Nationalism in the Age of Empire and the Formation of Middle Eastern Nations - Essay Example

Nationalism in the Age of Empire and the Formation of Middle Eastern Nations The age of empire spanned between 1875 and 1914 (Khalidi, 1999). The age of empire is considered to be the period of modern world history, and it was characterised by rulers who officially gave themselves the title of ‘emperors’. The majority of rulers who gave themselves this title came from European countries such as Germany, Russia, Austria, Britain, and Turkey. However, some other leaders outside Europe were also allowed to use this title. These rulers were in countries such as Japan, China, Persia, and to some extent Morocco and Ethiopia. By 1987, the title had disappeared in most countries except in Japan. However, the political profile remained low and political influence was also negligible. The age of empire came to offset the disappearance of the ‘Second Empire’ of Napoleon in France (Facts on File, 2010). As stated by Choueiri (2008), the Middle East refers to the Arab countries extending from Egypt eastward, in addition to Turkey and Iran. From around 1516 to 1918, the Ottoman Empire ruled most of the Arab lands including the Middle East. The Ottoman Empire withdrew its rule after its defeat in the First World War. Prior to the First World War, the Ottomans had facilitated the spread of European trade and doctrines in their lands. The Ottomans signed treaties known as capitulations with Europeans which gave many privileges to European merchants including the right to be governed by the laws of their countries in case of litigation in the Ottoman courts (Choueiri, 2008). However, the major nationalistic view was witnessed in 1876 when Sultan Abdul-Hamid II declared a constitution and convened a parliament. However, he later dismissed the constitution and dissolved the parliament because of the opposition he was facing from the liberals and nationalists. Middle East was one of the three regions that attracted explorers. The aim of these explorers was to advance the strategic interests of their governments. They were seeking to find raw materials and new markets for European industries (Facts on File, 2009). They also entered these territories to spread Christianity and commercial development. The trans-imperial actors within the Arab territory that emerged between the British and Ottoman Empires contributed to the making of the Arab nations. The age of empire followed almost immediately after a period of Ottoman reform (1830-1870). Ottoman reform period was characterised by new centralization, new education, new technologies, and new institutions. It was also characterised by loss of Ottoman territories in Europe and Turkish and Arab nationalism. Ottoman Empire existed in the era of economic-political rivalry between the Western states. During this period, nationalism was widespread. Among European powers, war was just a normal contingency of global politics. Therefore, these powers were always ready for war, and they were always armed with war plans for defending themselves as well as for pre-emptive attack. The age of empire set in bringing with it growing global division between the most powerful states and the less powerful ones. During the period between 1876 and 1914, European powers distributed about 25 percent of the total world’s land among themselves (Facts on File, 2009). These powers argued that they were looking for new markets and raw materials for their industries. They also argued that they wanted to promote nationalism. In their conquest, the European powers created borders within the region without thought of ethnic makeup of the region. Today, the existing national states of Iraq, Jordan, and Turkey among other Middle Eastern states were created in the place of the Ottoman Empire. The seeds of nationalism thrived in Ottoman Empire towards the end of its rule. This nationalism was spread beyond Ottoman Empire to the age of empire that followed soon after. Ottoman Empire was the channel through which nationalism developed leading to the creation of states in the Middle East. Prior to this, Middle East was characterised by multi-ethnicity and multi-cultural empires. Multi-ethnicity and multiculturalism prevailed because identities and affiliations were developed on national lines (Choueiri, 2008). The Ottoman rule was replaced by Turk rule in 1889. From 1889 to 1914, nationalism developed at a rapid pace because of the environment set by the Turkish rulers. The Turkish rulers were very influential to the extent that they forced Sultan Abdul-Hamid to re-declare the constitution in 1908 and then deposed him in 1909 (Choueiri, 2008). The Young Turks led Turkey into the First World War as Germany’s ally. Before the First World War, the Middle East was one nation, living under one flag. Islam religion bound them into a firm tie, united their hearts and feelings and made Middle East one bloc, and communities “supported each other like a solid building” (Khalid, 1991: 19). For most of the 20th century, Arab nationalism has come to be regarded as the leading ideology in the Arab world. Today, the Arab community is skeptic about ascribing such importance to Arab nationalism. This change reflects its decline as a political force and the reemergence of Islamic ideologies in the Middle East. Some scholars are arguing that even if it is not yet dead, Arab nationalism is a spent force. However, because it exists, it has an origin. The nationalism in the Middle East can be traced back in the age of empire. The rise of states in the Middle East is traceable in the earliest roots of the modern ideology of Arabism in the late nineteenth century. Nationalism rose in Turkey in the late nineteenth century in the declining period of Ottoman Empire (Choueiri, 2008). Despite the threat of proliferation of nationalist ideas in Turkey by Sunni Muslims, the rapid rise of nationalism within Ottoman Christian minorities and the formation of nation-sates in former Ottoman provinces resulted in the development of Turkish nationalism. This marked the continuation of nationalism in the Middle East. The formation of Turkish nation-states was considered to be the only desirable choice because of the seeming inevitability of the empire’s demise. The Committee of Union and Progress (CUP) took dominance in Ottoman politics starting 1908, and it was largely influenced by Turkish nationalism (Khalidi, 1991). CUP strived to incorporate as many Turks as possible into the party. Khalidi (1991) observed that many appointees that had been made by Sultan Abdulhamid II in Syria and Libya were replaced by reliable CUP members who were mainly Turks. These were the first administrative change that took place as the CUP solidified its hold over the empire administration. Several other changes took place later. Many Arabs were alienated in the process thus diminishing the empire’s rule. Most Arabs, however, reacted negatively to these changes because the CUP’s inner circle was almost entirely composed of Turks. The protesting Arabs rightly associated CUP with Turkish nationalism. As observed by Khalidi (1991), the Arab provinces that were demanding for decentralisation considered CUP’s actions as dominations by a stronger central government. Khalidi (1991) tries to establish whether Arab nationalism was a response to a combination of Turkish nationalism and CUP-inspired centralisation or the empire’s decline under the pressure of the imperialist European powers. The combination of Turkish nationalism and CUP’s centralisation was the one that facilitated foreign penetration. CUP’s perceived secularism and favouring of Turkish nationalism robbed Ottomanism of much of its Islamic content. Muslim Turks and Arabs played a key role in forming a nationalist self-view in the Middle East, particularly Islamic modernists who became Arab nationalists. The development of nationalism in the era of empire was based on the argument that nations were the natural division units of the human race that had distinct character and whose citizens must keep pure and inviolable (Choueiri, 2008). The objective of supporters of nationalism was to spread this ideology to all the parts of the world. The Turkish nation was a preferred single unit from which nationalism would spread. However, the Ottoman ethnic communities were unwilling to substitute Ottomanism for their own identity. These communities had planned to expand Ottomanism to the East. However, the Republican Turkey dashed these plans by denouncing all pan-Turkish ideals. Rather, it focused on forming a civic Turkish national identity. According to Choueiri (2008), the state policies asserted that ethnic communities had left their imprint on official state nationalism. Many similar arguments were advanced by state policies, and this is where state-creation stemmed from expanding to the other Middle Eastern countries. The Turkish nation drafted discriminatory policies that were against population groups on the basis of their ethnicity. The importance of ethnic nationalism was further diminished by the systematic exaltation of the Turkish nation. Further expansion of nationalism was witnessed when the Kurdish minority nationalism came to challenge Turkish nationalism. Kurdish nationalists remained loyal to the Ottoman rule and opposed the partition of the Ottoman Empire along ethnic lines (Choueiri, 2008). There seemed to be a political competition among the advantaged elements of Arab society (Khalidi, 1999). He further argues that, from Tahtawi to Kurd, the successive statements of the self-view legitimised the claims of specific parties to hold or acquire power and refute claims of competitors. Iranian nationalism was to follow later and in its various forms has been the determining ideology of modern Iran. Iranian cultural identity existed until the Turkic dynasties. The Turkic dynasties are considered to be the main consumers of the Iranian cultural identity. Iranian nationalism derives much of its political legitimacy from its reliance on Turkic military forces. However, as observed by Choueiri (2008), modern Iranian nationalist discourse is traceable to developments in the Qajar state in the nineteenth century. The narrative of Shahnameh was relegated to the realm of literary myth by the development of scientific history and archeology advanced by the European in the late nineteenth century. The European powers dominance in the late nineteenth-century advanced European traditions of nationalism which in turn transplanted indigenous narratives. To make the nationalism take effect rapidly, these traditions were advanced among the political and intellectual elite. As indicated by Khalidi (1991), during the first years of the twentieth century, Muslim Arabs had developed a nationalist self-view that was to provide the nucleus of nationalist ideology for the twentieth century. The author considers the new self-view to be an outgrowth of Abduh’s Islamic modernism and revivalism. Cited in Khalidi (1999), Elie Kedourie observed that Arab nationalism was created by the spread of European theological and political doctrines that weakened the hold of Islam and Christianity. Choueiri (2008) observes that between the mid-nineteenth century and the outbreak of the First World War, a large part of Middle East had already come under different forms of colonial rule and even the parts that had not experienced it were reeling under pressure. After a period of engaging in political contests, the Ottoman Empire collapsed after being defeated in the First World War. By the time of its collapse, nationalism ideas had already taken hold of the region. After its collapse and the loss of the Arab provinces, Anatolia got occupied by the armies of the victorious Allies, who included Italy, France, and Greece (Choeuiri, 2008). Under the terms of the Treaty of Sevres in 1920, these Allies divided and partitioned the region into independent statelets in Armenia and Kurdistan. Later, the Soviet Union took over Eastern Armenia whereas Turkey took over Western Armenia and Kurdistan. In 1921, Turkish Republic was inaugurated (Choeuiri, 2008). In 1918, the Sultan’s newly appointed government signed the Armistice of Mudros opening Middle East to occupation by Allied forces (Roshwald, 2001). This signing was followed by peace settlement, and it was dictated by Allied powers. The Allied powers ratified the partition of Middle East by Britain and France. France exercised its authority in Lebanon and Syria in a highly intrusive manner. It experimented with cooptation of various coalitions of local prominent people into puppet governments while ultimate authority remained in the hands of the French high commissioners. Britain followed in the footsteps of France and granted more substantive self-governments to the Middle Eastern lands under its control. In Jordan, Faisal’s brother, Abdullah was installed as Emir. In Iraq, Faisal was established as king in 1921 with Iraq being awarded formal independence in 1932 (Roshward, 2001). The British hoped to use Arab nationalism as the handmaiden of its imperial ambitions. From this time, Arab nationalism continued and continues to thrive. References Choueiri, Y. 2008. A Companion to the History of the Middle East. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons. Facts on File. 2010. Exploration in the Age of Empire, 1750-1953. New York: Infobase Publishing. Khalidi, R. 1999. The Origins of Arab Nationalism. New York: Columbia University Press. Roshwald, A. 2001. Ethnic Nationalism and the Fall of Empires: Central Europe, the Middle East, 1914-1923. London: Routledge. Read More