How British and French Ruled Their Respective Mandates in the Middle East - Essay Example

?How British and French Ruled Their Respective Man s in the Middle East; What are Some of Their Legacies in the Region Today? Introduction A look into history proves that the period of colonization in Middle East is a period of exploitation and betrayal and all the powers including Britain and France were equally adept in the art. The period even saw the collaboration of these powers as their interests were the same. Admittedly, the strategy they adopted in the area was to divide and rule which a look into history will easily prove. While the British tried to ensure their influence by allowing the faithful elites to rule and manage their domestic politics, thus with less negative effects in the long term, the territories under the French were severely affected because of the sectarian policy adopted by the French, and even now, these areas face relentless violence. The British and French rule in the Middle East A look into history proves that before the 1st World War, Britain and France were rivals in nature and were worried about the increasing influence of each other in the Arab and African region (Brainard, 2004). While the British developed a north-south axis of power, to balance the equation, the French developed a firm east-west axis of power. However, as both of them realized the benefits of supporting mutual interests, they came together by the beginning of the 20th century through assisting Suez Canal construction by Egypt, the Sykes-Picot agreement and the alliance in the First World War. The period thereafter witnessed a considerable change in the strategy adopted by both. They decided to divide the Middle East into a large number of countries. This helped them balance the power without conflict, and also, it ensured that they could continue their exploitation without considerable amount of opposition from the territories. Similarities and dissimilarities between he French and British rule in the Middle East Evidently, both the British and the French tried to rule their own regions through established elites, though the British seemed more willing to move their mandates ahead and towards a better qualified form of independence, and the only exception in this connection is Palestine (‘Iraq: Initial contacts with the British’). In Palestine, for the first time in British history, it had to end its rule without establishing a government behind it. In other words, one can say that the British only wanted protectorates and mandates like Egypt and Palestine as permitted by the League of Nations. So, the British allowed the territories under its rule to have their own domestic political policies though the British continued their military bases and controlled their foreign policies. This is evident in the case of Egypt and Iraq. For example, though the British got support from the Arabs in its campaign against the Ottomans starting in Basra, the British soon realized the fact that the Arabs would not support them in the long term. Though 1919 saw the British getting the responsibility to administer the area from the League of Nations, soon they found widespread unrest and rebellion, and they realized the fact that the only way to bring the situation under control was to make a puppet government, and the victim selected for the purpose was Hashemite ruler Faysal as it was thought that being a descendant from Prophet Muhammed, he would be accepted by all factions. In addition, as he was not from Iraq, it was thought that he would not feel confident enough to rule without the help of the British. The strategy worked out and there were a number of treaties ensuring proper flow of oil and total control of the regimes affairs. Almost a similar picture one can see in the case of Egypt too. Though the British allowed monarchs to rule Egypt, the period after the construction of Suez Canal (1859-69) saw the British dethroning Ismail, and it was followed by widespread resentment against the foreign domination. So, the British had to capture the control Egypt again, and thus made a protectorate. Later on, in 1922, the area was again made an independent monarchy under Faud I, though the British troops remained in the country to ensure the safety of Suez Canal. Here, one thing becomes evident; the British was not so determined to destroy the area they ruled, and the strategy they used was, most of the time, indirect control of the territories. In other words, one can say that the rule of British was generally more permissive and austere in nature; it allowed local policies to survive and when there were agitations that threatened British control, it did not hesitate to use troops to regain control. On the other hand, the French wanted to have dependencies. As a result, it gave no room for local political movements to form self-government. In addition, its policies had a more negative impact on the area that that of the British. An example is the case of Lebanon where the percentage of Maronites was reduced to 30 percent to make them dependent on the French for security. In fact, according to the one and only official census in Lebanon, Maronite Christians had slight majority over the next largest confession, the Sunni Muslims. Still, the Maronites were only 32% of the total population. Other important confessions in the area were Christian Greek Orthodox, Greek Catholics, Shia Muslims, and the Druze. Thus, Lebanon was a land of minorities. Despite the presence of all these minorities, the area did not witness serious conflicts based on religion under the Ottoman Empire. However, the end of First World War saw the present-day Syria and Lebanon area becoming the mandate of France, nd soon, greater Lebanon was proclaimed with Mount Lebanon, Beirut, Tripoli, Tyre, and Saida within its territory. As a result, the Maronites who were 80% of the population in the Mount Lebanon province came down to 51% in the new polity. In addition, the Druze lost their prominence as the majority Muslim sect. Though various French governors administered Lebanon, they did nothing to settle the issue. There was a 17 member council from different confessions to help the governor. As a result of this sectarian rule, Lebanon lost is national identity, and while some sects sought political autonomy, many other sects only considered themselves part of Greater Syria. In 1926, the Republic of Lebanon came into existence through a new Constitution, and Article 95 of the new constitution guaranteed sectarian representation. In order to protect the state, the French continued their presence. Here one thing becomes evident. Though a new system was established, the various communities will go on struggling to gain the upper hand, and this sectarianism will ensure that France will remain as the guardian of various communities from time to time. Thus, one reaches the conclusion that the strategies adopted by the French were highly thought through and had more negative consequences on the territories as compared to the British policies. The legacies of the Western rule in the Middle East today However, the 2nd World War led to a change in the situation. There was an uncontrollable wave of democratization and many of the so-called puppet governments fell under the storm. Thus, both the British and the French lost their colonies one by one. However, the attitude of the Europe towards Middle East is very clear from a secret British document on the Western policy in the Middle East. It states that the major British and other Western interest in the Persian Gulf is; “(a) to ensure free access for Britain and other Western nations to oil produced in states bordering the Gulf, and (b) to bar the spread of communism and pseudo-communism in the area and subsequently to defend the area against the brand of Arab nationalism” (Chomsky, p. 195) Though British and France lost their upper hand and US stepped in, the issues in the Middle East are still at large. As Western world decided, the Middle East did not develop the true sense of democracy, and as a result, the ruling royal families take away much of the wealth in their nation, and the countries show a total absence of labor unions, political parties and social leaders who could guide the people (Chiriyankandath, 2007, p. 42-45). As a result, many of the nations still remain puppets to the western intentions and hence, many of the African and Asian nations which are oil-deficient have a rough time managing their energy needs (ibid). However, the positive side cannot be neglected. As Mat (2005, pp. 11-12) notes, there is increased secularization of law in the Middle East as a result of Western influence; and it is pointed out that constitutional, administrative, and criminal laws are not as religion-based at present as it was before. Evidently, the British and French rule in the Middle East led to permanent state of tension in the area. In order to ensure their divide and rule ideology wins, they gave birth to such nations that are divided in nature even within. The first such example is the dismemberment of Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman Empire and the Imperialists The Ottoman Empire had its birth around 1300 in western Asia Minor near the modern city of Istanbul. In fact, the Empire had large land area in West Asia, North Africa, and South East Europe under its rule. Issues were common in the Ottoman Empire by 19th century as both Turks and Kurds were in their effort to get independence. However, Western powers helped the Ottoman governor of Egypt Mehmet Ali (1805-1848 to establish his own hereditary regime in Egypt, and this, for the first time in the history of Ottoman Empire, allowed external powers to grab a chance to control the internal affairs of Ottoman Empire and thus, the Ottoman Empire became a pawn of European imperialists. Soon, there arose a number of revolts by various regions under the empire, namely Bosnia, Herzegovina, Rumania, Bulgaria, and so on. As there were separations, it was found that Russia had upper hand in the newly separated areas. So, soon, an agreement was reached among the European powers, known as the Berlin Agreement. As a result, Britain gained control over Egypt. However, this time, there was a considerable change in the attitude of the British. Instead of conquering the entire region, they wanted to divide the area into various fragments for the purpose of power balance among the European powers. Still, the partition of the Ottoman Empire did not become possible due to the great rivalry among the powers. However, the First World War helped the nations reach a decision regarding the dismemberment of Ottoman Empire. In the world war, the Ottoman Empire and the central powers were allies. Against this, the French, the Italian, the Russian, and the British allied and declared war. This association helped the nations solve the issue of Ottoman Empire division. Soon, a decision was reached through the Sykes-Picot agreement in 1917 (The Sykes-Picot agreement (1916), 13 December, 2009). Here, admittedly, the Western powers have used the internal conflicting sections of the Ottoman Empire to break its sovereignty, and to ensure Western influence. Here, one has to remember the fact that despite the presence of all these culture groups under the Ottoman Empire, the area had not witnessed conflicts based on religion, or before the intervention of the European powers, the people were less aware about their cultural and religious identity and conflicts were more based on economic resources. However, the European powers made the people think about their religious and cultural differences and thus, the great Ottoman Empire got divided into innumerous fragments based on all sorts of issues ranging from culture, class, color, religion and so on and on. The Kurdistan division The next is the case of the rebellious Kurds. The Treaty of Lausanne saw the division of Kurdistan into four parts, and presently, the Kurds live in a territory divided among Turkey, Iran, Iraq and Syria. Here one has to remember the fact that the Kurds were in an effort to get a separate Kurdish state before the First World War and for that purpose, they initiated even a movement against the Ottoman Empire, and they collaborated with the Turks as there was a promise of ‘Turk and Kurd land’ by the Turks. However, as Kemal came into power, the Kurds were severely suppressed and many of them had to run away to central and western Turkey. Presently, the Kurdish area is kept underdeveloped by each oppressor state, and the area remains a primitive agricultural predominates. For example, in Turkish Kurdistan, only Turk enterprises get state aid. Similarly, in Iraq and Iran, Kurd leaders are forced to collaborate with the rulers in suppressing the subversive Kurds to ensure their survival. Evidently, the division of Kurdistan had a huge impact on unity of Kurdish national psyche. As a result, the Kurds were made to suffer the racist policies of the occupying governments as Kurds became third class citizens of Iran, Iraq, Syria, and Turkey. Admittedly, as Prunhuber (2009, p. 89) points out, reuniting these Kurds for another combined struggle has become an impossible task, and secondly, all these nations where Kurds are suppressed will go on facing serious outbursts of violence from Kurds in the coming days. Thus, a number of nations are made to suffer for ever. Sectarianism in Lebanon In fact, conflicts were not new in Lebanon as the area was occupied by Druzer and Maronites along with a large number of other cultures who lived in permanent state of conflict throughout history. According to Zamir (1985, pp. 34-36), it was the conflict between them that led to the western intervention and the consequent annexure of Greater Lebanon. However, here, instead of solving the problems, the French authorities tried to reinforce the already existing trend of sectarianism and made the people think about religious differences too. In addition, here, despite the presence of a large number of minorities ranging from Armenians, Kurds, and Jews, the government that was developed by the French was a Christian government. Evidently, there are conflicts between Christians and Muslims, and there is no possibility of the issues getting solved as the nation still is highly influenced by the West. Soon, there arose crisis in the republic as many radical Arabs got angry over Lebanon President Camille Shamun’s closeness to the West, and soon, Civil War broke out, and surprisingly, there was no support from the West for Camille Shamun. The civil war broke out as a result of the conflicting sectional tensions, and also because all the people have been sucked into sectional hatreds (Rolland, 2003, pp. 68-70). The creation of Israel and the ensuing tension The British strategy in the case of Palestine and Israel issue was totally different from their strategy elsewhere. There, the British took utmost care not to take sides in the Jewish Arab conflict, but indirectly, it pushed the division move ahead. On the one side, it was in support of the Jew movement and on the other; it had promised the Arabs a free nation. To illustrate, the Balfour Declaration of 1917 promised a Jewish Homeland in Palestine while the 1918 Anglo-French Declaration promised an independent Arab nation (The origin of the Palestine-Israel Conflict, 2000). The total lack of care and concern about Middle East is visible in the decision to create Israel. In fact, Britain had promised to support an independent Arab nation. However, later on, it stepped back and also declared that it would support a Jewish state. Thus, in 1947, the United Nations General Assembly passed the partisan plan to create Israel, and the very next year, Britain gave up their mandate over Palestine. As Cibrian-Uzal (2006) pointed out, the area was in great turmoil, and the plot for never-ending conflict was already well in place. Anyway, no one is likely to forget the help the European nations render to Israel in is fight against the Arab world (ibid). It might be surprising for people to see the double standard Britain takes in the case of Palestine-Israel issue. However, a look into the possible benefits for Britain if the area is in turmoil will give a better insight into the issue. Firstly, it ensures the control of sea and air communication from Europe through the Mediterranean to India, the Far East and Southern Africa. Secondly, as Levey and Podeh (2008, 70-80) point out, it is necessary for them to have security for the oil sources and oil pipelines from Iraq, and thirdly, it was a secure base for imperial reserve. The reason why Britain was compelled to support Israel is clear. Here, a look into the current situation will prove that the problems are least likely to disappear. While the Jews are eager to get all Muslims out of the area, the Arab population does not accept the existence of Israel as a nation. In addition is the help Israel receives from the US and European nations in the form of fund and ammunition. Thus, all these Middle Eastern nations still bear the brunt of imperial invasion. Conclusion In total, it becomes evident that Britain and France share a lot of similarities in their way of controlling their territories. In fact, though there was rivalry before the First World War, the period after the war proved that as they shared same interests, they decided to share power in the region. Though Britain played a more spectacular role, the role of France too had the same impact on the Middle Eastern region that is still evident there. Evidently, the strategy the nations used in the Middle East was to divide and rule. In order to have their continuing say in the region, they have developed such nations like Lebanon where conflicting factions ensure them a chance to intervene. References Anghie, A 2007, Imperialism, Sovereignty and the Making of International Law, Cambridge University Press, NY. Ahmed, NM 2003, Behind the war on terror: Western secret strategy and the struggle for Iraq, Clairview Books, UK. Brainard, R 2004, Causes of British and French rivalry in the colonies, viewed 15 Oct 2011 Cibrian-Uzal, R 2006, EU-Israel Relations, the Begin- Sadat Center for Strategic Studies. viewed 15 Oct 2011 Chomsky, N 1997, World Orders, Old and New: With a New Epilogue, Pluto Press, London. Chiriyankandath, J 6 August, 2007, ‘Colonialism and Post-Colonial Development’, Peter Burnell, pp.35-52, Viewed 15 October 2011, Gettleman, ME & Schaar, S 2003, The Middle East and Islamic World Reader, Grove Press, USA. ‘Iraq: Initial contacts with the British’, n.d, The British Empire, Viewed 19 October 2011, Lavey, Z & Podeh, E 2008, British and the Middle East: From Imperial Power to Junior Partner, USA, Sussex Academic Press. Mat, IB 2005, ‘The impact of western colonialism and secularization on the application of the Shari’ah law in the Muslim world’, AMSS 34th Annual Conference, pp. 1-22, Viewed 15 October 2011, ‘The origin of the Palestine- Israel conflict’, 2000, If American Knew, pp. 1-21. Viewed 19 October 2011, Prunhuber, C 2009, The Passion and the Death of Rahman the Kurd: Dreaming Kurdistan, iUniverse, USA. Rolland, JC 2003, Lebanon: Current Issues and Background, Nova Publishers, New York. The Sykes-Picot agreement (1916), 13 December, 2009, Crethi Plethi, Middle East News, Viewed 15 October 2011, ‘The Treaty of Sevres’, n.d, Historylearningsite.Co.uk, Viewed 15 October 2011, Ucuzsater, NU 2002, ‘The dissolution of the Ottoman Empire and the foundation of modern Turkey under the leadership of Mustafa Kemal Ataturk’, Journal of Istanbul Kultur University, pp.56-68. Zamir, M 1985, The Formation of Modern Lebanon, Croom Australia Pty Ltd, Australia. Read More