Just like victory, the road to defeat begins with the mind. Similarly, defeat also relies on a spiritual vision along with material dimensions. It’s about a particularity which is equally material and spiritual.

Defeat begins when it’s realized. Remembering defeats is painful and troubling. Both pains and troubles are actually opportunities; they require one to exert themselves. These are the basic tenets of not giving up.

Loss and defeat begins when people forget their prior defeats. Forgetting leads to becoming accustomed, becoming accustomed leads to comfort, and comfort leads to cruelty. As this cruelty becomes increasingly systematic, it’s rendered invisible, normal.

Muslims of the modern era are subjected to defeats. I mean us, our parents, and their ancestors.

This defeat definitely has certain material aspects. When the Western colonization system started to take over the world, Muslims started to lose. We lost at first, then our losses transformed into defeats. We forgot our losses and forgot that we were defeated. Our defeat became normalized.

The Muslim world has paid a grievous price throughout the last two centuries. Those who made Muslims pay were those who established the Western colonization system. Western expansionism was not only military; this expansionism permeated almost all aspects of life, including politics, law, culture, morality, economy and everyday life.

Have the tables turned?

Not completely. However, it started to revolve. So, what happened? Two things, actually. First, global politics established on Western expansionism began to lose power. Those behind this expansionism believe that they are losing. Concerns reflected occasionally by Western intellectuals have started to affect policy makers, strategists and media gurus.

Another thing also occurred; the Muslim world started to gain a powerful and authentic voice. This voice was a call for awakening, orientation and recovery. This is important not only for offering new directives to global politics, but also for reminding us that defeat is not fate.

Weren’t there similar developments in the first half of the past century? No, there weren’t. Of course, there were theses about the “West’s collapse,” that Western modernity will bring the end of humanity. These were being advocated by Western intellectuals themselves. Meanwhile, there were upheavals in countries that were ravaged by Western colonization and “decolonization movements” were taking place. Yet, we should be aware of the prominent differences between then and now.

First of all, there was a tremendous distance between the West and “the rest,” greater than today. Secondly, elites of non-Western countries were hopeful of the West and believed that they would become like Western countries if they imitated hard enough. Thirdly, the decolonization process was caused by shifts in intra-Western balances and its own dynamics were irrelevant. Moreover, despite all the conflicts and wars, it was believed that the Western nation-state system would be maintained. Even if there was a disruption, they were sure that the invisible hand of the international system would intervene. The US has begun to play this role after 1945.

However, today, the US neither has the moral superiority nor the material capacity to maintain this role. This was reflected by US decision makers, who advocated a foreign policy of isolationism. Almost eighty years ago, the US adopted an aggressive foreign policy to in order to prevent Europe from dissolving and in order to maintain the political unity of the West. The US established a system and this system functioned for a considerable amount of time. However, the system is crumbling today and the US doesn’t have the opportunity for a new intervention.

The US is trying to reestablish the now deteriorating order it had imposed on the Pacific. It has not yet succeeded in doing so. Meanwhile, China and its proxy North Korea have become the new “other” of the US in this new era.

Is the European nation-state system dissolving?

Is it possible to claim that there is political unity within the West while the US is in such a condition? It’s not an easy claim. Today, political unity within the West has become obsolete. However, this isn’t only about the US and Europe burning bridges; the European nation-state system is also crumbling.

Hardening global politics occurs with the transition from “nationalist notions” to “ethnic awareness.” This artificial but effective awareness offers dissolution, not union. Right after the end of the Cold War, Eric Hobsbawm had asserted that nationalism and ethnicity were radically different, that nationalism relied on a political program while ethnicity lacked such a program. It was the case during those days.

If we were to talk with Catalans today, they would mention a political program which relies on ethnicity and would provide “rational” reasons for their actions. We’re talking about a new political program which is trying to replace the nationalistic notions that created contemporary Europe. This is all about a process of separation and politicization of groups like the Catalans, Basques, Bretons, Scots, the Flemish, Walloons, Padanians, Normans and Bavarians and their separation movements.

Turkey’s struggle

For many years, the West has used separatist movements as a means for influence and intervention in the Middle East and exerted itself to pave the way for these movements. In this respect, it has also supported separatist movements that employ terror for their own ends. The support provided to the PKK in Turkey was of such a kind.

Since the 2000s, support to separatist movements in the region and to the dissolution of Syria and Iraq was deemed as a means to be influential in the Middle East. Yet, all of these led to the day-by-day hardening of global politics and evolved international rivalries into hateful feelings and hostilities.

Instead of addressing this dissolution process with new and inclusive policies, the West is trying to recreate a vulgar form of the Eurocentric ideology which was formulated in the 19^th century. The West is openly advocating Eurocentrism during a time we’re witnessing the defeat of Eurocentric politics. They are disregarding non-European nations, deeming these nations unworthy. The idea of the superiority of the West is being advocated. It is not difficult to state that the colonial ideology, which belongs to the era of empire, has systematically enshrined itself into the Western system. This is reflected in the fact that Western states still assume that they have a responsibility to “civilize” Asian and African nations. While this is the case, the West lacks the power and opportunity to realize this as they are ravaged by emerging internal issues.

Therefore, those who are accusing Turkey of turning its back and even becoming hostile to the West should first criticize themselves. Turkey is challenging the Eurocentric mentality, trying to reverse the defeat of the Islamic world that occurred over the two centuries. More than an obligation, it’s a necessity. To persevere or to cease to exist, this is the struggle.

The first indication which reflected the severity of Catalonia’s independence for Spain and Europe was when the King of Spain appeared on TV after 40 years, warning the Catalan separatists. Unless the situation is of critical significance for the country, under normal conditions the King is expected to remain nonpartisan and neutral. However, the Catalan separatist movement could be accepted as extraordinary as this incident not only held the possibility of dividing Spain but also affecting EU member countries, such as France, the UK, Belgium and Italy.

Even though the declaration of independence has been suspended for the meanwhile, this potential is still retained. Thus, both the EU’s and its member countries’ silence and evasive approach towards the Catalonia referendum along with the harsh response of Spain were meaningful. While the EU warned Spanish security forces not to use excessive physical force, the Union deemed the referendum “illegal according to the Spanish Constitution” and stated that only maintaining a state of law might require occasional excessive usage of force. Many European capitals – with the exception of Belgium and Slovenia – decided to remain silent or act in support of the Spanish government.

Europe fears a domino effect

A statement made by the Bertelsmann Foundation Brussels Chief Stefani Weiss during an interview gives an insight to how the EU functions, how prepared the EU is against such separatist incidents and the reasons as to why the EU remained unresponsive to the violence exerted on Catalan protestors: “The EU in a way is a good weather institution – as long as everything goes well, it works well. As soon as problems arise, the EU has huge difficulties in positioning itself and taking action.”

The EU in a way is a good weather institution – as long as everything goes well, it works well.

However, to explain this silence as mere disinterest would be too optimistic, as the EU is well-known for its rapid responses to events that occur even in the most remote locations of the Middle East. Departing from this optimistic approach, it can be argued that there are other reasons as to why both the EU, which consists of countries that have maintained their national unity and unitary structure, and member countries that are domestically bulged into a disputed territories row, have disregarded and remained silent on separatist movements. Even the least centralist EU member states are concerned that Catalonia’s independence bid could trigger other separatist movements and render the EU unmanageable.

More precisely, EU member states are concerned that the Catalonia separatist movement will trigger a domino effect, which will feed similar ideologies within their own territories. The EU’s attitude and true reason for standing beside Spain despite the use of coercive force could be summarized by the phrase, “let sleeping dogs lie.” Statements made by the European Parliament’s Spanish Deputy Esteban González Pons against the referendum exposes this concern pretty well: “If today you let Spain break up Catalonia, a domino effect will follow across the continent. Instead of a Europe of 27 we will have a non-Europe of mini-states.”

EU member states are concerned that the Catalonia separatist movement will trigger a domino effect.

The failure of the EU to act as a mediating party in the Catalan crisis, which could have been the most logical method in approaching the issue, was not just about the organization respecting its member states constitutional order, or not having procedures regarding a member country’s division. Rather, the EU is concerned about legitimizing these separatist movements that advocate independence. As is the case, almost all European countries have similar separatist groups to those in Catalonia, which are in a position to declare a potential independence. In this respect, the Catalonia referendum has the potential to encourage demands of autonomy and independence along with shaking the foundations of more powerful unitary European powers, especially when there is an economic or political crisis.

Basque region and concerns about ETA

Spain is one of those powers. While being able to negate separatist attempts of Catalonia, the richest region in the country, through legal means, Spain’s second concern is the Basque region. ETA, formed during the fight against the Franco regime in 1959 and advocating the independence of the Spanish-French Basque region, is one of the main concerns for Spain. Known for its violent actions, the organization disarmed itself in 2011. However, this does not mean that the ETA has forsaken its demands for the Basque region’s autonomy or independence. In other words, Basque separatists are banking their demands on Catalonia’s independence. For this reason, it is necessary to evaluate the Basque Lehendakari’s call to Madrid, urging the administration to recognize both Catalan and Basque nations, in this context. Discussing a similar resolution while Catalonia held a symbolic referendum in 2015, the call being made by Basque separatists two years later, has exacerbated Spain’s concerns over Catalonia’s independence movement. Granting Catalonia independence means losing the Basque region as well.

Separatists in France

Another country concerned about the domino effect of the Catalonia referendum is Spain’s neighbor, France. While the French administration is concerned about Basques within the country taking Catalans as an example, France’s real concern is Corsica. Even though the National Liberation Front of Corsica (FLNC), which has progressed Corsican nationalism to a certain point with terrorist attacks towards French officials disarmed itself in 2014, this didn’t relieve the French government.

In fact, it is possible to claim that the Corsican national movement has evolved into something different, especially considering that their separatist candidates won the local elections in 2015 and dominated three out of four districts in the last election. For FLNC, which has been calling for the election of a Corsican nationalist majority in elections that are to take place in late November, the priority is to secure autonomy rather than independence. If the negative effects of the Catalonia referendum were not present, this demand would have pleased France.

There are minor separatist groups in the Alsace and Bretagne regions as concerns for France.

It is also possible to include minor separatist groups in the Alsace and Bretagne regions as concerns for France. The economic and political tensions that await Europe as a result of the shifting global economic and political balances could consolidate these separatist groups and their demands. Catalonia’s possible independence could also encourage such movements.

Scottish independence in the UK

In the case of a declaration of independence in Europe, the UK will, without a doubt, be the candidate most likely to be affected by the domino effect. A part of the UK since 1707, Scotland’s independence has been on the agenda for many years. Being an independent kingdom in the past, Scotland elected its first pro-independence government in 2007. With the Scottish National Party’s (SNP) landslide victory in 2011, there was an expectation of an independence which was materialized with the 2014 referendum.

However, as was the case in the 1979 and 1997 referendums, the “no” votes once again held the majority in this referendum. While the 55% “no” votes allowed breathing space for London, the Scottish have other options. In fact, the SNP recently announced that they are intending to prepare another referendum, which indicates that the option of independence will be offered to the Scottish people earlier than expected. Considering that a majority of Scots are proponents of the EU and opponents of Brexit, it is uncertain for how long Scotland will remain a part of the UK.

Considering that a majority of Scots are proponents of the EU and opponents of Brexit, it is uncertain for how long Scotland will remain a part of the UK.

Nevertheless, there are other European countries that can be added to this list of movements in pursuit of autonomy, separation, or independence, which can also be triggered by the referendum in Catalonia. It is possible to include the Flanders region which want to separate from Walloons, the Faroe Islands which have been dreaming of separating from Denmark and will have their own independence referendum in 2018, Wales with the lead of nationalist political party Plaid Cymru, and the Northern League which advocates the separation of affluent northern provinces of Italy from the poor southern provinces – despite not having any ethnic, religious, cultural or linguistic differences – as other examples. The Şicula region in Romania, which has a high Hungarian population and Vojvodina in Serbia could also be included to this list. All of these regions have the potential to separate, declare autonomy or independence and therefore constitute a reasonable excuse for centralist states of Europe to be concerned about the developments in Catalonia.

The first actors in the world were city states, smaller kingdoms or principalities and these structures which were present in almost all continents had similar qualities. Throughout history, some of these actors have become more powerful and began to expand into neighboring actors through invasions, wars and agreements. All great civilizations and empires, notably Maya, India, China, Macedonia, Rome and the Ottomans, have histories that could verify this hypothesis. It is possible to observe a similar situation in the formation of the USSR and even the Eastern Bloc.

The age of empire was followed by years of dissolution which were caused by the loss of central power. The emergence of feudalism following the downfall of the Roman Empire, empires being replaced by nation-states, the emergence of new states after the USSR’s dissolution, and the division of Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia following the dissolution of the Eastern Bloc are all examples of the said fragmentation.

This situation could be deemed analogous to living cells, which survive through merging with each other or going through cellular division. However, while this is a natural process in the world of organisms, there are conflicts, transitions and systemic transformations in the world of states.

Power vacuum in the system

There is not yet a unanimous definition of the contemporary international system. In other words, developments occurring after the Cold War do not have indicators that signify whether this “cellular division” is over.

Considering the US interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq along with Russia’s annexation of Crimea and half of Georgia, it is possible to foresee that the era of division is over and that actors will move towards expansion. This, of course, will be through invasions, wars or coercion. Meanwhile, the “freedom” offered by the US and the “stability” foreseen by Russia has not led to a particular systemic transformation which will allow states to facilitate growth.

Currently, growth is only limited to the uplifting of a country, group or region, to a certain extent, in order for it to be able to cooperate with greater powers. This situation escalates the competition between actors which desire expansion and believe they have the capacity to realize it. Yet, none of these competing actors have the capacity to determine the fate of a region by itself. Therefore, major actors such as the US, Russia and China use force in predetermined priority regions. However, this force is not enough to prevent these rival actors from infiltrating these regions. This being the case, tendencies to disintegrate and divide stay relevant. Thus, as the powerhouses lose their abilities to determine a system, centrifugal tendencies escalate.

None of the competing actors have the capacity to determine the fate of a region by itself. Therefore, major actors such as the US, Russia and China use force in predetermined priority regions.

It is possible to observe the most glaring instances of these centrifugal tendencies in Europe. While Ukraine’s efforts to disengage from Russia, and the UK’s withdrawal from the EU through Brexit can seem as two different instances of separation, their reasoning does not differ from other disintegration inclinations.

Other examples of secession are not from integrated superstructures, but are instances of a break from existing states. For example, the Catalonia and Bask autonomous regions in Spain, Wallonia in Belgium, Quebec in Canada, Scotland and Wales in the UK, Trentino-Alto Adige in Northern Italy and four cities with a high Roma population in Hungary are some of the examples. Northern Iraq could also be listed as another instance of secession.

Common traits of secession inclinations

The aforementioned examples were either autonomous at one point in history or were granted autonomy with constitutional provisions. Yet, some of them lost their autonomy only to regain it later. For instance, the Kurdistan Regional Government had gained its autonomy in 1970, then lost it only to regain this status with the new Iraqi Constitution ratified in 2005. Similarly, while Catalonia became autonomous in 1931, this was revoked during the Spanish Civil War and Franco’s reign, and the province regained its status in 1979.

In almost all of the listed examples, the decision to declare independence was taken either by the regional parliaments or, as was illustrated by the cases of Catalonia and Northern Iraq, was a result of a referendum. While some shelved the decision of independent, others used it to negotiate with their central government.

Another commonality among these regions that pursue separation is that while they focus their independence reasoning on economic conditions, they fail to clarify the kind of economic system they will survive with. Generally, those that desire independence are “rich.” These wealthy regions claim that they carry the financial burden and that they do not receive services or have a budget in proportion with what they are taxed. Therefore, the economic reason of secession is usually expressed as “jettisoning.” Nevertheless, it is not clear how they are to remain wealthy after any potential separation. The singular example of this situation is the division of the Czechs and Slovaks as both sides willingly parted their ways. Generally, central governments take every precaution against those want to secede forcibly, preventing seceding regions from maintaining their wealth. This is merely the reason why the Catalans took a step back and why there is a possibility of a new civil war in Iraq.

Another common point in the separation process is the sociological motivations of those that want to leave. They first express that they see themselves different from the primary state and assert this difference through the utilization of a “different language.” Having a different language implies not only a different culture but further implies a different ethnic identity. In this respect therefore, the issue of independence is all about people of the ‘same ethnicity or race’ forming miniscule states.

If then these miniscule states surround themselves with ramparts in order to protect themselves from neighboring states, which would be likely to occur, then this will become feudalism all over again. Moreover, it is possible to foresee that this process could have larger implications by creating a domino effect.

“As long as it is mine”

This form of nationalism, which gradually progressed due to linguistic differences, has now entered an “as long as it is mine” phase. However, it should be reminded that there was a preceding phase which led to this point. This phase occurred with the spread of a consensus of the “other.” 9/11, Al Qaeda, Daesh and the issue of Syrian immigrants have consolidated nationalistic tendencies in vast territories, ranging from Northern Iraq to Central Asia, from Gulf countries to the US and from Europe to Africa, against the “other.” As was the case in the era of rising nationalistic movements, politics began to target the “internal others” right after it was over with the “external others.” For example, the separatist Catalans did not want to see Muslims first, then Syrians, then Roma people and lastly the Spanish.

While major actors in the international realm have a unanimous stance against the “external other,” it is difficult to claim that there is a similar consensus in regards to the “internal other.” It should not be forgotten that these fragments of states could only survive if they are acknowledged and recognized by prominent actors of the international system. If the principality of Andorra, which has a population of 70,000 is able to survive as a country right in the middle of Europe, it is not due to its own success.

It can be argued that separatists are aware of this reality as they are attempting to converge or unify with other actors.

It can be argued that separatists are aware of this reality as they are attempting to converge or unify with other actors. For instance, the administrators leading the Catalan and Scottish separatists announced that they want to become EU members right after secession. Those in Italy want to unify with Austria, while Walloons in Belgium and Roma people in Hungary want to unify with France and Romania, respectively.

Even though tendencies to separate are on the rise, it is hard to claim that the political conjuncture will enable these tendencies as no great power can guarantee that this process will not affect them. Only when, and if, there is a power vacuum in the system, a few of these new miniscule actors may be recognized. Meanwhile, these miniscule states might also be absorbed by larger actors while trying to enjoy their independence. Meanwhile, when there is a power vacuum in the system, the tendency to secede will become widespread and it will be possible to talk about a new “dark age.”