What Were the Aims and Objectives of the Baghdad Pact and Why Did It Fail - Essay Example

Middle East is one of the most important and strategically significant regions of the world. With large deposits of oil (more than 60 percents of world oil reserves are located in the region)1and other vital energy sources as well as its geographical position that connects major transport routes from Asia to Europe it will sustain its significance for many decades to come. The significance of this region has risen rather than diminished during the last fifty years. In the fifties both major world powers- Soviet Union and USA were struggling for the influence in this region. Signing of Baghdad pact in 1955 was one of the consequences of this struggle. In 1955 Iraq signed mutual defense agreement with Turkey. Several other countries such as the United Kingdom, Pakistan, and Iran joined the treaty throughout the year 1955. The pact was based on the mutual security and defense obligations, with the provision that stated that nations would not interfere in internal affairs of each other. In spite of the fact that the pact was destined to include several other Arab states, especially the nations of the Arab League, none of other countries of the region would join the alliance. 2. The aim of the pact was to contain the spread of communism in the region and check Soviet influence in this area. Despite the fact that the pact did not explicitly state it, it was designed with this aim in mind. The pact consisted of nine articles; the first article of the treaty stipulated cooperation between the states in various defense measures. The second article stated that these measures should become operative once the governments of the nations members of the treaty had agreed on the actions that must be taken. 3 In this respect Baghdad treaty was less explicit than the provisions of the treaty of NATO which stipulated that an attack on any member of the treaty should considered as an attack on all of them. In spite of officially proclaimed common intentions of the members of the alliance to fight communisms it was clear right from the start that most of the nations had disagreements on several important regional issues such as Middle East process. The meeting of all members of new military alliance, except the United Kingdom, was hold on November 8 , 1956; it called for immediate withdrawal of all Israeli troops from Egypt territory, release of all military Egyptian prisoners as well as restoration of the independence of Egypt. The statement also urged French and English governments to cease the hostilities in Egypt and called for the beginning of negotiation process on the Suez issue with active participation of the United Nations. Certainly, it was evident that regional disputes between Israel and Arab states as well as intentions of major Arab countries to pursue more independent from Western countries policies rather than the threat of Communism, was the major problem that the alliance faced. Some of them stemmed from the fact that most of the Arab states had just become independent and did not intend to follow major aims of the foreign policy of the United Kingdom. On November 9, Iraqi Government issued the statement where it claimed that it would not participate in any meetings of the new alliance attended by England. Some observers claimed that Iraq government was under pressure from other states of the regions, which thought that pro-British policy of the Iraqi Government might endanger their independence and security as well as political development. In view of the stance taken by Iraqi Government, the Government of Pakistan attempted to mediate between various countries of the alliance in order to prevent either Turkey or Iraq from leaving it. In November the statement issued after the meeting held in Baghdad called for further threat of subversion in the region, however it was clear from content of the text that the conflict in the Middle East was the problem that attracted most attention of the members of the meeting. New meeting produced only one positive result- Iraqi Government acquiesced to take more active part in the alliance, if the United States joined it. Only after the crisis of Suez Canal had been resolved, the Iraqi Government agreed to the participation of the United Kingdom in the meetings of the alliance. 4 One should not forget that Iraqi Government pursued the policy of pan Arabism in the fifties and pro British stance might have stultified the policy in this direction. Initially organization was created after the principles of NATO; yet it nevertheless differed in terms of the structure from European alliance. It did not have any unified military communed, neither the bases of US nor the United Kingdom were established in the countries of the region. Both United Kingdom and the United Kingdom provided limited intelligence assistance to the nations of the alliance, in addition Western countries accessed the number of the military facilities in the countries mentioned. But more significant difference was in the level of support of the alliance by population of the countries-signatures of the pact. Whereas the population of European countries that had lived through two major world wars welcomed more active participation of the United Kingdom and especially the USA in European politics and viewed the active stance of these two nations as the guarantee of long term peace, another attitude was evident in the Middle Eastern nations; many Governments of the region viewed UK as an imperialistic power that was striving to preserve its hegemony and influence and the USA as a steadfast and most powerful supporter of Israel in the world. The reaction of the Soviet Union to the pact was highly negative one. The statement issued by the Soviet Union accused Western Powers in neo colonial designs in the region due the inability of the UK and the USA to preserve their influence by other means. 5 The statement of the Soviet Union refuted any allegations and implications that it had aggressive designs in the region; moreover it claimed that non –interference in internal affairs of other peoples as well as respect of their independence and sovereignty was the basic principles of the Soviet foreign policy. It also claimed that the USSR was one of the first states that recognized independence of many Asian countries. It also called for countries in the Middle East to refrain from joining military alliance with Western powers. Several other states such as Yugoslavia supported the position of the Soviet Union and criticized the position of the Western countries. 6 In 1957 the USA began to play more active part in the region by implementation of The Eisenhower doctrine which was aimed at the distribution of military and economic aid in the region and creating of the possibilities to take military actions in case of the real threat from the Communism countries. However, this doctrine was unable to draw Arab countries to new military alliances. 7 On the one hand Arab leaders saw the dangers that the communism posed. Neither the majority of Arab government could have been sympathetic with the doctrine of the powerful atheistic state. They did not have, in view of the post war development in the Eastern Europe any illusions about real value of commitments and promises of the USSR to respect integrity and independence of other countries and its vaunted principle of non interference in internal affairs of other states. On the other hand many Arab Governments apparently were suspicious of the real intentions and motivations of the United Kingdom; some of them could have thought that officially proclaimed anti Communist aims of the pact were just the disguise of the real purpose of the defense alliance, namely sustaining military, economical and political presence of the United Kingdom in the region. In order to better understand the position of the Arab states one should bear in mind that most of Arab states were authoritarian nations where the threat of Communism could be effectively dealt with by efficient and highly powerful secret police force, which was resolved to smash any opposition to the Government of the states. Neither the threat of direct attack from the Soviet Union was great enough to induce other countries to join existing or form new military alliance It is not clear whether the Soviet Union had any designs to attack these countries, neither could it have gained many benefits from such attack All these reasons could have played part in the decision of the Arab states to stay away from military alliance; however another reason –pan Arabism, ambitions and aspirations of several Arab states (Iraq and Egypt) to play a leading role in the Arab world was one of the main reasons of the failure of the Eisenhower’s doctrine and Baghdad pact. In the fifties the leader of Egypt Gamal Abdel Nasser, attempted to transform his country into leading Arab state by defying Israel and Western powers in the region. When President Eisenhower refused to provide Egypt with large armaments shipments, Nasser turned to the USSR which agreed to supply Egypt with the armaments requested by him. Shortly thereafter the USA, France and the United Kingdom refused to finance the building of the Aswan High Dam. Nasser retaliated by nationalizing of the dam and expelling all international companies who had managed the canal for many decades. Despite the fact that Nasser was not a communist sympathizer and many Communists organizations were banned in the country he nevertheless turned to the USSR without calms in order to gain some concessions from the Western powers and used acquired relations with the Soviet Union as the leverage against Western influence in the region. 8 This more independent anti western policy was quite popular in Arab world at that time. Such policy induced the United States to develop more cordial and close relation with Israel which certainly was not greeted with enthusiasm by many nations in the region. 9 Both Baghdad pact and Eisenhower’s policy was aimed to involve such neighboring states as Syria in new defense pacts. However with new president of Shukry al-Quawatly who accepted Soviet assistance and military supply and expelled American diplomats from Damascus, the relations between the USA and Syria were brought on the brink of war. Eisenhower tried to encourage several other neighboring countries to take military measures against Syria, however only Turkey (the state that had been more concerned by the attitude of Syria than any other nation in the region and historically had strained relations with Syria) was ready to participate in military operations, whereas Jordan, Iraq, and Lebanon were passive and Saudi Arabia accused the USA in fermenting troubles in the region. This policy produced some strong anti-Turkish feelings in the region, even in the countries members of the Baghdad pact. 10 Moreover it induced Syria to seek closer contacts with Egypt and consequently led to the formation of unofficial anti Baghdad pact (between Egypt and Syria) in the region. It was clear that Arab states had other positions on several important regional problems than Western countries and were resolved to take quite strong stance on them. In 1958 pro western government of Iraq was overthrown and new pro soviet government was formed. 11Even before the monarchy was overthrown and new regime established, the Government of Iraq voiced some criticism of the pact (which had become unpopular at home). Moreover Iraqi government was not satisfied with the level of economic support that it had been receiving from the United States; neither was it inclined to include Israel into the pact as the USA demanded. Some observers claimed that Iraqi Government had been using organization in order to increase its military arsenal (United Kingdom provided Iraqi government with several air bases) and received economic aid rather than contain communism in the region. In 1959 Iraq quitted the pact and organization was renamed in CENTO. By mid sixties it had become apparent that alliance was not successful, as Israel-Palestine conflict deteriorated and the relations between Pakistan and India became more strained. The alliance was unable to resolve any of them. The crisis of the alliance was evident during the period of the sixties and seventies, when CENTO refused to provide any assistance to Pakistan in its wars against India, on the grounds that the initial purpose of the alliance was the containment of the Soviet Union, and not India. Neither it was possible to claim that the pact in this form did not prevent Soviet expansion, nor the containment of the communism could be attributed to this pact. By the beginning of the 70 s the USSR could be content with the status quo in the region as many Soviet troops were deployed in Egypt and close military contacts had been developed with various neighbors of the members of CENTO. Israel and demand for quick resolution of the Middle Eastern had been the main problem that most Middle Eastern members of the alliance faced yet two other members of the alliance the USA and the United Kingdom hold other views on the reasons and nature of Arab-Israel conflict; thus it was clear that they would not participate in any conflict between these states and Israel. With escalation of this conflict and further deterioration of prospect of peaceful settlement between the states, few reasons remained for the maintaining of the alliance in initial form. The threat of direct aggression from the Soviet Union diminished and was not great either, the communism by that time had lost its appeal not only outside communist block but inside it as well and as the experience of India Pakistan wars had showed the alliance had little practical value for the countries that were engrossed in the conflicts with their neighbors. Whereas the existence of NATO was almost indispensable in view of many unresolved issues between the Soviet Union and Western Countries in Europe, there was not such clear necessity of maintaining of the block in the Middle East. Apparently the alliance could have been saved if the aims of the initial treaty had been changed or at least modified; however it had not been done. The relations between two important members of the alliance Turkey and the United Kingdom deteriorated in 1974, when Turkish troops had invaded Cyprus. Shortly after that United Kingdom withdrew its troops from CENTO. Iran was the next state that quitted organization in 1979 once the shah had been overthrown; (Pakistan left organization the same year). This year the organization ceased to exist. In spite of the fact that this year was the official year when the organization ceased to exist, it had lost its practical purpose several years before this date. Organization did not succeed due to several important reasons: 1) It was built on the principles of NATO. There was erroneous supposition that Arab countries like the nations of the Western Europe were united by some common goals and principles. In sharp contrast with the countries of Western Europe, Arab countries were not nations with decades or centuries of the democracy; most of the countries of the block were young ambitious nations with huge internal problems and unsettled disputes between them. 2) The aim of the alliance was to check the spread of communism. However this threat was efficiently contained by the police forces of the countries. Moreover as the experience showed many countries in the region attempted to establish closer relations with the Soviet Union whom they regarded as an alternative source of armaments and relations with whom they could have used as the leverage against Western Countries in various disputes. 3) The pact in its initial form did not take into account the most serious problems that countries of the region faced, namely Israeli-Palestine conflict and tensions between Pakistan and India. Neither ambitions nor aspirations of such countries as Egypt and Iraq were taken into account. Experience showed that the alliance could not adapt successfully to the challenges that the countries of the alliance faced. With the demise of the alliance new bilateral defense agreements were concluded between several states of the region. Works cited. 1) Middle East, Encyclopedia Encarta 2004 2) Baghdad Pact, < http://lexicorient.com/e.o/baghdad_pact.htm > 3) Baghdad Pact, February 4, 1955 < http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/baghdad.htm> 4) Baghdad pact, International organization, Vol 111, No 11, p. 186-188 5) Soviet Reaction to the Baghdad Pact, 1955. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1955Soviet-baghdad1.html 6) Peter L. Hahn, Securing of the Middle East: The Eisenhower doctrine of 1957, Presidential Studies Quarterly, Washington : Mar 2006, Volume 36, p. 38 7) 1956 Egypt, Colliers Year Book, Encyclopedia Encarta 2004. 8) Lewis, Bernard, Rethinking the Middle East, Foreign Affairs, New York: Fall 1992.Vol.71, 21 pg. 9) The compliant ally? Turkey and the West in the Middle East, 1954-58, Aysegul Sever. Middle Eastern Studies. London: Apr 1998.Vol.34, 18 pg. 10) Central Treaty Organization, < http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baghdad_Pact> 11) Baghdad Pact, Colliers Year Book, 1956, Encyclopedia Encarta 2004. . Read More