For most of the countries in the Middle East and Africa, the term "countries whose borders are drawn with a ruler" is used. As you know, those who used this ruler were imperialists who turned those geographies upside down and exploited them without paying attention to blood, cruelty and tears. When they realized that they could not actually stay in the countries they colonized, they drew the boundaries according to themselves and withdrew to return. I say he is about to go back, because they set the boundaries they drew in a way that is always problematic. In other words, they liberated their colonies allegedly, but by passing their ties to a different stage, they went on to continue their old gains with new methods.
The reason why we remember and reiterate all this today is the French President Macron's visit to Lebanon after the explosion that destroyed Beirut. The footage that Macron gave while navigating the exploded, perhaps, possibly, exploded harbor was unlike the poses that could be taken while touring a very destroyed town. It was as if he was looking for ways to recruit benefits from suffering like "Moorish who found goods". While there, the initiation of a petition for those who want a French mandate in Lebanon should also be considered. In fact, France continues to live in history by processing whatever it wants to do in Syria, Libya, in Lebanon.
In addition, drawing the boundaries with a ruler did not mean only the separation of land parts. Along with borders, identities have also become the victims of that ruler. Lebanon was one of the victims of this identity. As it is known, Lebanon is still governed by the form of administration left over from the French colony, or rather it cannot be. Because the constitution of the country was made by the occupying French on May 23, 1926. So why can't Lebanon be ruled? Because the decisive factor in this model is sects. There are quotas belonging to sects in the administration. According to this model, President Maruni must be Christian, prime minister Sunni, and parliament speaker from Shiites. Likewise, sectarian quotas are applied for deputies in the parliament. Can you look at this model? A century has passed, demographic changes have occurred, but the same model is still standing. Whatever the written rule imposed on that day is, the executive and the parliament take shape. In the crises and discussions in Lebanon, people are discussed directly over sects, not success or failure. That is why Lebanon cannot find a way out of the crisis.
Likewise, the reason for the crises in Iraq today is the Lebanese-like administration model. In Iraq, with the constitution of 2005, identities were drawn with a ruler as in Lebanon. Today in Iraq, the president is made up of Kurds, the prime minister is Shiite Arabs, and the parliament speaker is Sunni Arabs. But for the prime minister and parliament presidency, sects within the same ethnic identity are decisive, but why is the Kurdish ethnic identity brought to the fore for the presidency? The answer is very clear. Because there is a Kurdish issue in this region that needs to be played on. That is why this problem should be kept alive and used by them. That is why special emphasis is placed on Kurdish ethnic identity.
On the other hand, in Bosnia, they applied the same method as in the Dayton Agreement in 1995. In other words, they implemented a management model with the calculations that "the problem never ends, everything sticks to the cotton thread, the environment can be intervened continuously". As you know, there are three founding peoples in Bosnia and Herzegovina today, namely Bosniaks, Croats and Serbs. The Presidential Council consists of three members elected to represent these three founding peoples. The Presidency is carried out between these members for eight-month periods. This model, which sounds good, cannot actually help Bosnia and Herzegovina survive, let alone solve its problems.
As a result, I will say that those who divide geographies with rulers in the Middle East and Africa in the 20th century used their rulers to divide identities, as in Lebanon, Bosnia and Iraq. They always kept the ethnic and sectarian fault lines active. They wanted everything to fall to the ground and to be always needed, even in the slightest jolt. So they created natural(!) reasons to intervene. They transformed our identities, which they separated by force, into useful weapons against the other. It is up to us to shed tears of helplessness after towns such as Baghdad, Damascus, Beirut, and Aleppo, which are the cradle of civilizations and which carry the oldest treasures of humanity in every corner. What happened in Andalusia is still alive in our mental worlds, but what do you say, are we not like Ameer Abdullah, who is looking at Andalusia in tears for one last time today as each of us leaves?