Modern States in the Middle East Are a Product of Colonial Violence - Essay Example

? Modern s in the Middle East are a product of Colonial Violence. Discuss with reference to two countries in the region Modern States in the Middle East are a product of Colonial Violence. Discuss with reference to two countries in the region The Muslim world did not practice the notion of having territorial states before the era of colonialism (Batatu 1999, p. 13). Even though Muslims had quite unique such as territorial, linguistic and ethnic differences that existed among them, they did not divide themselves along the lines of these differences. They considered themselves to be a unified region under one political umbrella. The earlier caliphate and later empires and sultanates were the political factors that unified Muslims before colonialism (Khadduri 1951, p. 11). Colonialism is to blame for the rise in the ‘nation-state’. This is majorly because the colonizers used arbitrary and ad hoc means to create nation-states that were only meant to serve some of their particular interests. Good examples to explain this concept are how Kuwait, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Jordan were created. Kuwait was created as a result of the interest that the British had in the oil that was present in the Persian Gulf. Lebanon, on the other hand, was carved out of Syria to create a state that was friendly to Arab Christians. In the case of Jordan, it was created as a present to King Abdullah for the assistance he offered to the British during the 1st World War (Khalil 1990, p. 54). The manner in which most of these territories were being re-carved led to increased tensions that were centered on the territorial, linguistic and ethnic differences that existed among Muslims previously. With this in mind, it is correct to point out that modern states in the Middle East are a product of colonial violence. This paper will discuss this notion with a focus on how Iraq and Syria were created as a result of colonial violence. It is important to note that Iraq was a British colony. Before the British took over, the region that is now Iraq had already faced numerous conquests from the Arab Islamists around the mid 7th century and the Ottoman era between the 14th and 15th century (Kiernan 1998, p. 22). In 1920, the British took control over Iraq, and it became a League of Nations under the mandate of the British. From that day, Iraq was referred to as the “State of Iraq”. The state was to begin operating like an independent state because it was forced to break away from the ties that it had with the rest of the Middle East. The British went ahead and brought King Faisal, who was a Hashemite, to be the ruler of the new established State of Iraq. The French, who were the colonial masters in Syria, had forced Faisal out of Syria (Omissi 1990, p. 2). The British went further and appointed elites from the Sunni Arab people to head major government authorities and ministries. In 1932, Iraq was granted independence by the British after long persuasions by King Faisal. The British, however, did not give up the military bases or the transit rights for their troops. King Faisal died a year later, in 1933, and was succeeded by King Ghazi. During King Ghazi’s time, military coups were the order of the day. He eventually died in 1939 and was succeeded by his underage son (Tripp 2002, p. 28). Syria, on the other hand, has a unique history because some of its sections between 1098 and 1189 AD were under the Germans, Italians, English and French. This was mostly during the crusades that characterized that period. Previously, the region that is today Syria was under army of the Arab Rashidun in 640 AD (Batatu 1999, p. 21). After the period of the crusades, Syria was taken over by the Ottoman Empire in 1516. The French came in later in 1920 and established an independent Kingdom known as the Kingdom of Syria. The Kingdom which did not last for long was under the leadership of Faisal 1 who belonged to the Hashemite family. The Battle of Maysalun is blamed for the short existence of the Kingdom of Syria which only lasted a few months (Khadduri 1951, p. 20). A conference dubbed the San Remo conference led to the decision that saw Syria being put under the mandate of the French under the League of Nations. A revolt that broke out in 1925, led by Sultan al-Altrash engulfed the whole of Syria. Through the revolt, the French were defeated severally in many battles until they brought in forces from Senegal and Morocco who managed to take over a few cities. This resistance did not stop until 1927 when al-Atrash was captured and given a death sentence. When Syria and France signed a treaty in 1937, al-Atrash returned to Syria after being forgiven by the French (Khalil 1990, p. 90). Undoubtedly, modern states in the Middle East are products of colonial violence. Iraq and Syria are two good examples that have been used to elaborate this point. The World War 1 saw a long military campaign take place in several regions where the war was prevalent. After these campaigns, a colonial regime was established in Iraq by the British. The Iraqis were totally against this colonial regime and did everything in their power to resist it (Kiernan 1998, p. 32). In 1920, a nationwide uprising was staged in Iraq to show the British that the Iraqis were fed up with their colonial rule. In response to their resistance, the British struggled for more than a decade to maintain control over the country. Their forces used mustard gas, firebombs, armored vehicles and airplanes to show their might and to cool the Iraqis down. These strategies such as air attacks were simply used to show that the British were powerful and ought to be feared (Omissi 1990, p. 2). They were meant to have the people obey the British and to facilitate the collection of taxes. In the words of Winston Churchill, Iraq was, in fact, “an experiment in high-technology colonial control.” The colonial violence that was being experienced in Iraq did not go well with all the officials who sat in London. However, the colonial administrators who were physically present on the ground in Iraq such as Gertrude Bell were very enthusiastic about the power that their military possessed (Tripp 2002, p. 54). In Syria, the case is almost similar to what happened in Iraq. In fact, the situation is closely related. The French were able to secure their control over Syria through the use of colonial violence. Neep (2012 p. 2) notes that the French Mandate Syria is a case that can be used to give valuable insights on the relationship between colonial violence and state formation. He further adds that even though colonial states are colonial in nature, they are still states at the end of the day, Syria being no exception. The Syrian revolt that took place between 1925 and 1927 has been cited severally as one of the worst cases of colonial violence which was as a result of the Syrian people resisting the colonization by the French. In the revolt, the acts of violence propagated by both the colonial forces and anti-colonial forces are of different logics (Batatu 1999, p. 44). Each side had its own reasons to continue with the violence. French, who were the colonial forces, wanted to maintain control over the region and continue exploiting Syria. The Syrians, who were the anti-colonialist forces, were fighting against the oppression being netted against them in their own land by the colonizers. All these acts of violence from either side are what have been referred to as colonial violence in general. The use of military force against the Syrian people was not seen to be simply repressing rebellion, but as creating a new form of population. The mandatory authority exercised by the French in Syria is seen by many as a modern governmental strategy that was aimed at making the Syrian population believe that they were docile and pacified subjects (Kiernan 1998, p. 55). The notion of colonial violence is seen by some as a consequence of modernity that was brought from the West by the colonizers in their quest to conquer the world. However, there are those who view colonial violence as manifestations through which the violence experienced was colonized by the effects of power which characterize the modern world. In other words, the modern world is characterized by the struggle for power. The struggle for power is sometimes very violent and bloody. Therefore, colonial violence is merely a result of the colonizers seeking to gain power over those that were being colonized. Since the people being colonized showed resistance to the colonizers, violence had to follow so that the power of the colonizers would be felt ((Owen 2004, p. 28). After colonization, there emerged several individual Middle Eastern states. These states were characterized by the creation of their own unique national arms and institutions. After the breakup of the Ottoman Empire just after the end of the end of World War 1 which led the Middle Eastern region for some time, the emergence of states began to take center stage in the Middle East. Other factors that contributed to the emergence of states include the influence of British and French colonizers and the sudden increase in centralized administrative and political power in the period when states began achieving independence (Tripp 2002, p. 60). There are arguments which seem to propose that the shape taken by the present day administration in Iraq will always be a reflection of the presence of the British in the country. There are also other arguments which are strongly against this idea. As mentioned earlier, it cannot be denied that the personal interests of the colonial powers led to the emergence of states in the Middle East. The British Royal Navy slowly graduated from the use of coal-burning ships to oil-burning ships (Omissi 1990, p. 2). They experienced a lot of difficulties in obtaining adequate supplies of high quality fuels. The British were too embarrassed to depend upon the United States and Mexico for their supply of fuels. Maintaining the large number of troops who held the larger Mesopotamian region was seen to be very expensive by many British officials. All these factors did not deter the British from colonizing Iraq. They were motivated by the need to continue getting cheap supplies of oil and prestige, influence and funds (Batatu 1999, p. 60). Syrian politics was dominated by upheaval up to the late 1960s. Syria played a major role in the Arab-Israel war. In this war, a number of local states of Arab descent came together to oppose the creation of Israel as an independent state. This war was lost, and this set the stage for the numerous coups that were experienced in the country. Syria still wanted to remain a part of the larger Middle East as it was before colonization. This led it to merge with Egypt to create the United Arab Republic in February 1958. However, as a result of the struggle for power that had already been brought by colonial violence, Syria seceded from the merger and became the Baathist Syria (Batatu 1999, p. 65). In the case of Iraq and Syria, the term colonial violence can be loosely used to mean the instrumental means through which the British and French used to secure their control over both regions. It is this violence that led to state formation. In the Middle East, people were not initially focused on dividing themselves along state lines (Owen 2004, p. 19). In fact, many of the inhabitants were content with being politically unified despite their territorial, linguistic and ethnic differences. It is as a result of colonization that the people in Middle East decided to fight against oppression. When the colonizers came to take over the Middle East, they divided the region into smaller sub-regions, which form majority of the states that exist today. These divisions were given power by their colonizers when governments were formed and given leaders to run them. Each of these governments fought to maintain its own sovereignty and independence. This is what led to the permanence of the modern nation-states that are seen today. Nationalism in the Arab world is considered a fairly new concept. In fact, the Arab nationalist movement is taken as a relatively new concept in the region. The Arabs have always been loyal subjects of the Ottoman Empire from the early 16th century to the late 19th century. The years between 1876 and 1909 were commonly referred to as the Hamidian period in the Arab world. During this period, a caliph was responsible for governing and providing spiritual leadership to the population. In fact, the pious Arabs were very content with the situation as it was. The idea of nationalism is, in fact, said to be Western and foreign. It triumphed in the Arab world, particularly in the Balkan and began capturing the imagination of other numerous subjects in the region. Nationalism may have easily developed as a result of bad administration and propaganda, especially during the rule of the Ottoman Empire (Batatu 1999, p. 90). Young Turks are said to have seized power in 1908. Their major driving force was the need to transform Turkey into a modern constitutional state. This attracted other enlightened Arabs to want to follow the policies of the Young Turks. However, the Young Turks were later found to be less liberal than they claimed to be. In fact, they were more nationalistic and were merely interested in transforming all racial elements of that empire into Turks (Sluglett 2007, p. 96). The Arab nationalists were afraid of disturbing the Islamic unity that had been in existence. In fact, they initially wanted to have an autonomous status under the leadership of the Sultan. They were eventually dissuaded by the negative attitudes that the Young Turks had against them. King Faisal is said to have been very instrumental in the actions of the Arab Revolt. He was both a soldier who fought the wars in the desert and a national leader in both Iraq and Syria. He was determined to promote the Arab cause to the very end. Faisal played a significant role in the ending of hostilities with the Turks. He was even sent to France to advocate for Syria’s aspirations to become independent. In Paris, he found himself in a tough position when he had to bargain for the basic rights of his people. He had expected that he would simply lay his demands on the table and they would be respected, but that was not the case (Neep 2012, 101). In summary, it is right to conclude that modern states in the Middle East were formed as a result of colonial violence. It is also important to mention that the difference between a state, a government and a regime should be made clear in order to understand how modern states in Middle East are products of colonial violence. The case of Iraq and Syria can be viewed under the spectrum of the expansion in power that rocked both regions after their independence from their colonizers. The colonial days in both regions brought about a lot of colonial violence. After the colonial powers departed from Syria and Iraq, the need to keep high levels of security took center stage. Also, there was the desire to have the state promote expansive programmes aimed at bringing economic development. This was mostly because of the growth that was experienced in bureaucracy, the number of public enterprises, and in the number of army and police personnel. The people in power in the two regions were also driven by the need to maintain control over the entire new national territories that had been created. References Batatu, H 1999, Syria’s peasantry, the descendants of its lesser rural notables and their politics, Princeton University Press, Princeton. Khadduri, M 1951, Independent Iraq: a study in Iraqi politics, Oxford University Press, London. Khalil, S 1990, The republic of fear: the politics of modern Iraq, University of California Press, Berkeley. Kiernan, VG 1998, Colonial empires and armies 1815 – 1960, Sutton, Stroud. Neep, D 2012, Occupying Syria under the French mandate: insurgency, space and state formation, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Omissi, DE 1990, Air power and colonial control: the Royal Air Force, 1919–1939, Manchester University Press, Manchester. Owen, R 2004, State, power and politics in the making of the modern Middle East, 3rd edn, Routledge, London, viewed 14 Dec 2013, http://www.ius.edu.ba/hkorkut/ME%20in%20WP/State%20Power%20and%20Politics.pdf Sluglett, P 2007, Britain in Iraq: contriving king and country, Columbia University Press, Columbia. Tripp, C 2002, A history of Iraq, 2nd edn, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Read More