Let's Kill the "Middle East"

The "Middle East" is the only region in the world primarily defined by its relation to another, that is, Europe and more broadly "The West", including Britain and America. It is a term that has been used for approximately 100 years, and while the term has passed into common usage since its introduction, it's time we let go of it.

The terms "Far East" and "Near East" exist, but they have largely fallen into disuse, except in either a historical sense, or where their relation to Europe is relevant. What we called the Far East is now China, North and South Korea and Japan, just as India and its neighbours make up South Asia, and the countries from Burma to Papua New Guinea is South-East Asia. The term Near East once meant the Ottoman empire, but since its dissolution and Turkey's tendencies away from Asia culturally, it's only a historical term now.

East, South, South-East, Central Asia; Western, Northern, Eastern or Southern Europe; North, Central or South America; West, North, East, Southern Africa. These terms carry no implication besides their place on the world map. We ignore the social, political and economic relations of every one of these regions in the world. They are named only in relation to their place on their individual continents. The labels we give the regions of the world are apolitical and solely geographic, if to an extent arbitrary.

Yet the region that would otherwise be called West Asia is defined by its relation to the West: Europe and the USA, in turns their allies and rivals. Even in Arabic, the region is called Assharq Al-Awsat, literally, "the Middle East".

It seems to me that a move should be made away from this term. The history of the "Middle East" in the 20th and 21st centuries is the story of people struggling for independence, first from colonial rule, which came just as fundamentally anti-colonial nationalist ideologies took roots, and then from dictators and despots who came from within. The entire course of the last hundred year of "Middle East"'s history has been influenced if not outright dictated by the West.

The Sykes-Picot agreement established the cutting up of the region between Britain and France that gives us the artificial geography of today's states. The Balfour Declaration was endorsed Zionism and led directly first to the migration of Jews to Palestine and then to the creation of the Jewish state. And then there are the numerous dictators the West keeps in power, using them as their own pawns until they outlive their use. Mubarak, Saddam, Al-Saud. Those people who overthrow their Western-backed dictators, such as Iran did in 1979, are enemies of the West.

Then there is the economic side of things; when "Middle Eastern" countries each nationalised their oil industries, thus keeping the lion's share of the revenues for themselves, Britain and America took it as an insult, as they were the ones profiting from the "Middle East"'s reserves before nationalisation.

Yes, in the last century, the "Middle East" has largely been defined, politically and economically, by its dependency - whether necessary or manufactured - on the West. Even its name is entirely dependent on Europe, for if there was nothing west of the "east", what would its name even  mean? And what is it "middle" to, when the Near East and Far East are terms fading to obscurity? "Middle" no longer makes sense; "East" is eurocentric. And in a time when the fires of the Arab Awakening have begun driving the region away from dictatorships in the pocket of the West, as we are entering a new era, should we not give the region a name befitting of that era?

Let us call this region not the "Middle East", but West Asia. That is what the region is. From Turkey - though they may shudder to be included - to Yemen; from Israel/Palestine to Iran, let the western-most part of Asia be named in relation to the rest of the continent, not in relation to Europe. In Arabic, let it be Gharb Aassya.

It's strange on the lips. I define myself as Arab, British and, until now, "Middle Eastern". I rarely think of myself as Asian. But this is more because of our perception of what an Asian is: our stereotype is of a Chinese or Indian person. But, give it a week, or a year, or however long it takes to internalise - all it takes is to keep calling ourselves West Asians, and we will be that. It's sterile, with nothing of that oriental allure "Middle East" has. But sterile is in keeping with every other region of the world. So let's be the same as everyone else, rather than defined by those who only have interest in our resources.

Is it a pointless cause to try and change this? The UN already calls the region West Asia, as does Canada's government. This is not a new idea; it is already established. Now it just has to spread. I, for one, will in every way relinquish the "Middle East" for West Asia, beginning right now.