Britain and France on Arab Population - Assignment Example

Britain and France on Arab Population Britain and France on Arab Population The extent to which the Britain and France createdseparate identities within the Arab population depended on various factors. The agreements signed between the colonies and their territories were ways separate identities were created among the Arab population. The creation of the Sykes - Picot agreement defined how territories were to be allocated between France and Britain. This agreement was mainly involved with the division of the Ottoman Empire by the end of World War One. It gave control of Lebanon, Syria and Turkish to Palestine and France, while the areas around the Persian Gulf, Baghdad and Jordan belonged to the British. Additionally, Mesopotamia and Syria were also considered French territories while Jordan valley and Arabia belonged to the British. Moreover, the colonies were to govern their territories using their own governance methods and ideologies. Therefore, to examine, to what extent British and France created separate identities in the Arab population, examination of the framework with which the colonies operated must be emphasized. Furthermore, the application of the rule of law and interests by Britain and France is also necessary to be analysed. Britain and France were to take control of their territories as described by Penrose as a political atmosphere that was to bring change1. This meant that the mandated powers were to exercise their authority through morally and legally accepted ways such as exercising democracy in the Arab countries. Through this means, the mandated countries ensured they secured independence of their territories and interests. Eventually, this propagated a framework through which Britain and France could develop attitudes between people and their territories. Moral framework was one of the major ways the mandated powers controlled their territories and enhanced attitudes among the Arab population. According to Khoury, the French mentality of maintaining the already existing territories was necessary2. The reducing economic benefits bore an attitude of the crippling effects after the Great War that was taken in by few French exports. Therefore, the French had little to get economically in line with their mandated territories. This meant that the general perception of the French colony was to strengthen and maintain their territories. Contrarily, the British had great interests concerning the economic status of its territories as much as both countries had interests of developing their mandated territories economically. This was evident from their battle with Turkey to gain control of the oil rich Mosul territory. During this struggle, the British came up with beneficial trade avenues that enabled British trade and its territories mainly through the Suez Canal3.This generally meant British had an overall approach of gaining economic mileage from its mandated territories mainly through increasing trade links. Moreover, the retention of airbases in Baghdad and Basra further supported Britain’s move of economic interests among its territories. This was achieved through the Anglo-Iraq treaty in 1930 and Egypt’s garrisons that helped develop trade links between these countries. Additionally, both countries shared their mandate to economically develop their territories. France built factories, roads and canals using cheap labour in Syria so as to incorporate their territories into the economic world. Cotton cultivation in Northern Syria after land for production was found available shows that France had interests in making its territories productive economically despite their poor financial status. This showed that the French economic policies were aimed at strengthening control and continuation of their territories. Moreover, Britain had to take a more direct method of governance in order to gain control of its mandated territories. This control was mainly done by official bureaucrats and the Military in France that operated in Syria. In contrast to this, the British government only used a few officials to rule Iraq, according to the Anglo-Iraqi treaty of 1921. These officials took very active roles in Iraq after the eradication of municipal councils. The British took the governance depending on the situations perceived and emphasized on the Palestine, military administration and reduction of officials in Iraq. This meant that the British attitude was an intervening one and it had no long term plans with its territorial mandate. On some occasions, the British used stronger military approaches to gain control of their territories. There was the use of Royal Air Force against Iraq’s Kurdish tribe indirect military means were used in Palestine based on the worsening political climates4. Therefore, the used method of administration determined the attitudes and conceptions that were perceived by the European powers towards their territories. There were also various differences in the approaches made by Britain and France relating to their territorial obligations. The French considered the protection of their culture and Christians as a moral obligation they were mandated to do on their territories and country. The French had undivided interest towards the promotion and protection of Christians in Lebanon, mainly Levant Christians. Moreover, in Syria, supervising land policies was aimed at making Muslim Ulema power weak.Various factors were also evident that proved the French wanted to protect their culture. Creation of institutions and secondary schools were among the factors that made France prioritize its culture. For example, the creation of Franco-Muslim secondary schools and Jesuit University showed prioritization of French culture. Generally, this meant that France was obligated to extend and promote its educational goals and culture. These efforts by France gave rise to many secondary and primary schools with records indicating a large number of student enrolment in Syria. On the other hand, Britain did not show any cultural or moral obligation. According to Slugett, the government of British did not have any moral obligation towards its mandated territories and that; the Jewish settlement established in Palestine was not to show moral obligation towards its territories but was a way to generate something new and fashionable5. However, other researchers argue that the support given to Zionist migration was a way to show western civilization. This does not prove so because the white paper of 1930 gave immigrants the opportunity to migrate over the subsequent years. Moreover, Britain showed its ability to cooperate with its local population through the use of “Peace Bands.” This was not echoed by its French counterpart. The landed classes’ differences between Britain and France were also evident. The French government attempted to weaken these classes by deconstructing landholdings of absentees and trying to promote peasant businesses. On the other hand, the British strengthened their landed classes through the land system of patronage in Iraq.Furthermore, the British also made sure that all tribal sheikhs were given property tax exemptions. Tribal elements also differed to some extent between the European powers in an attempt to control their territories. To begin, the French government tried to weaken Syrian tribes by use of various means. Enforcement of livestock taxes and the use camel companies called ‘Controle Bedouin’ were some of the ways the French tried to weaken their territorial tribes6.On the other hand, British government aimed at strengthening their tribal elements in regard to their mandates. This was evident from Iraq’s Criminal Disputes Regulation that enabled tribal sheikhs to collect taxes and resolve any local disputes faced by the local population. From the above, the British government allowed tribal elements to reign to some extent making their existing power structures favourable to the population. The French had to compensate the tribal sheikhs after non cooperation with each other at an Assembly in Hama. Eventually, this called for change by the French mandates concerning tribal elements. Despite employing Arab bureaucrats as intermediaries by the French, they never really established a strong client foundation based on their perceptions among tribal elements and the landed classes. They had very limited contacts with the local population, even though they paid subsidies to the tribal elements as discussed above. This meant that France’s perception and attitudes towards the local population depended on the political climate and local territorial conditions. British on the other hand, had a smooth flow of collaboration between the local population and their mandated territories because it advocated for the tribal elements and landed classes. For example, in Palestine, the administration had issues with the opposition since the high commissioner presided over everything. This showed that the European powers exercised authority to their territories using different attitudes based on their own governance policies.Furthermore, it showed that diversification between the European powers on their mandated territories were in accordance with their ways of handling tasks. Treaties were still established despite the different conditions that these mandated powers worked on. These treaties were to help both Britain and France to perform their task despite their differences in ideologies and governance. The treaties also differed between both powers. The British treaty established between Iraq in 1930 did not commit the mandated regime while in Franco-Syrian treaty;there was no confinement by the French Military to any defined regions.Moreover, the Anglo-Iraq treaty was limited to Baghdad and Basra7. This meant that the French were doing their task based on their approach and attitude by making themselves’ known while the British government emphasized on economic gains which was evident from the treaty of concessions signed. In conclusion, the extent of Britain and France as Arab mandates was influenced by specific interests by these mandated territorial powers. The British’s main interest towards its task included exploration of trade for economic gains and peace maintenance. For instance, oil interests. On the other hand, French’s interest towards performing its task to the territories was mainly to maintain its presence among the population. This showed that the differences in ideas of the two European powers provided a basis of their approaches towards the territories they were mandated to govern. Through collaboration with the local population, the British were able to secure peace and economic benefits. Furthermore, the use of military force and bureaucrats enabled the French government to maintain its presence in its mandated territories. While there were divergent views between Britain and France, particularly with the local population and tribal elements, there was no consistency across all the territories. The French did not relate well with the local population concerning their tribal affiliations and landed classes. Contrarily, the British rule of law towards Iraq and Palestine differed in terms of administration, despite relating well with the local population. Moreover, none of the European powers had long term plans with their mandated territories. Therefore, the extent to which they performed their tasks was based on perceptions, approaches and attitudes towards their mandated territories. Map Showing the Middle East Bibliography D.E Omissi, Air Power and Colonial Control. The Royal Air Force, 1919-1939, pp 18-38. Khoury, Philip, Syria and the French Mandate: The Politics of Arab Nationalism, pp 71-94. Penrose, Edith, and E.F Penrose, Iraq: International Relations and National Development, Ernest Benn, 1978. Slugett, Peter, Britain in Iraq: Contriving King and Country, I.B Tauris, 2007. Slugett, Peter, Les Mandats/The Mandates: Some Reflections on the Nature of the British Presence in Iraq (1914-1932) and the French Presence in Syria (1918-1946), from Meouchy, Naldine and P. Slugett (eds.), The British and French Mandates in Comparative Perspectives, Koninklijke Brill, 2004, pp. 103-128. W.L.Cleveland, A History of the Modern Middle East, pp 181-218. Yapp, Malcolm, The Near East Since the First World War, Longman, 1991. Read More