Egypt and the Treaty of Westphalia

[davidbfpo]

My question is: was that a mistake? Should we consider the possibility of two peoples sharing the same territory but with differing political alliances?

Western Europe took a long time, centuries after the Treaty of Westphalia, to evolve systems of governance where peoples and politics coexisted with minimal violent conflict. Not to overlook what happened in Bosnia, Kosovo, the wider FRY and many other places, close to me Northern Ireland.

One of the largely forgotten episodes after 1918, partly as the League of Nations was responsible, were the number of population transfers, e.g. between Greece and Turkey in Thrace.

There were and remain a few places where sovereignty was shared, usually small tropical islands involving France and the UK.

Today it is difficult to see how partition and population transfer could happen by agreement.

[TheCurmudgeon]

Western Europe took a long time, centuries after the Treaty of Westphalia, to evolve systems of governance where peoples and politics coexisted with minimal violent conflict. Not to overlook what happened in Bosnia, Kosovo, the wider FRY and many other places, close to me Northern Ireland.

One of the largely forgotten episodes after 1918, partly as the League of Nations was responsible, were the number of population transfers, e.g. between Greece and Turkey in Thrace.

There were and remain a few places where sovereignty was shared, usually small tropical islands involving France and the UK.

Today it is difficult to see how partition and population transfer could happen by agreement.

But that is not the question - I am not looking at partition. That is the solution we automatically default to. Nor am I looking to something like Northern Ireland where both parties agree to a common government. In certain respects I am looking at going back to a time before the Treaty.

What I am talking about it two peoples sharing the same territory living under different laws - one secular and one religious. Certain common services would be provided by the central government but the legal system that the people live by would be separate depending on which group you declare yourself a part of. For example, if I were secular I could make statements against Muhammad but if I were a member of the religious group that would be a crime punishable by law.

[thames22]

In a certain sense, your question touchs on freedom of thought and belief. While today an accepted concept in Europe and North America, initial notions of religious rights developed during a roughly 100 year period from the 1550s to the 1650s when historic European agreements laid a foundation for today’s established rights. During this period, Europe was wracked with fighting stemming from “confessional polarization” and intra-religious hatred. Several notable peace agreements took into account the importance of respecting religious identity and religious rights, such as the Peace of Augsburg, the Union of Utrecht, and the Edict of Nantes. Implemented with varying degrees of success, they are notable accomplishments that built to the Peace of Westphalia.

Today, modern "Westphalian" systems of law permit different sets of legal systems to a certain point. Individual members of religious communities can voluntarily opt into their religious legal systems, which would obligate them to certain moral standards. The Amish in Pennsylvania, for example. People must be free to leave, but then they face social ostracism. However, religious communities would not have the power to enforce criminal punishments, which is of course reserved to the state.

[TheCurmudgeon]

Condettiere - I believe your comparison with the French Revolution will prove to be the most accurate.

BB, - I don't know enough about Bosnia to make any assessment. I would be interested to see if it really does exist with two separate systems in the same territory.

T22 – The Amish make for an interesting argument, but as you say, they really do not have their own laws as much as they have strictly enforced social norms.

The more I think about this the more I find it unlikely to be successful. Humans are territorial. Ethnic groups often define themselves with regards to a place on the face of the earth. This connection along with ideas about the secular state are sometimes associated with the birth of nationalism, although I personally think of a “nation” as a group of people who share a common heritage, language, myths, history, and territory – a “state” is the government overlaid upon the nation. I cringe every time I hear the term “nation-building” being associated with places like Afghanistan. Outsiders can build a state – that is just the functional components of government. Outsiders cannot build a nation – that only members of that nation can do.

[wm]

But that is not the question - I am not looking at partition. That is the solution we automatically default to. Nor am I looking to something like Northern Ireland where both parties agree to a common government. In certain respects I am looking at going back to a time before the Treaty.

What I am talking about it two peoples sharing the same territory living under different laws - one secular and one religious. Certain common services would be provided by the central government but the legal system that the people live by would be separate depending on which group you declare yourself a part of. For example, if I were secular I could make statements against Muhammad but if I were a member of the religious group that would be a crime punishable by law.

I'm not aware of any such construction in Western history at least. A possible exception was the division in the Middle Ages between secular and canon law. But this was not symmetrical--the clergy was outside secular law but the laity was subject to both secular and canon law as the conflict between Holy Roman Emperor Henry IV and Pope Grepeory VII in the 11th Century shows. Gregory could excommunicate Henry; Henry could do nothing to Gregory. Perhaps something like what you want existed in those cases of imperial immediacy where a Prince-Bishopric coincided with a Church diocese, but again I think it was be limited to a division along the lines of the clergy and the laity with the same asymmetry noted above.

[carl]

The way I see it, the Muslim Brotherhood figures Allah is on their side and half measures won't do if you have the backing of god. I don't see much room for compromise here. If you figure the Copts have to convert or die, what is there to talk about? So it may be a matter of kill or be killed as hard as that is.

With the takfiri movement in the Muslim world that is what it will always come down to. People who believe god is on their side aren't likely to compromise.

[TheCurmudgeon]

With the takfiri movement in the Muslim world that is what it will always come down to. People who believe god is on their side aren't likely to compromise.

I would disagree. History is full of examples where people of different beliefs lived together. Every hamlet had its own favored god (which in the modern Christian world translated into their own patron saint). The Islamic faith did not start out evangelical. The conquering armies often set up their own military towns away from the local populace. When the Islamic armies conquered the Iberian peninsula they did not force everyone to convert but instead saw the non-Islamic occupants as ahl al-dhimma (the people under protection). That did not mean that they were treated equally, but they were not forced to convert.

Now I agree that religion offers certain advantages when it comes to encouraging conflict, not the least of which is the idea that God is on our side and therefore 1) everyone else is unworthy (they may not have souls and therefore are not even human), and 2) you are right in taking any action God "directs". But these are only rationalizations that allow "civilized" people to do what they already want to do - to succumb to their more basic motivations. Islam also has the history of being not only a religion but a political system of sorts, which makes the problem more vexing. But I do not believe that you cannot have an country in the Islamic world that allows for freedom of religion and a secular government. Just not sure how to accomplish it in a period of potential social and political transition.

[condottiere]

You can't convert all the Jews and Christians immediately, otherwise you have no tax base.

Usually, the only way other religions can co-exist with Islam is if the authorities are anxious not to upset the economic applecart.

[carl]

Curmudgeon:

You can have a Muslim country with reasonable government. That was Ataturk's basic point my small knowledge base seems to recall. The Baathist movement was secular. There used to be a lot of Catholics in Iraq. It can be done and I believe was done.

But, it can't be done under the takfiris. Those guys aren't reasonable or they wouldn't be what they are. There is a struggle in the Muslim/Arab world now between the wild eyed killers and those who for example would let the Copts or the Ahmadis live. The conflict in Egypt can be viewed I think in that light, secularists vs. the takfiris. At least the Egyptian Army may view it that way.

The wild eyed killers don't even seem to go for the apartheid system of old. Besides, I'm not sure that would fly nowadays.