Konyok:
I ascribe the present “stability” to the existence of the United Nations and the post-1945 stasis of international boundaries. The major world powers agreed upon ideal of respecting international boundaries, however arbitrary those boundaries actually are. Although there have been exceptions such as Western Sahara, most of the boundaries that existed in 1950 still exist today.
This hasn’t kept major powers from invading other countries, but the principle has set parameters to the international acceptability of invasion. Thus, when Tanzania invaded Uganda and Vietnam invaded Cambodia in the late 1970′s, the goal was regime change, not annexation. Regime change may be frowned upon in international relations, but it can be acceptable in extreme circumstances.
In the Age of Empire, which ended sometime in the twentieth century, static boundaries existed only when rival empires could both police their claimed territory and respect each other’s strength. Woodrow Wilson’s “League of Nations” idea (resurrected as the “United Nations”) complicated international relations greatly, as it created a worldwide version of the Holy Roman Empire that promoted the tyranny of small princes against both the power of large states and the rights of common people.
I regard the decline of the Ottoman Empire and the rise of the League of Nations as having little to do with each other; the events merely coincided. The problem many Arabs have with the League of Nations regime (which still exists now) is not that it had anything to do with the demise of the Ottoman Empire but rather that it frustrates the ability of Arabs to create any future caliphate.
The irony of democracy is that it is the ideal vehicle for the creation of a future Islamic caliphate. All that is necessary is for Muslim democracies to band together into a federation and vote peacefully for a new empire – a collective caliphate of the ummah. Islamic tradition since Muawiyah has favored tyrants who carve empires through conquest, yet the present international order prevents this from happening. Al-Qaeda is attempted to institute a caliphate the old fashioned way – through terrorism and conquest. And yet, its actions have postponed the time when any real caliphate can occur.
A caliphal democracy would not necessarily be in America’s geopolitical interests, of course, as it would become a world power through its sheer bulk. It would still be an improvement over the status quo, as it would promote accountability. I do find it ironic how those who presently claim to promote a caliphate are precisely those who are preventing any real caliphate from being established, while it is America’s promotion of liberal democracy that may actually lead to a future reemergence of an Islamic Empire.
