The Modern Middle East - Assignment Example

MIDDLE EAST The Ottoman Empire, which ruled much of the Middle East by the 19th century was known as the sick man of Europe, because its economicgrowth was so weak and it owed so much money to other countries. Soon its domination in terms of debt began to be mirrored by its domination by European armies. For example, in 1830, France invaded Algeria and 1878 they did the same to Tunisia. Europe had a foothold then and began to act in an increasingly ruthless manner which was aided by the Ottoman Empires vulnerabilities. In 1882, the British occupied Egypt and developed control over the Persian Gulf. Other European countries gobbled up more territories and the Ottomans had to rely more on Germany for support, which in turn led to more debt (Fromkin, 1989, p. 78). They tried to modernize their state, as did other local leaders in the Middle East, but to no avail. By the late 19th century, there were rapid reforms underway. It is true that railways and telegraphs lines were built, and that schools and universities were opened—but all these efforts to modernize were too expensive, and the debt continued to mount. Many countries went bankrupt, spending more than they brought in and again this led to more Western control. Also, these efforts to modernize were also very divisive: in each of the countries or regions in question there was a strong religious presence than objected to such happenings. You could say the problem came down to unrestrained bad financial habits and a lack of imagination (Siegel, 2002, p.120). The rulers during this period kept digging themselves into a deeper hole. Finally, most of the Ottoman Empire was owned by European countries and a long period of colonization and dependency began. If the rulers had played their cards better and not over extended themselves, things would have been different. 2. The first explorers of the Orient brought to the West the first stories and images of the people of the East. In that respect they are responsible for setting the tone of the relationship between the two cultures. These first early images seemed in some way, Edward Said argues, to occasion what came after them—political and administrative control of the East as a vast colony (Said, 1979, p. 57). No effort was made to understand the cultural divide between East and West; this lack of understanding led Westerners to believe their own way of life was simply better and should be taught to Easterners. Indeed, as many Eastern nations became colonies of the West, this idea increased. Edward Said believes that many current Orientalists maintain these views. In a response to Bernard Lewis, who Said believes is one of the worst Orientalists, and who suggested that Palestinians have no inherent identity, Said says: We find not history, not scholarship, but direct political violence substituting for reasoned judgement [in Lewis’ work]. To say that Palestinian identity is simply the creation of British colonialism—as if Palestinian history prior to 1920 did not exist—is not only to utter a scandalous falsehood based on a typical Orientalist disregard of mere natives: it is also to propose that resettlement and absorption might be possible if the will of the Palestinian Arab leadership were to be broken (Said, 1982). So it can be said, that had the two cultures opened up more to one another, few of the problems that eventually happened would have occurred. 3. The Anglo-Russian Entente capped off several decades of what was called the Great Game between the two powers. This was a period when new lands were opening up to conquest in part because of the Ottoman Empire’s growing vulnerabilities and in part for other more complicated reasons. For many years Russia and Britain had been rivals in the Middle East, but this Entente put a temporary end to the rivalry over Persia, dividing that country into three spheres: Anglo, Russian, and a buffer zone. Its primary aim was to resolve the long-running disputes over the powers respective imperial peripheries, though it also served their broader diplomatic objectives by helping to provide a counterweight to German influence (Siegel, 2002, p.230). It led into the Triple Entente which did lead to some stability, but also began to make Germany very suspicious. Overall, it did not last very long. What happened before this Anglo-Russian Entente to require such an arrangement to be made? Basically, Britain had the Persian Gulf and wanted to keep open supply lines to India, the jewel in its imperial crown. Russia wanted to try to block Britain’s connection with India for various reasons, and so was causing a lot of problems in the Middle East. Both countries fought separate wars with the Persians (that both were slightly involved in by using proxies); the expense and cost of continuing these fights eventually became too great, and both countries decided to come to a peace agreement (Khater, 2004, p. 190). It created some stability, but lined Europe up against Germany for the First World War. Overall, it cannot be said to be very effective. 4. One of the major problems facing the Ottoman Empire in the early 20th century was its huge indebtedness and how sclerotic it was. The system of government was ineffective and the empire itself was very overextended. Too much land had been conquered and the government in Constantinople was not nimble or dynamic enough to maintain control over all of it. Another problem was how so much of its territory was being encroached upon by European powers (Fromkin, 1989, p. 101). This was a major threat, but the old-style leadership was taking no serious steps to address it. An additional problem was the uneasy tension between secular forces and religious forces throughout the empire. The forces of modernization wanted to move quickly towards the future, but there were many elements that wanted to thwart this process. All of these problems came to a head with the revolt of the Young Turks who came to prominence when they opposed the rule of Abdul Hamid II. Some of their reforms included trying to diminish the role of religion in the state and embracing secularism and getting rid of old superstitions. They were aggressive in their dismissal of old style leadership and religion. They also tried to rely more on Germany for support. Third, they pursued a policy of nationalism which led to the Armenian genocide. None of these policies were successful under their watch—they were however perfected after the devastation of the First World War by Ataturk who was much more powerful and politically astute than any of the Young Turks (Khater, 2004, p. 56). So it can be said instead that the Young Turks’ reforms were too soon and the country was not ready for them. When things quieted down a bit more, the reforms could be picked up and inspire a new generation. 5. As Said writes, “human identity is not natural and stable, but constructed and occasionally even invented outright” (Said, 1979). There may indeed be a political element to it. As Al Azm says, “it hard to understand another culture without resorting to categorization, classifications and misinterpretation. It it usually represented in terms of the already familiar, and then such distortions and misinterpretations become inevitable” (Al Azm, 1983, p. 221). While this may be true, it is not necessarily a bad thing in every case. Oriental cultures have been taken over by Western ones too much, but that does not mean everything from the West America bad. The rulers of the Middle East imitate many developments and Western technologies including railways, telegraph lines, modern dress, and modern systems of organization. Indeed, they tried to imitate Western identity in some respects, but this was less successful: The truth is that identity is not in itself a barrier to openness and connectedness; to the contrary, it is a prerequisite for them. The more we maintain identity the larger the scope for openness and connectedness becomes and the more consolidated diversity becomes. In the absence of that, openness becomes capitulation, exchange becomes tutelage, and interaction becomes defeat (Ahmad Said, 2001). This is significant today when we look at the contemporary Middle East. It is important to be vigilant and protect what you cherish, but you cannot be afraid of change or of good ideas from the rest of the world. Really it is a balance. Neither Said nor Lewis are exactly right. Both Islamic countries and the United States, for example, should be more flexible and allow their ideas to be exchanged with one another rather than stereotyping each other in various ways. In the end we are all human and working to build a better planet together regardless of whether we come from the East or from the West. Works consulted Al Azm, Sadik, (1983). “Orientalism and Orientalism in Reverse.” Ed. Alexander Lyon Macfie, Ed. Orientalism: A Reader. New York: New York University Press, 2000. Fromkin, David, (1989). A Peace to End All Peace: Creating the Modern Middle East 1914-1922. New York: Vintage. Khater, Akram Fouad, (2004). Sources in the History of the Modern Middle East. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company. Siegel, Jennifer, (2002). Endgame: Britain, Russia and the Final Struggle for Central Asia. London: I.B. Tauris. Said, Ali Ahmad, (May 9, 2001). “Adunis.” Lecture delivered at Dartmouth College. Said, Edward, (1979) Orientalism. New York: Vintage. Said, Edward, (August 12, 1982). “Orientalism: An Exchange.” New York Review of Books. Read More