How the British Divided the Middle East
Back ground
Before
the discovery of oil, the Middle East was vital to Britain because it was part
of trade and imperial communications routes to India the Western powers had long believed that they would eventually
become dominant in the area claimed by the weak central government of the
Ottoman Empire. Britain anticipated a need to secure the area because of its
strategic position on the route to Colonial
India, and perceived itself as locked in a struggle with
Russia for imperial influence known as The
Great Game. These powers disagreed over
their contradictory post-war aims and made several dual and triple agreements.
Syria and Lebanon became a French protectorate (thinly disguised as a League of Nations Mandate). French control was met immediately with armed
resistance, and, in order to combat Arab
nationalism, France divided the Mandate area
into Lebanon and four sub-states.
The partitioning of the Middle East ( Ottoman Empire) was
planned in several agreements made by the Allied Powers early in the course of World War I, notably
the Sykes-Picot Agreement. As world war loomed, the Ottoman Empire sought
protection but was rejected by Britain, France, and Russia, and
finally formed the Ottoman–German Alliance. The huge conglomeration of territories and
peoples that formerly comprised the Ottoman Empire was divided into several
new states. The Ottoman Empire had been the
leading Islamic state in geopolitical, cultural and ideological terms.
The partitioning of the Ottoman Empire led to the rise in the Middle East of
Western powers such as Britain and France and brought the creation of the
modern Arab world and
the Republic of Turkey.
Resistance to the influence of these powers came from the Turkish national movement but did not become widespread in the
post-Ottoman states until after World War II.
The League of Nations mandate granted French Mandate for Syria and the Lebanon and British Mandate for
Mesopotamia (later Iraq) and British Mandate for
Palestine, later divided into Mandatory Palestine and Emirate of Transjordan (1921–1946). The Ottoman Empire's possessions
in the Arabian Peninsula became the Kingdom of Hejaz, which
was annexed by the Sultanate of Nejd (today Saudi Arabia), and
the Mutawakkilite Kingdom of Yemen.
The Empire's possessions on the western shores of the Persian Gulf were
variously annexed by Saudi Arabia (Alahsa and Qatif), or remained
British protectorates (Kuwait, Bahrain,
and Qatar) and
became the Arab States of the Persian Gulf.
After the Ottoman government collapsed completely
it signed the Treaty of Sèvres in 1920. However, the Turkish War of Independence forced the European powers to return to the
negotiating table before the treaty could be ratified. The Europeans and
the Grand National Assembly of Turkey signed and ratified
the new Treaty of Lausanne in 1923, superseding the Treaty of Sèvres and
solidifying most of the territorial issues. One unresolved issue, the
dispute between the Kingdom of Iraq and
the Republic of Turkey over the former province
of Mosul was later negotiated under the League of Nations in
1926. The British and French partitioned the eastern part of the Middle East,
also called Greater Syria, between them in the Sykes–Picot Agreement. Other
secret agreements were concluded with Italy and Russia.[4] The Balfour Declaration encouraged the international Zionist movement
to push for a Jewish homeland
in the Palestine region. While a part of the Triple Entente, Russia
also had wartime agreements preventing it from participating in the
partitioning of the Ottoman Empire after the Russian Revolution. The Treaty of Sèvres formally acknowledged the
new League of Nations mandates in the region, the independence of Yemen, and British sovereignty over Cyprus.
Introduction
More than 100 years ago in the middle of the
First World War, a secret agreement was concluded between Britain and France to
carve up the Ottoman Empire, which has had a terrible effect on the Arab and
Muslim world right up today. The two
junior diplomats, Mark Sykes on behalf of Britain and Francois George-Picot for
France, divided the Arab lands into two spheres of influence: Area A for
France, including Syria and Lebanon and Area B for Britain including Iraq,
Transjordan and Palestine. In those areas, Britain and France were to be
allowed to establish whatever such direct or indirect governments or control as
they desired.
The 1916 Sykes-Picot agreement had to
be secret because it went completely against the promises given to the
Hashemite leader Hussain Bin Ali, the Emir of Makkah, that Arabs would
eventually receive independence if they supported the Allies against the
Ottomans. This came even as Emir Hussain mustered Arab forces to fight
alongside the British for the next two years and help achieve the end of
Ottoman rule over the Arab Middle East.
The Sykes-Picot agreement became
public knowledge when the Bolsheviks seized power in 1917 and found copies of
the “treacherous” documents which they revealed to the world, and proved to the
Arabs the duplicity of their “allies”. Born of western imperialism and
colonialism, the Sykes-Picot agreement became the basis of the UN mandates
after the end of the war, and helped define the future boundaries of the Arab
nation states that remained under British or French colonial rule, which in
turn became a key factor behind the rise of military dictatorships in the 1950s
and 1960s.
Throughout the decades, the
Sykes-Picot agreement has served as a constant reminder to Arabs of continued
western meddling in their affairs. It also set the region on a turbulent course
of misery and conflict. The legacy of Sykes-Picot can be felt today in several
countries – including Iraq, Syria and most terribly, Palestine. Moreover, as
western powers are again involved in Syria, memories of Sykes-Picot and its betrayals
shape Arab fears that the West is still not finished with interfering in the
region.
How the British Divided Up the Arab
World
The
development of the modern nation states throughout the Arab world is a
fascinating and heartbreaking process. 100 years ago, most Arabs were part of
the Ottoman Empire/Caliphate, a large multi-ethnic state based in Istanbul.
Today, a political map of the Arab world looks like a very complex jigsaw
puzzle. A complex and intricate course of events in the 1910s brought about the
end of the Ottomans and the rise of these new nations with borders running
across the Middle East, diving Muslims from each other. While there are many
different factors leading to this, the role that the British played in this was
far greater than any other player in the region. Three separate agreements made
conflicting promises that the British had to stand by. The result was a
political mess that divided up a large part of the Muslim world.
The Outbreak of World War I
In
the summer of 1914, war broke out in Europe. A complex system of alliances, a
militaristic arms race, colonial ambitions, and general mismanagement at the
highest government levels led to this devastating war that would claim the
lives of 12 million people from 1914 to 1918. The “Allied” side comprised of the
empires of Britain, France, and Russia. The “Central” powers consisted of
Germany and Austria-Hungary.
At
first, the Ottoman Empire decided to remain neutral. They were not nearly as
strong as any of the other nations fighting in the war, and were wracked by
internal and external threats. The Ottoman sultan/caliph was nothing more than
a figurehead at this point, with the last powerful sultan, Abdulhamid II,
having been overthrown in 1908 and replaced with a military government led by
the “Three Pashas”. They were from the secular Westernized group, the Young
Turks. Financially, the Ottomans were in a serious bind, owing huge debts to
the European powers that they were not able to pay. After trying to join the
Allied side and being rejected, the Ottomans sided with the Central Powers in
October of 1914.
The
British immediately began to conceive of plans to dissolve the
Ottoman Empire and expand their Middle Eastern empire. They had already had
control of Egypt since 1888 and India since 1857. The Ottoman Middle East lay
right in the middle of these two important colonies, and the British were
determined to exterminate it as part of the world war.
The Arab Revolt
One
of the British strategies was to turn the Ottoman Empire’s Arab subjects
against the government. They found a ready and willing helper in the Hejaz, the
western region of the Arabian Peninsula. Sharif Hussein bin Ali, the Amir
(governor) of Makkah entered into an agreement with the British government to
revolt against the Ottomans. His reason for allying with
the foreign British against other Muslims remains uncertain. Possible
reasons for his revolt were: disapproval with the Turkish nationalist
objectives of the Three Pashas, a personal feud with the Ottoman
government, or simply a desire for his own kingdom.
Whatever
his reasons were, Sharif Hussein decided to revolt against the Ottoman
government in alliance with the British. In return, the British promised to provide
money and weapons to the rebels to help them fight the much more organized
Ottoman army. Also, the British promised him that after the war, he would be
given his own Arab kingdom that would cover the entire Arabian Peninsula,
including Syria and Iraq. The letters in which the two sides negotiated and
discussed revolt were known as the McMahon-Hussein Correspondence, as Sharif
Hussein was communicating with the British High Commissioner in
Egypt, Sir Henry McMahon.
In
June of 1916 Sharif Hussein led his group of armed Bedouin warriors
from the Hejaz in an armed campaign against the Ottomans. Within a few months,
the Arab rebels managed to capture numerous cities in the Hejaz (including
Jeddah and Makkah) with help from the British army and navy. The British
provided support in the form of soldiers, weapons, money, advisors (including
the “legendary” Lawrence of Arabia), and a flag. The British in Egypt drew up a
flag for the Arabs to use in battle, which was known as the “Flag of the Arab
Revolt”. This flag would later become the model for other Arab flags of
countries such as Jordan, Palestine, Sudan, Syria, and Kuwait.
As
World War One progressed through 1917 and 1918, the Arab rebels managed to
capture many major cities from the Ottomans. As the British advanced into
Palestine and Iraq, capturing cities such as Jerusalem and Baghdad, the Arabs
aided them by capturing Amman and Damascus. It is important to note that the
Arab Revolt did not have the backing of a large majority of the Arab
population. It was a minority movement led by a few leaders who sought to
increase their own powers. The vast majority of the Arab people stayed away
from the conflict and did not support the rebels or the Ottoman government.
Sharif Hussein’s plan to create his own Arab kingdom was succeeding so far, if
it were not for other promises the British would make.
The Sykes-Picot Agreement
Before
the Arab Revolt could even begin and before Sharif Hussein could create his
Arab kingdom, the British and French had other plans. In the winter of
1915-1916, two diplomats, Sir Mark Sykes of Britain and François Georges-Picot
of France secretly met to decide the fate of the post-Ottoman Arab world.
According
to what would become known as the Sykes-Picot Agreement, the British and French
agreed to divide up the Arab world between them. The British were to take
control of what is now Iraq, Kuwait, and Jordan. The French were given modern
Syria,Lebanon, and southern Turkey. The status
of Palestine was to be determined later, with Zionist ambitions to be taken
into account. The zones of control that the British and French were given
allowed for some amount of Arab self-rule in some areas, albeit with European
control over such Arab kingdoms. In other areas, the British and French were
promised total control.
Although
it was meant to be a secret agreement for a post-WWI Middle East, the agreement
became known publicly in 1917 when the Russian Bolshevik government exposed it.
The Sykes-Picot Agreement directly contradicted the promises the
British made to Sherif Hussein and caused a considerable amount of tension
between the British and Arabs. However, this would not be the last of the
conflicting agreements the British would make.
The Balfour Declaration
Another
group that wanted a say in the political landscape of the Middle East were the
Zionists. Zionism is a political movement that calls for the establishment of a
Jewish state in the Holy Land of Palestine. It began in the 1800s as a movement
that sought to find a homeland away from Europe for Jews (most of which lived
in Germany, Poland, and Russia).
Eventually
the Zionists decided to pressure the British government during WWI into
allowing them to settle in Palestine after the war was over. Within the British
government, there were many who were sympathetic to this political movement.
One of those was Arthur Balfour, the Foreign Secretary for
Britain. On November 2nd, 1917, he sent a letter to Baron Rothschild, a leader
in the Zionist community. The letter declared the British government’s official
support for the Zionist movement’s goals to establish a Jewish state in
Palestine:
“His
Majesty’s government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a
national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to
facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that
nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of
existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status
enjoyed by Jews in any other country.”
Three Conflicting Agreements
By
1917, the British had made three different agreements with three different
groups promising three different political futures for the Arab world. The
Arabs insisted they still get their Arab kingdom that was promised to them
through Sharif Hussein. The French (and British themselves) expected to divide
up that same land among themselves. And the Zionists expected to be given
Palestine as promised by Balfour.
In
1918 the war ended with the victory of the Allies and the complete destruction
of the Ottoman Empire. Although the Ottomans existed in name until 1922 (and
the caliphate existed in name until 1924), all the former Ottoman land was now
under European occupation. The war was over, but the Middle East’s future was
still in dispute between three different sides.
The mandates that the League of Nations
created after WWI
Which
side won? None fully got what they wanted. In the aftermath of WWI, the League
of Nations (a forerunner to the United Nations) was established. One of its
jobs was to divide up the conquered Ottoman lands. It drew up “mandates” for
the Arab world. Each mandate was supposed to be ruled by the British or French
“until such time as they are able to stand alone.” The League was the one to
draw up the borders we see on modern political maps of the Middle East. The
borders were drawn without regard for the wishes of the people living there, or
along ethnic, geographic, or religious boundaries – they were truly arbitrary.
It is important to note that even today, political borders in the Middle East
do not indicate different groups of people. The differences between
Iraqis, Syrians, Jordanians, etc. were entirely created by the European
colonizers as a method of dividing the Arabs against each other.
Through
the mandate system, the British and the French were able to get the control
they wanted over the Middle East. For Sharif Hussein, his sons were allowed to
rule over these mandates under British “protection”. Prince Faisal was made
king of Iraq and Syria and Prince Abdullah was made king of Jordan. In
practice, however, the British and French had real authority over these areas.
For
the Zionists, they were allowed by the British government to settle in
Palestine, although with limitations. The British did not want to anger the
Arabs already living in Palestine, so they tried to limit the number of Jews
allowed to migrate to Palestine. This angered the Zionists, who looked for
illegal ways to immigrate throughout the 1920s-1940s, as well as the Arabs, who
saw the immigration as encroachment on land that had been theirs since Salah al-Din liberated it
in 1187.
A
century after Sykes-Picot, the dual crises have stripped away the veneer of
statehood imposed by the Europeans and have exposed the emptiness underneath.
Iraq was managed by Britain and Syria by France, with limited nation-nurturing,
before both were granted independence. They flew new flags, built opulent
palaces for their leaders, encouraged commercial élites, and trained plenty of
men in uniform. But both had weak public institutions, teeny civil societies,
shady and iniquitous economies, and meaningless laws. Both countries were
wracked by coups and instability. Syria went through twenty coups, some failed
but many successful, between 1949 and 1970, an average of one a year, until the
Assad dynasty assumed power—in another coup. Increasingly, the glue that held
both countries together was repressive rule and fear.
In
Syria, the death toll is many times higher in Iraq, the sectarian and ethnic
divide at least as deep as in Iraq. The test in both countries is not just
finding a way to re-create states more viable than the various formulations
attempted since the Sykes-Picot process was launched. It’s also rallying public
will in the current environment.
Some
of the political alternatives may be just as problematic. The reconfiguration
of either Iraq or Syria into new entities could be as complicated, and
potentially as bloody, as the current wars. The breakups of India, Yugoslavia,
and Sudan spawned huge migrations, cycles of ethnic cleansing, and rival claims
to resources and territory, which in turn sparked whole new conflicts, some
still unresolved years later.
Concluding remarks
The political mess, that Britain created in the aftermath of WWI remains today. The competing agreements and the subsequent countries that were created to disunite Muslims from each other led to political instability throughout the Middle East. The rise of Zionism coupled with the disunity of the Muslims in that region has led to corrupt governments and economic decline for the Middle East as a whole. The divisions that the British instituted in the Muslim world remain strong today, despite being wholly created within the past 100 years. Muslims have been unable to deal with: nationalism, democracy; and sectarianism. The agreements to divide the Middle East were flawed and created issues right from the outset but these were perhaps symptoms and the issue of grappling with nationalism in the Islamic World is perhaps the more important issues in context of the forces that fosters the present turmoil in the Islamic World.
The
nation-state, which involves wedding a specific people to a sovereign
territorial entity, is a modern phenomenon. Nationalism, the sentiment inspiring a people
to establish an autonomous state, is also strictly modern. It can be seen as a
political offspring of Romanticism, part of a nineteenth century European
reaction to the universalizing and anti-authoritarian tendencies of the earlier
Enlightenment. There are, however, elements of nationalist thinking, along with
the political arrangements they birth, that are ancient. Examples would be the
civic pride exuded by Pericles in his famous speech on the eve of the
Peloponnesian War and the Greek city states themselves. Islam contains
teachings that clearly argue against the most important elements of nationalism.
Foremost among these elements are the chauvinism and exclusiveness engendered
by the nationalist project. It is worth contemplating whether Islam can play a
role in shaping an effort to move beyond nationalism.
Islam is neither Nationalism nor Imperialism but a League of
Nations which recognizes artificial boundaries and racial distinctions for
facility of reference only, and not for restricting the social horizon of its
members. One of the greatest keys to the emergence of
that realm was the social psychology fostered by Islam. Perhaps the most
important fruit of that social psychology was the creation of a political
culture that discouraged the development of nationalist thinking. Such a
political culture is desperately needed today as many people begin to struggle
with new forms of transnational organization. If Islam is allowed, by both its
enemies and advocates, to contribute to a new global sociopolitical consensus
by helping to resolve the myriad problems associated with nationalism, both the
Muslims and humanity will be well served.
No comments:
Post a Comment