The Queen of the Desert and National Sovereignty

Nicole Kidman plays the lead role. She plays Gertrude Bell. Gertrude Bell is a British agent who has traveled the Middle East. She is also an archaeologist and writer. It is never easy for anyone to travel alone in the Middle East. Especially when you consider the cultural texture of the region, it is much more difficult for a woman than a man. However, Gertrude Bell manages to do this job. Moreover, with the relationships she develops, she reaches such a point that she determines the administrations of Jordan and Iraq and draws their maps. In 1921, she ensures that King Faisal becomes the leader of Iraq.

In the movie Queen of the Desert , the emphasis on the historical importance of Gertrude Bell is weak. Nicole Kidman's successful acting should be given credit, but the director of the epic biography film, Werner Herzog, focused too much on Gertrude Bell's adventurous side. Therefore, the film could not adequately reveal Gertrude Bell's importance for Middle Eastern politics. The film is still worth watching.

Gertrude Bell (Source: https://museumsandheritage.com/advisor/posts/great-north-museum-hancock-announces-the-extraordinary-gertrude-bell-exhibition/ )

The Middle East is a constantly problematic region. And it will continue to be so, unfortunately. Countries and people need to determine their own future. However, the logic of international relations does not allow this. The logic of humanity is problematic. Gertrude Bell is also a representative of the forces that prevent a country from determining its own destiny.

Is every nation very keen on determining its own destiny? In other words, are they independence-loving? No, they are not. It is strange but true! In my life, in my dialogues with people from many third world countries, I have witnessed with my eyes, ears and brain that there are people who are angry that their exploiters have left their countries because they have ceased to be colonies of developed countries. For example, a significant number of Sudanese people attribute the primitive conditions they are in today to the fact that England left the country in 1955. For this reason, they are angry with the English.

Gertrude Bell's legacy can still be felt in Iraq today. But in the recent past, the person who has most profoundly influenced the political, ethnic and geographic situation of today's Iraq is undoubtedly Saddam Hussein.

Saddam's Iraq created a period in which there was no threat to Sunnis but extremely harsh social and political conditions for Kurds and Shiites. The basis of Iraq's current de facto division is the environment Saddam created.

Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, who left the prime ministry in 2014, gave an interview to The New York Times in 2016. Maliki explains that he was unable to calm the anger and feelings of victimization of these three elements against each other during his time as prime minister, and that he was not able to do so. Maliki is a Shiite and the grandson of a grandfather who took part in the uprisings against the British in the 1920s.

With the emergence of ISIS, Iraq found itself in a much more complex problem.

When the dominance of world international politics passed from England to the USA, the fate of Iraq was handed over to the USA. The USA, which invaded Iraq in 2003, completely withdrew its military force from Iraq by the end of 2011. However, the USA had to turn back in the face of ISIS's invasion of Iraq.

Two years ago, the US, which accused Maliki of implementing policies that were too authoritarian and deepened division, supported Maliki's removal from the prime ministry. Abadi took his place. Now, Abadi is considered very weak. In other words, he cannot deal with ISIS. An important city like Mosul cannot be taken over by Iraq, and Shiites and Kurds cannot live together in peace in the same country. These findings play a fundamental role in considering Abadi weak.

Iraq cannot govern itself. Perhaps dividing it would yield a better result. Northern Iraq is already in the position of a semi-independent Kurdish state. The US, which wants to control the social dynamics of the country and the natural resources that Iraq has more easily, is trying to govern it by force. However, the administrations in Iraq do not have much objection to this. They are in cooperation with the US. After all, the US invaded Iraq with Bush to bring democracy. Although Alan Greenspan wrote in some lines of his book The Age of Turbulance that the main purpose was to control the dynamics of oil, all the global powers pumped the people of the world that democracy was being brought to Iraq. By the way, the claims that there were hidden nuclear weapons underground also turned out to be bullshit, but shouldn't we believe whatever the great powers say? Because the goal is democracy (!).

The members of the Iraqi parliament have the distinction of being members of one of the highest-paid parliaments in the world. In other words, politics has become an activity carried out for the purpose of making a living. Political immorality is at high levels. Therefore, there is no will to solve Iraq's military, economic and political problems. For this reason, Iraq has been trying to live under the domination of foreign powers for 100 years.

King Faisal watched Gertrude Bell's funeral from his balcony. Gertrude Bell was buried in Baghdad in 1926. This is the Middle East. There is turmoil, blood and tears here. Here, 100 years ago, England and France drew the borders. Today, the USA designs sociology and politics.

Those who do not think about the dignity of their own country do not like democracy. Because they set the rules with the power created by their own sovereignty. Political morality and social morality also collapse over time and someone comes and rules the country. They draw the borders, appoint the prime ministers, and make suggestions (!) using their specialization in many subjects.

Losing democracy, suffocating societies and destroying freedom of expression actually means that a country is losing its national sovereignty. Because international relations show that some people are trying to come to the aid (!) under the name of democracy.

What could better express my respect for Atatürk than the Middle East of today and the last 100 years?