years
In 1998 the northern city of Mazar-i-Sharif was the scene of a bloody attack that resulted in the assassination of ten Iranian diplomats and an Iranian journalist. The rising tensions between Iran and the Taliban following these events prompted Mullah Omar, the leader of the Taliban at the time, to take a stance. In response to these events, Mullah Omar stated that Iran and the Taliban are “brothers in Islam” and tried to shift the spotlight onto the US as their common enemy. Not only did Mullah Omar’s statements fail to improve relations between Iran and the Taliban, but they actually incentivised the Islamic Republic to play a critical role in the arming and funding of forces fighting against the Taliban.
In the wake of 9/11 and the fall of the first Taliban regime, following the invasion of Afghanistan by the US and their allies, most members of the Taliban residing in the Western and Southwestern provinces of Afghanistan once again relocated to the refugee camps in Iran and joined their families there. It was reported that a number of Al-Qaeda commanders and members also escaped to Iran under the guise of Taliban refugees. Subsequently, a number of them were imprisoned in Iran or were put under surveillance.
Notwithstanding their disputes with the US, the Islamic Republic of Iran initially played a constructive role in Afghanistan. They felt at ease as their allies were appointed to critical positions in the cabinet of the newly established Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. But at the same time, Iran had become a safe haven for members of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda and their families.
In the following years, as the Taliban gradually increased their military activities in the provinces neighbouring Afghanistan, the Iranian government allowed them to establish unofficial headquarters in Zahedan and Mashhad that served as bases for recruiting combatants from among Afghan immigrants in the country. Iran saw this as a tactical opportunity to create some sort of counterbalance against the International Coalition in Iran’s backyard, i.e. Afghanistan. The Iranian regime even facilitated Taliban offensives against US military bases, such as Shindand Air Base, and several construction projects such as Salma Dam in Herat, Bakhsh-Abad Dam in Farah, and Kamal Khan Dam in Nimrouz.
In 2011 and 2012, the relations between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Taliban entered a new phase. The Taliban sent a delegation to Tehran led by Syed Tayyib Agha, the former Head of the Political Bureau of the Taliban, requesting the establishment of an official headquarters in the capital. In that same year, the years-long armed conflict between the Shiite Turi and Bangash ethnicities and other Sunni groups in Kurram district and Parachinar in Pakistan was brought to an end with the intervention of the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) and the IRGC acting through the Iranian Consulate in Peshawar. This development paved the way for the re-opening of the shortest transit route connecting Waziristan and Kurram Agency in Pakistan, and Paktia, Khost, Logar and Nangarhar in Afghanistan. With the re-opening of this strategic transit route, the Taliban and the Haqqani Network succeeded in amping up their offensives against the International Coalition and Afghan security forces in the above-mentioned provinces, as well as Kabul and Maidan Wardak.
Tensions between Iran and the US reached their peak during those years. The Quds Force no longer felt a need to hide their support of the Taliban. At the same time, the Afghan government’s efforts to create a balance in their foreign relations with Iran as a neighbouring country on the one hand, and the US as a strategic ally on the other, meant little to the Iranian regime. The Director of National Security presented the National Security Council and the President with undeniable well-documented evidence of the efforts of the Quds Force to arm the Taliban, their funding of the Taliban, and other hostile activities by the extraterritorial branch of the IRGC. But the policy of the Afghan government at the time was to avoid tensions with both a neighbour and an ally at all costs. They preferred to keep Iran’s interference in their internal affairs a secret and tried to resolve these issues through diplomatic channels. Due to their disputes with the US, the Islamic Republic of Iran ignored the efforts of the Afghan government. On one occasion, in a total breach of diplomatic protocols, Mahmoud Ahmadi Nejad, the former President of the Islamic Republic of Iran, told Hamid Karzai in a threatening tone: “Those of your fellow citizens who live near American military bases should evacuate their homes to be safe from possible Iranian strikes.” Some sources suggest it was the Islamic Republic of Iran that first laid the ground for establishing contact between Moscow and the leaders of the Taliban, eventually leading to the exchange of messages of good faith between Mullah Akhtar Muhammad Mansour, the former leader of the Taliban, and the Russian government.
Intelligence gathered at the time suggest that the Quds Force had simultaneously created a corridor for smuggling drugs (heroin) across the border between Iran and Afghanistan. The profits of that deadly trade were used to fund the Taliban. Furthermore, the Quds Force used those profits to fund their proxy wars in the region, and later on, also for the establishment of the Fatimid Brigade (a.k.a the Fatemiyoun Division). Another measure for funding the Taliban the Islamic Republic of Iran used was to invite a number of Taliban leaders to have a share in Afghanistan’s oil exports.
After Osama bin Laden was assassinated in Pakistan in 2011 and Ayman Al-Zawahiri became the leader of Al-Qaeda—a leader who was “in favour of” forging an alliance between the Shia and the Sunni against their common enemy—Al-Qaeda developed deeper relations with the IRGC. With the rise of ISIS in Syria and Iraq, and the ensuing clash between the Al-Nusrah/Al-Qaeda Front and ISIS in Syria in 2014, members of Al-Qaeda came to increasingly rely on Iran for travelling between Syria and Waziristan (in Pakistan). It is reported that in 2015 five key members of Al-Qaeda were released from prison in Iran in exchange for the release of Nour-Ahmad Nikbakht, an Iranian diplomat who had been taken captive in Yemen. Three of them went to Syria. The other two, Saif al-Adl and Abu Muhammad Al-Masri, remained in Tehran. Al-Masri was ultimately assassinated in Tehran in 2020.
Following the signing of a security agreement between Afghanistan and the US, and with the increased activity of ISIS in Syria and Iraq and the emergence of ISIS-K in the region, particularly in Helmand province under the leadership of Abdul Rauf Khadim in 2015, the relations between Iran and the Taliban entered a new phase. In 2015, Mullah Akhtar Muhammad Mansour, the leader of the Taliban at the time, travelled to Tehran. Subsequently, the Taliban started visiting Iran more frequently and their offices in Tehran, Mashhad and Zahedan expanded their operations. Before long, the Taliban were routinely meeting with representatives of the Russian Intelligence services in Tehran. These developments and the ambitions of Mullah Akhtar Mansour were not welcomed by everyone in the region. Akhtar Mansour was assassinated in 2016 in the Balochistan province of Pakistan, not long after crossing the Iranian border. According to the ISI, he was killed in a US strike. But the assassination of Akhtar Mansour did little to damage the relations between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Taliban.
In 2018 the US started negotiating with the Taliban in Doha, Qatar, on condition that the Taliban sever all ties with Al-Qaeda. With the start of the negotiations, members of Al-Qaeda were relocated from Waziristan to Iran, and from Iran to Syria, with an increased speed by Yahya Haqqani, one of the senior leaders of the Haqqani Network, in charge of their coordinating committee for foreign terrorists, who was operating with a Pakistani identity under the alias of Sajid Walad Mir Saeed Khan. These relocations continued until the conclusion of the Doha Agreement and the Taliban’s return to power in August 2021.
The Inevitable Facts behind the Rapprochement between the Islamic Republic, Al-Qaeda and the Taliban: A Common Hatred for the US
The withdrawal of NATO and US forces from Afghanistan and the return of the Taliban in 2021 were described by most political analysts, diplomats and US veterans as the second “embarrassing defeat” of the US after their failure in Iraq. Pakistan, Russia, China and Iran, in addition to the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, undoubtedly believe they all have a claim to this victory. But over time, as the Taliban reneged on most of the commitments they had made to countries in the region and beyond in the course of the Doha negotiations, the optimism and the high hopes held by those countries gave way to disappointment, concern and uncertainty in the intelligence communities of the US and countries in the region. Most of the countries who had a stake in Afghanistan have since stated their efforts to counter any potential threats to their national interests coming from Afghanistan by all means.
For a long time, the US has been accusing Iran of supporting proxy groups fighting against the US and their allies in the region, including in Afghanistan. The US have cited this as the reason for the assassination of Mullah Akhtar Muhammad Mansour in Pakistan after his departure from Iran, the assassination of Ghassem Soleimani in Baghdad, and the assassination of Abdullah Ahmed Abdullah, better known as Abu Muhammad Al-Masri, Al-Qaeda’s number two man in Iran.
Recently, the US and their allies published a list of the threatening activities and provocations of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Included on this list is Iran’s support for Russia in the war against Ukraine, the alleged presence of the new leader of Al-Qaeda in Iran (although this was no secret and years ago intelligence experts suggested that Saif Al-Adl would succeed Ayman Al-Zawahiri as the leader of Al-Qaeda), Uranium enrichment up to 84% in Iran (which, along with a few other issues, created tensions between the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and Iran and is one of the subjects of their discussions), the close relations between Iran and the extremist leaders of the Taliban in Kandahar, and the potential role of Iran and Al-Qaeda in the radical decisions of Taliban leaders and the isolation of the Kabul circle of the participants of Doha negotiations who are in favour of improving relations with the international community and the US and even went so far as to help them find and kill Ayman Al-Zawahiri.
Only time will tell whether the US will continue to see the activities of the Iranian regime as ‘potential’ threats that can be used to advance their policy of deterrence through maximum pressure or they will come to be seen as ‘actual’ threats and Iran will once again be treated as the driving force behind an “axis of evil” as George W. Bush put it years ago.
Challenges and Opportunities Facing the Iran-Taliban-Al-Qaeda Trio
“The enemy of my enemy, is my friend.” So goes the famous saying. And so we see the three incongruent sides of this trio coming together in a three-sided alliance against the US due to the challenges they face and their affiliations, mutual interests and complementary capabilities. The Islamic Republic of Iran is currently struggling with a host of difficult challenges: the threat of regime change posed by “Woman, Life, Freedom” protests both inside and outside the country; the re-election of Benjamin Netanyahu as Prime Minister in Israel, who is one of the harshest opponents of a nuclear Iran; the activities of ISIS-K in Afghanistan; crushing sanctions which have led the Iranian economy to the brink of destruction; the reluctance of Russia and China as allies of the Islamic Republic to stand in direct confrontation with the US on account of Iran; drought; the active presence of armed militias such as Jundallah, the Ansar Movement (a.k.a Harakat Ansar), Jaish ul-Adl, Ansar al-Furghan and the SSP (Sipah-e-Sahaba) in the vulnerable areas of Sistan & Balochistan, and the freedom-seeking movements of the Baloch people of Pakistan.
The Islamic Republic sees a golden opportunity in the rich quarries of Afghanistan, particularly the Uranium mines of Khanashin district in Helmand. On the other hand, evading sanctions, the re-opening in Afghanistan of Iranian banks with ties to the IRGC, the fight against ISIS and other terrorist groups, the possibility of using Afghanistan as an alternative base in the case of regime change in the face of increasing domestic and international pressures, and changes in Iran’s access to the waters of Hirmand are all issues that have occupied the Islamic Republic of Iran in an Afghanistan that is ruled by the Taliban. At the same time, Iran is hosting the Taliban’s opponents, including certain Jihadi commanders, former Afghan security forces trained by NATO, the disciplined and experienced Fatimid Division and discontented leaders of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, all of whom can be used as leverage against the Taliban.
Al-Qaeda sees the success of the Taliban as their own strategic success. With the coming to power of the Taliban, Al-Qaeda and their allies have been further motivated in their Jihad against the US. They now have access to a vast and impassable landscape, and state-of-the-art military equipment left behind by NATO, and they know they can rely on the riches of the quarries at their disposal, drug trade and digital currencies. Sources in the intelligence community suggest that after the assassination of Ayman Al-Zawahiri in Kabul, certain Taliban leaders in Kabul were suspected of having helped the US find Al-Zawahiri’s hiding place. The Kabul circle is also suspected of being increasingly inclined toward cooperation with the US. As a result of these suspicions, Al-Qaeda have come to play a stronger role in the radical decisions made by the Kandahar circle and they have driven the Kabul circle into isolation. A number of Taliban leaders in Kabul have publicly called into question the authority of the directives issued by the Taliban leadership in Kandahar. Between 1998 and 2001 during the first Taliban government, Al-Qaeda used this very same technique—an uncompromising Taliban versus Western powers—to develop stronger relations between Mullah Omar and Al-Qaeda.
Despite all these opportunities and possibilities, after long years of isolation, Al-Qaeda will need to expand their manoeuvrability across Afghanistan, Waziristan, Iran and Syria and extend their links with their subsidiaries and other affiliates, so that they can recruit more forces from among Islamic extremists and find a safe place for their leaders, before they can create a security challenge for the US and their allies.
The Taliban have no fond memories of the dealings between Pakistan and the US and the International Coalition in the fight against terrorism and the overthrowing of the first Taliban government. There are several factors that are responsible for the Taliban’s distrust of Pakistan: The killing and imprisonment of a number of their leaders in Pakistan; Pakistan’s ambivalent attitude toward the Taliban and playing favourites with certain circles in the Taliban; pressuring the Taliban to either reign in or give up on the TTP; the possibility of the TTP joining ISIS under these pressures and in the event of taking action against them; providing American forces with military bases from which they could conduct drone strikes in Afghanistan; restricting the Taliban’s safe hideouts in Waziristan following the emergence of the Pashtun Tahafuz Movement (PTM) and other similar movements. The non-recognition of the Taliban and the disagreement between the expectations of Afghanistan’s neighbours and the international community and the Jihadi mentality of the Taliban is another major issue. The Taliban are well aware of the consequences of global opposition to their radical decisions. In order to survive maximum international pressures, sanctions and even a potential US invasion to overthrow the Islamic Emirate of the Taliban (especially with the likelihood of a reversal in US policies vis-a-vis their support for the Resistance after 2024 Presidential Elections), the Taliban have no choice but to keep an eye out for alternatives.
Conclusion
History shows that the coalition of divergent ideologies does not last for long. Considering the incongruence between Iran, Al-Qaeda and the Taliban, and their vulnerabilities, this alliance between “enemies of enemies” might work in the short term with recourse to the carrot-and-stick approach, but it seems unlikely that it will ever end up in a long-lasting strategic triad.
The writer is Rahmatullah Nabil, the former Head of the National Directorate of Security of Afghanistan (2010-2015).
You may like
-
What does Russia want from Afghanistan?
-
India’s foreign policy and relations with the Taliban
-
Struggling for peace and justice: Firing on PTM peace workers in Pakistan
-
Terrible consequences of spreading hatred against immigrants in Iran
-
Reason and discourse behind detention of former spy chief in Pakistan
-
China and Pakistan agree to speed up work on CPEC: Insecurity is key challenge
ASIA
Syria will not follow Afghanistan’s Taliban model of governance
Published
2 days agoon
20/12/2024In an astonishing statement, Ahmed Shará, also known as Abu Mohamad Jolani, the leader of the Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) said that he will allow the girls to go to schools and will not turn Syria like Afghanistan under the rule of the Taliban.
Jolani, the de facto ruler of Syria, said that he will distance himself from the Taliban’s strict policies on women’s rights, and said that Syria will not follow the Taliban’s mode of governance.
Jolani, who brought down the government of Bashar al-Assad and also widely welcomed by the Taliban, said that he believes in the education of women and girls and will not make Syria like Afghanistan.
“Syria is a diverse society with various ideas, unlike Afghanistan, which is more tribal. The Afghan model cannot be applied here,” Jolani told a BBC reporter.
Jolani says that Syria is a diverse society with various ideas, unlike Afghanistan, which is more tribal.
Jolani’s comment came when the Taliban congratulated the HTS-led victory by Jolani over Assad’s regime after years of fighting. The Afghan Foreign Ministry celebrated Jolani’s victory through a statement and hoped Jolani can bring peace and stability in the country.
“It is hoped that the power transition process is advanced in a manner that lays the foundation of a sovereign and serve-oriented Islamic government in the line with the aspiration of the Syrian people; that unifies the entire population without discrimination and retribution through adoption of a general assembly; and a positive foreign policy with world countries the safeguard Syria from a threat of negative rivalries of foreign actors and creates conditions for the return of millions of refugees,” the statement by Taliban Foreign Ministry.
However, Jolan’s position on the rights of women and girls is in great contrast with the current view of the Taliban leadership. Women and girls have been banned from education and work since the return of the Taliban in August 2021, following the collapse of the Republic System and withdrawal of the US troops from Afghanistan. Girls and women are even banned from medical institutions and visiting public spaces.
Jolani says he has a plan to create a government based institution and a council chosen by the people.
The situation got worse when the Taliban’s Ministry for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice called women’s voices “immodest” compounding their exclusion from public life. This year, it has been marked as three years since girls were banned from pursuing education over sixth grade. Besides that, on December 20, 2022, the Taliban’s Ministry of Higher Education announced that women would be barred from attending public and private universities.
In an interview with CNN, Jolani said that he has a plan to create a government based on institutions and a “council chosen by the people.”
“When we talk about objectives, the goal of the revolution remains the overthrow of this regime. It is our right to use all available means to achieve that goal,” said Jolani.
“The seeds of the regime’s defeat have always been within it… the Iranians attempted to revive the regime, buying it time, and later the Russians also tried to prop it up. But the truth remains: this regime is dead.”
Moreover, he also said the Syrian people are the “rightful owners” of the country after the ouster of Assad, and declared a “new history” has been written for the entire Middle East.
MIDDLE EAST
U.S. officials to meet with HTS and Jolani in Damascus
Published
2 days agoon
20/12/2024In a significant diplomatic development, U.S. President Joe Biden has authorized senior American diplomats to engage directly with Abu Mohammed al-Jolani, the leader of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS). This marks the first formal meeting between U.S. officials and HTS leadership since the group’s overthrow of Bashar al-Assad in Syria earlier this month. Despite HTS’s pivotal role in the regime’s fall, the U.S. continues to classify it as a terrorist organization.
The delegation is led by Barbara Leaf, the State Department’s senior Middle East official. She is joined by Roger Carstens, the U.S. Special Envoy for Hostage Affairs, and Daniel Rubenstein, a veteran diplomat recalled from retirement to spearhead U.S. diplomatic efforts in Syria post-Assad. Rubenstein, previously stationed at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, is now tasked with navigating Syria’s complex political landscape following the collapse of the Assad regime.
The meeting, taking place on December 20, represents the first direct, face-to-face dialogue between the U.S., and HTS leaders. This engagement comes as HTS appeals to Western nations to lift longstanding sanctions against Syria. U.S. officials have indicated that lifting the ‘terrorist’ designation and easing sanctions could be possible if HTS demonstrates a commitment to inclusive governance and sustained stability.
U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken emphasized the importance of HTS addressing critical security concerns, including chemical weapons and the lingering presence of groups like Daesh (ISIS). Speaking in New York, Blinken stated, “If you don’t want this isolation, then there are things you need to do to move the country forward in an inclusive way.”
The U.S. visit follows similar diplomatic engagements in Damascus this week by officials from France, Germany, and Britain, highlighting a coordinated Western effort to shape Syria’s post-Assad future. Speaking to Bloomberg, Blinken reiterated the necessity of direct dialogue in fostering stability.
Washington’s discussions with HTS also aim to expedite efforts to locate Austin Tice, an American journalist kidnapped in Damascus in 2012. Despite HTS’s designation as a terrorist entity, the U.S. maintains that communication is permissible under its legal framework, provided no material support is extended.
Simultaneously, the Pentagon announced an increase in U.S. troop deployments to northeast Syria, doubling the number from 900 to approximately 2,000. Major General Pat Ryder, Pentagon spokesperson, clarified that these troops were already present before Assad’s fall, underscoring the ongoing mission to counter Daesh.
Jonathan Panikoff, a former senior intelligence official now at the Atlantic Council, warned of potential consequences if the U.S. fails to assert influence in Syria. “If Washington and its allies do not actively work to ensure that the leaders and groups in Syria align with U.S. interests, the vacuum in Syria will almost certainly be filled by a country or group hostile to our interests and those of our allies,” Panikoff told the Financial Times.
Whether we like it or not, immigration is the reality of our world today. This fact, in addition to the fact that it can become an opportunity with proper individual and organizational management, also has its own challenges. Among other things, one of the challenges that arise for immigrant communities and the immigrant generation is the identity crisis. The crisis of identity is a broad and multidimensional debate, but with a simpler view, this crisis among the second and third generation of immigrants is caused by a duality – on the one hand, they inevitably have to reject the relatively strict traditional-religious behavior of their parents, and on the other hand, they cannot fully absorb the secular and civil values of the host society.
At the same time, these second and third generation immigrants need a series of rituals, education and ceremonies in which they can feel themselves and find a sense of belonging. Because they have rejected the worn-out advice of their parents, they lose their respect, attention and empathy.
But on the other hand, they are not respected outside when they face the more important and larger part, that is, the host society. That is, because they cannot be successfully absorbed into the host society, they do not attract attention and respect from there and are isolated. While as human beings they need attention and respect from others – to be someone for themselves and to be known and honored with the title they like. If we want to explain the identity problem in simple language, this is it. Of course, this is not a general case. There are so many young people who are successfully recruited and busy with their daily work and are in positive interaction with institutions and human groups in their field of work every day. This is a huge success in terms of integration. But naturally, there are those whose absorption process in the host society is disturbed due to various reasons.
They are thirsty for attention and seeking respect because of the aforementioned emptiness. In this case, they are waiting hard for someone, an institution or a group to be found under its order to become meaningful signifiers even at the cost of obeying or blindly following. Because following also reminds at least that they are human and some people need to follow them.
Immigrants want to be respected by the host countries as it strengthens the sense of belonging to the community
Due to this need, many addresses with religious, ethnic and cultural names have been created among immigrants and usually they all offer some kind of identity product. Because they know that the immigrant community needs things to remind them that they belong to a certain nation, race, or religion in times of identity crisis. They have a special past and history, and based on their ancestral religion, they will be treated in a special way in heaven.
Also, in this world, angels always have a good opinion of them. When they feel that they have been rejected from the reality of society due to the difficulties of immigration, it is natural for them to take refuge in imaginary sources and ask for respect and attention from there.
This seemingly makes their existence meaningful and strengthens their sense of belonging to the same group, but on the other hand, it further separates them from the main body of the host society. This separation is not only deep, but sometimes becomes a factor resistant to assimilation and integration.
Efforts should be made so that the situation does not reach a point where that vacuum is formed or reaches a critical level. The way to avoid this gap is absorption and integration. Being absorbed is not easy for immigrants; Therefore, a practical solution should be considered for it. For this, it is good to ask: What helps us to become like the society or people of our host country or second home? What do they have? What do we have in common?
In response, it should be said: Our first and most important contribution is in “citizenship”. That we are citizens of a certain country and being a citizen requires commitment and sacrifice. If we reach this civic understanding that citizenship is a principle prior to other elements of identity such as religion, religion, language and ethnicity, I think we have traveled an important part of the way. It is the only umbrella that can cover everyone equally, so that no one feels left out.
The good thing about this umbrella is that in order to join it, no immigrant needs to become a Christian first to become a citizen of a certain country, or to be white first to qualify for citizenship. It is enough that they respect the rights and freedoms of the members of the society.
This is the result of the maturity of human history, which is steered by Western civilization, and now Western countries also consider themselves obliged to comply with it.
Of course, this has not always been the case in the West. For example, more than half a century ago in Germany, Jews were legally ineligible for German citizenship as long as they insisted on their Jewishness. The granting of citizenship, which is actually the granting of the right to live again, regardless of religion, ethnicity and region, based only on being “human”, is an unprecedented achievement in human history, which is implemented in first world countries.
The identity loss and wandering shows itself in various forms.
The phenomenon of migration and the lack of compatibility of new arrivals with the new environment is not a new thing. For example, after the industrial revolution in the 19th century, these same countries faced the problem of identity crisis. Due to the impact of the industrial revolution, people suddenly moved from the surrounding areas to the cities, and those who had just arrived in the city had exactly the same situation as today’s immigrants, who are thrown from the third world countries to the center of the largest cities of the first world countries, and it is impossible not to get lost.
This identity loss and wandering shows itself in various forms. The problem of internal migration in Western countries in the 18th and 19th centuries, caused by the mass migration of rural people to the cities, was solved by gradual integration. Today, the challenge of immigration to these countries can only be managed with sustainable and intelligent integration.
But what is important is the implementation of this integration in the healthiest way and with the least cost for the host society and the immigrants. Integration is inevitable, it just needs to be managed well. If integration does not take place, urban life with its own nature and the whole issue of government-nationality and national identity of these countries will face danger and no country likes this.
One can think about those who just arrived in the city two centuries ago, how it was hard for them to lose their local dialects and customs and religious and regional traditions, but now their current generations who were born in the city, grew up and educated in the city, are basically urban and they do not have the accent of their great-grandfathers nor their customs. They are either from London or from Manchester or from Birmingham and all of them are English and they have nothing to do with their villages.
Current immigrants also have to go through such a process. That is, they should be absorbed in the urban life and civic values and nationality of the host countries. As Fukuyama, a contemporary political scientist, says “although with the victory of the Iranian revolution in 1979 and the Salafist movement in Saudi Arabia in the same years, the assumption that Muslim immigrants in Western countries should maintain their independent religious institutions was strengthened.”
Several decades of bad experiences of some migrants in West have led to the creation of far-right parties and their stance against immigrant
Even today, this strategy is being implemented by the Islamic Republic in all parts of the world under various titles under the guise of religion and under the name of religious freedom. But the result of creating an island and intervening and demanding the isolation of same-religious groups from the rest of the host society is creating a rift and the illusion of a dual identity, which, if it becomes acute, can even create security problems for the host society.
From the point of view of isolated groups and individuals, citizenship does not have a special meaning, nor does it bring duties and obligations. According to them, religion or ethnicity is the factor of unification, not citizenship. The occurrence of religiously motivated terrorist attacks in Western countries, as well as the joining of second and third generation Muslim immigrants from Western countries to extremist groups in the Middle East, can be understood under this logic.
Several decades of bad experiences of Muslims in Western countries have led to the creation of far-right parties and their stance against immigrants and Muslims in those countries. The emergence of populist nationalism is due to the feeling of danger that immigrants have taken their identity from them and they don’t want to be confused with immigrants.
That is, in the host countries, which are mostly western, there is also a group that does not like immigrants, especially Muslim immigrants, to be integrated into them. According to them, Muslim immigrants should not pollute their culture and identity – so to speak.
But again, due to the blessing of the secular age and the secular government, their words are not taken into account, and they are willing to give citizenship to Muslims and follow the policy of multiculturalism, with all the possible dangers and sometimes bad memories of some of them – that one day maybe the important principle of “citizenship” will be institutionalized in them.
EU leaders convened in Brussels to tackle global and regional challenges
Syria will not follow Afghanistan’s Taliban model of governance
Yoon summoned again for questioning on treason charges
Germany closes 2024 with armament records
Argentina and the IMF: Negotiations begin for a new $44bn agreement
MOST READ
-
EUROPE1 week ago
Sweden blames Germany’s nuclear phase-out for energy crisis
-
OPINION2 weeks ago
Why Did the Assad Regime Collapse in Just 12 Days?
-
OPINION1 week ago
Implications of the EU–Mercosur free trade agreement from a Latin American perspective
-
DIPLOMACY2 weeks ago
On the brink of war or a new renaissance? Highlights from the Schiller Institute’s 40th anniversary
-
OPINION2 weeks ago
Who won in Syria?
-
ASIA1 week ago
Chinese academy discusses Syria
-
MIDDLE EAST1 week ago
Syria after Assad; A look at the future and possible scenarios
-
MIDDLE EAST2 weeks ago
Handover in management, and executions in Syria