Problems Caused by the Mandate System - Assignment Example

1. With reference to specific examples from two countries in the region, analyze the problems caused by the Man system. By the end of the FirstWorld War, the League of nations which was the predecessor of the United Nations, instituted the Mandate System with the intent that “more advanced” countries would be given the responsibility to prepare native populations for self government. However noble the mandate was in theory, it was also seen as a means of dividing the “spoils” of World War I among the victors. Based on Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, it gives a wide range of authority and wide latitude in their exercise, among mandate powers in relation to preparing local populations for eventual self rule. The Mandate of Palestine of 1922 was borne out of the colonial designs of the British and French on the Middle East. Britain acquired Palestine, the Transjordan and Iraq, while France got Syria. It also embodied the promises these two European powers made to the Arabs and the Zionists, which eventually led to conflict. British encouragement of Zionist actions during the early years of the mandate led to increasing conflict between the Jewish immigrants and their Arab neighbors. As the Second World War loomed and the British recognized the importance of Arab support, they shifted their favors towards the Arabs at the expense of the Jewish communities who were now concentrated in fortified strongholds. As violence increased, the British decided to abandon Palestine, leaving the settlement of the Jewish question among the Zionists and Arabs. The French did not want to hand over power to the Muslims of Syria in a manner that they may be thought of giving up their traditional policy of protecting the Christians of the Levant. Urban populations and those of the educated Syrian elite were also demanding that Syria become independent and that Lebanon, Palestine, Transjordan, aside from the Druze and Alawite districts, become part of it. Rebels among the Druze and the nationalists led to open hostilities which did not subside until 1927. 2. Analyze the reasons for the Egyptian Revolution of 1952 and the emergence of Nasser as leader by 1954. The 1952 Egyptian Revolution overthrew the corrupt government of Farouk I. Led by General Mohammed Nequib and Colonel Gamel Abdel Nasser, the revolution saw the abdication of Farouk I. Although the king tried to institute land redistribution and other forms of reform, corruption became the main cause for the failure of his measures. Among the reasons that led to the revolution was the failed Palestine Campaign of 1948 which convinced the leaders that Farouk I was inefficient and corrupt. From 1917 to 1949, Israel occupied 78% of lands in Palestine, which was then administered by Great Britain under a League of Nations mandate. Israeli occupation led to the eviction of 750,000 Arab refugees to the Gaza Strip, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and other Arab countries. This led to Egypt’s campaign against Israel in 1948 which ended in failure because of a corrupt and ineffectual government. General Neguib became commander-in-chief, president and prime minister after Farouk’s abdication. Nasser was his Minister of the Interior. However, young officers in the army saw Neguib as too moderate. This resulted in his retirement and Nasser then succeeded him as prime minister in 1954. He became Egypt’s president seven months later. Nasser was popular with young officers since many were recruited by him into the Free Officers movement during World War II. His republican views also attracted a large following. Increasing sympathy and concern over the plight of Palestinian Arabs who were forced to seek refuge in neighboring countries, and Nasser’s espousal of Arab independence, also increased his popularity among the people and military. Most important in this period was his advocacy of liberating Palestine from Jewish occupation. His policy of Arab independence also challenged British authority, which gave him widespread support. Egypt had long endured British rule and growing sentiments among nationalist ranks saw their aspirations being realized under Nasser’s leadership. 3. Analyze the long term and short term reasons for Britains decision to withdraw from the Palestine Mandate in 1947. The British were committed to the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine since 1917, under the Balfour Declaration. However, this commitment became weaker as the years progressed, having its low point in 1939. Increasing immigration of Jews into Palestine resulted in violent conflicts between them and the Arabs. As violence increased and with the looming threat of war in Europe, the British made the decision that it in the event of war, it would be a more beneficial choice to put in their stakes with the Arabs at the expense of offending the Jews. The MacDonald White Paper effectively reversed the British position on the Jewish question. As Hitler continued to menace the European Jewish population, the MacDonald statements effectively became a death sentence for them as it stated that: 1) It was not British policy that Palestine become a Jewish state, 2) It is not British policy to convert Palestine into an Arab state, 3) after 10 years, an independent Palestine state wherein both Arabs and Jews would share governance will be established, 4) Jewish immigration will be limited to allay Arab fears, 5) transfer of land from Arab to Jew will be severely restricted. This was seen by the Jews as a betrayal by Britain and resulted in increasing attacks by Jewish terrorists. Independence was granted to the Transjordan, effectively partitioning Palestine, with an independent Palestine-Arab state occupying 77% of the original territory. The United States also used money and influence to push for a more liberalized policy on Jewish immigration. Clement Attlee’s government was forced to declare in 1947 that its mandate in Palestine was unworkable. The British thus resolved to leave the resolution of the conflict to the Arabs and Jews. This was followed by the United Nations General Assembly by a two-thirds vote passed resolution 181 dividing Palestine into separate Arab and a Jewish states. Britain and nine other UN members abstained from the vote. 4. Compare and contrast the relationship of Nasser and Sadat with the superpowers. Nasser began to lose favor with the western powers and became increasingly close to Soviet bloc countries. Among his initial conflicts with the western powers was his vow to liberate Palestine. Since Resolution 181 of the United Nations General Assembly provided for the partition of Palestine into Arab and Jewish states, and the United States and Britain have both recognized Israel’s independence, this announcement was met with disfavor be the western powers. Conflict again arose when the U.S. and Britain withdrew their financial participation for the Aswan Dam project. This led Nasser to declare the nationalization of the Suez Canal, stating that the funds it would generate would finance the construction of the Aswan Dam. Britain and France who were major shareholders in the canal, were angered by this move. Both countries, with the assistance of Israel, took military action against Egypt. They met with initial success but pressure from the U.S. and Soviet Union forced them to withdraw. Nasser also played off the western and Soviet rivalry, often gaining concessions and power for Egypt. Nasser also advocated and nurtured Pan-Arabic attitudes, stressing that Arab states should stand together and combine their resources for the benefit of Arab people and not the west. Anwar Sadat gained initial military victories against Israel during the Yom Kippur War, which gave him limited territorial gains in the Sinai Peninsula which was occupied by Israel during the Six-Day War. These victories laid the foundation for future talks towards peace in the Middle East. He also reopened the Suez Canal, which was to the liking of the British and French. He also became the first Arab leader to visit Israel, upon the invitation of Menachem Begin. They both received the Nobel Peace Prize for the peace talks in Camp David. Sadat’s actions were unpopular in the Arab world, and he was seen as steering closer to the United States and Israel. This led to Egypt’s suspension as member of the Arab League in 1979. 5. Why did both the Camp David Agreement 1978 and the Oslo Accords 1994 fail to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict? In September 13, 1993, Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat signed the agreement which was intended to bring peace in the Middle East. However, the Oslo Agreement failed to deliver the intended results and the continued failure in the peace process. The first blow was the assassination of Rabin by a right-wing Israeli on Nov. 4, 1995. The Hamas also did a series of suicide bombings in Jerusalem and other Israeli cities. The election of Benjamin Netanyahu, leader of Likud, as prime minister essentially spelled the death of the Oslo Agreement. Netanyahu also slowed down the pace of Jewish withdrawal from the West Bank, while he also encouraged new settlement of the area. Arafat also contributed to the Oslo failure by violating many of its provisions. He imported arms and establishing a much bigger security force than what was stipulated in the agreement. The Camp David accord in 1978 was also fraught with difficulties which eventually led to its failure. Although U.S. president Jimmy Carter found Egyptian president Anwar Sadat easy to negotiate with, he also found Israeli prime minister Menchem Begin as stubborn. Egypt’s stature in the Arab world was compromised and its membership in the Arab League was suspended partly because of Sadat’s peace initiatives in Camp David. It also led to his assassination. Camp David also saw the collapse of a united Arab front opposing Israel. However, it also showed that it was possible to continue the peace process given the opportunity to communicate. However, a major blow was received as Sadat’s initiatives were abruptly ceased by his death. Likewise, future leaders from both sides also violated provisions of the Accord, which led to the break down of agreements. Also, the Camp David Accords prompted the disintegration of a united Arab front in opposition to Israel. Egypts realignment created a power vacuum that Saddam Hussein of Iraq, at one time only a secondary consideration, hoped to fill. His ambitions became visible in 1980 when he ordered the invasion of neighboring Iran (Iran-Iraq War), starting a chain of events that would later lead to an invasion of Kuwait in 1990 (followed by the Gulf War), then ultimately the toppling of his own regime in 2003. Lastly, the biggest consequence of all may be in the psychology of the participants of the Arab-Israeli conflict. The success of Begin, Sadat, and Carter at Camp David demonstrated to other Arab states and entities that negotiations with Israel were possible — that progress results only from sustained efforts at communication and cooperation. Despite the disappointing conclusion of the 1993 Oslo Accords between the PLO and Israel, and even though the 1994 Israel-Jordan Treaty of Peace has not fully normalized relations with Israel, both of these significant developments had little chance of occurring without the precedent set by Camp David. Read More