
|
Article: |
Who made the Middle East the way it is today? |
|
Author: |
Efraim Karsh |
|
Date: |
April 2000 |
Local actors, not the Western imperialist powers, were the dominant players in the development of the modern Middle East. The clash between nationalism and imperialism drove events that shaped the region, and the local actors could be found on both sides of that clash: they were as eager imperialists as were the Great Powers.
Western Approaches to the
Ottoman Empire. The West did not want to dissolve the Ottoman Empire. Quite the
contrary, the Great Powers kept the empire alive; if it had not been for the
West, the empire would have collapsed during the nineteenth century. Mohammed
Ali, the governor of Egypt, wanted to establish his own empire at the expense of
the Ottomans in the early nineteenth century; it was the intervention of Western
powers that thwarted his imperialist dreams. Also in that century, national
awakenings in Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia, and Bosnia-Herzegovina threatened the
Ottomans–or at least their European holdings–but the Western powers worked
to keep the empire from collapsing, even after the Ottomans' entry into the
First World War. The British and the French were particularly cautious. In 1915,
a British interdepartmental committee recommended keeping Ottoman rule alive,
even in a somewhat reduced form. To be sure, the Russians wanted to control
Constantinople, but even they did not promote the dissolution of the empire.
Ottoman Policy. The Ottoman Empire was an
active player in Great Power politics, as illustrated by the Crimean War; it did
not just respond to Western movement. The Ottomans joined World War I on the
side of Germany because of the imperialist ambitions of the Young Turks, who
wanted to regain Egypt in addition to territory in the Balkans and, at Russia's
expense, in the Caucasus. Had the Ottomans stayed out of the war, they might
have retained their rule for a decade or two more, but this decision proved to
be a decisive mistake leading to a final disintegration of the empire.
When
high politics or imperial interest demanded it, the Ottomans cooperated with
non-Muslim governments against other Muslims. This pattern recurred during the
First World War and the Gulf War of 1990-91, when Muslims joined the West to
fight other Muslims.
Zionist
leader Theodore Herzl met with Sultan Hamit, hoping for political backing for
the Zionist cause in return for financial support for the Ottoman Empire. But
the Ottomans viewed Zionism as a national movement and thus a threat. For
example, during the First World War, many Jewish residents of Palestine were
citizens of Allied states at war with the Ottomans (e.g., Russia) and were
consequently forced by the Ottomans to immigrate to Egypt; many perished en
route.
The
Young Turks wanted a multinational empire; they were not out to create a
homogeneous Turkey. To them, Armenian nationalism was a threat because it
endangered the empire, not because they wanted an ethnically pure country. No
evidence has been found that there was an organized plan by the Turkish
government to kill the Armenians; however, the Turkish leadership must have
realized that the deportation of the Armenian population to Syria would result
in many deaths, amounting to a de facto genocide.
Kemal
Ataturk, founder of the Turkish republic, was a visionary who understood that
imperialism would lead to national ruin. Since Islam and Ottoman rule were
intricately linked, he dissociated Islam from Turkey in order to establish a
"normal" Western nation-state. Ataturk abolished the caliphate in
stages, a process that went smoothly because he established himself as a
national liberator defeating the Greeks, the French, and the Armenians.
Arab Nationalism? Imperialism is not just a
Western phenomenon. The Hashemites pretended to be nationalists, when what they
really wanted was an empire under their own control. When Sharif Hussein saw
that the Turks were losing World War I, he decided to rise against the Ottomans
in order to fulfill his imperialist ambitions. Hussein prematurely began the
revolt, and the British had to support him, but it would be misleading to call
this an Arab revolt for two reasons. First, Sharif Hussein and his sons were not
Arab nationalists and did not want to liberate the Arab nation; they wanted an
empire for themselves. Second, the Arabs did not want to be liberated; most
viewed themselves as Muslim subjects of the Sultan, and many considered the
revolt an act blasphemy against him.
Arab
nationalism did not exist before the twentieth century, due in part to
unwillingness among Arab elites to recognize diversity in the Arab world and the
existence of several distinct Arab nations. During World War I, 300 or 400 Arab
nationalists were active in the Middle East out of a population of 8 million to
10 million. Moreover, only 13 Arabs participated at an Arab Congress held in
Paris in 1913, whereas in 1897, the Zionist Congress in Basle was attended by
hundreds of representatives and received letters from 50,000 people.
The
Sykes-Picot agreement was in part a British effort to get international
acceptance for the promise they made to the Hashemites regarding an Arab empire;
the promise was to have taken the form of a federation or confederation
comprising Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Palestine, and Saudi Arabia. But the agreement
had little effect, because it was undermined by its signatories (the British and
the French) and the local powers, especially Turkey.
Future of Nation-States in the Middle East.
Nation-states in the Middle East will endure for a long time, and the present
map will also likely persist, despite the desires of some to change it. Syrian
president Hafiz al-Asad's ambition is to create a Greater Syria, and he already
effectively controls Lebanon. The Lebanese, however, do not want to be part of
Syria. A state of Palestine is inevitable. And the prospects for Jordan should
not be underestimated; the Hashemites have been very clever at manipulating the
strongest world powers to give them much with little in exchange.
© Copyright 1997-2004 United States Committee For A Free Lebanon. All rights reserved.
| If you would like to send us your thoughts on this article, please click the button below: |
| If you would like to read feedback submitted by other visitors, please click on the button below: |
|
|
USCFL Home
Golden Circle
Membership
Mission Statement Current Views
US Testimonies
Intelligence Special
Reports Activities Action Alerts
Selected Links
Selected Readings
Guestbook
FAQs How to Contact Us
Search