Elections have just been held in Egypt, taking place last week. The results were a foregone conclusion, with the party of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak winning a whopping 97% of of the seats in parliament. Those few who hoped that the election would open up the country to a more free democratic political process have been sorely disappointed.
Egypt's political history in the first half of the 20th century was dominated by British influence. The Suez Canal was regarded as an essential route to India - the jewel of the British Empire - and control of Egypt was seen by the British government as essential to the defense of India.
In 1952, a coup by several army officers toppled the regime of King Farouk, who was supported by Britain. A republic was established, and elections held. The fledgling democracy did not last long, however, as social and economic tensions led to crises that the government proved ill equipped to solve. Another coup brought the regime of Colonel Nasser to power. He ruled until his death in 1970; his government was a thinly disguised military dictatorship. His successor, Anwar Sadat, ruled in much the same fashion until he was assassinated in 1981. Since then, Hosni Mubarak, the current President of Egypt, has been in control.
Now aging, he is seeking to place his son in the Presidency. While democracy has never been the rule in Egypt since Nasser's seizure of power, the succession of Mubarak's son would create a dynasty, returning the country to a state of monarchy for the first time in nearly 60 years.
The developments place the United States and the administration of President Obama in a difficult situation; Egypt is an important ally in the region, and receives billions of dollars in foreign aide each year, including military aide. The accusations of widespread ballot stuffing and election fraud cast the United States' mission of spreading democracy in a hypocritical light, making it more difficult for the US to pressure other repressive governments to open up to a more democratic process.
Monday, December 6, 2010
Thursday, December 2, 2010
The Cedar Revolution: Syria and Lebanon
Following World War I, the territories now occupied by Lebanon and Syria were taken from the defunct Ottoman Empire and placed under French control as League of Nations Mandates. In actuality, they were treated as colonies by France, and remained so until after World War II, when the two nations gained independence. The larger of the two, Syria came to dominate Lebanon, especially after the creation of Israel in 1948.
In successive wars - 1948, 1967, and 1973 - Israel defeated Syria and her Arab allies. As a result, Syria changed policies and began using proxy organizations based in Lebanon to attack Israel rather than risk open war. In the late 70s, Syria began financing the militant group Hizbullah, which attacked Israel using rockets and suicide bombers from its bases in southern Lebanon. Syria installed leaders sympathetic to its cause in Lebanon, and those who resisted or protested Syrian control of Lebanon became victims of Syrian violence, often at the hands of Hizbullah thugs.
In 1982, Israel responded to Hizbullah provocations by invading Lebanon. Under the leadership of Ariel Sharon - then Defense Minister in Israel - the IDF entered Beirut and deposed the Lebanese government, installing leaders sympathetic to their cause and opposed to Syria. While there, the IDF used local pro-Israeli thugs to perpetrate massacres of Palestinians in refugee camps near Beirut.
Hizbullah resistance took a heavy toll on the Israeli military, however, and they were soon obliged to retreat unilaterally, leaving Hizbullah and Syria once again in control of Lebanon.
In February 2005, Prime Minister Rafik Hariri was assassinated when his motorcade was destroyed by a bomb estimated at over 2,000 lbs of TNT parked in a truck. The attack was widely believed to be a Syrian-ordered assassination to silence Hariri, who opposed Syrian control of Lebanon. The assassination sparked nation wide protests, with an estimated 500,000 civilians marching in the streets of Beirut. the Syrian army - which had occupied Lebanon for years - was forced to withdraw, and the pro-Syrian Lebanese government resigned.
Known as the Cedar Revolution, the popular uprising led to the hope that Lebanon would enter a period of greater political independence and openness. The period of hope was marred, however, by a month-long conflict the next year between Hizbullah and Israel in which Israeli airstrikes inflicted enormous damage on the Lebanese civilian infrastructure and killed an estimated 1,200 Lebanese civilians.
The international UN-led investigation into the assassination of Hariri is about to release an indictment of the guilty parties at the time of this writing. Lebanon is in crisis over the upcoming decision, as it is widely believed that Hizbullah leaders will be implicated; the resulting struggle to prosecute any indicted militants could plunge the country into civil war, as Syria is adamant that Hizbullah remain in southern Lebanon, and many elements in the Lebanese establishment are sympathetic to the organization's cause.
In successive wars - 1948, 1967, and 1973 - Israel defeated Syria and her Arab allies. As a result, Syria changed policies and began using proxy organizations based in Lebanon to attack Israel rather than risk open war. In the late 70s, Syria began financing the militant group Hizbullah, which attacked Israel using rockets and suicide bombers from its bases in southern Lebanon. Syria installed leaders sympathetic to its cause in Lebanon, and those who resisted or protested Syrian control of Lebanon became victims of Syrian violence, often at the hands of Hizbullah thugs.
In 1982, Israel responded to Hizbullah provocations by invading Lebanon. Under the leadership of Ariel Sharon - then Defense Minister in Israel - the IDF entered Beirut and deposed the Lebanese government, installing leaders sympathetic to their cause and opposed to Syria. While there, the IDF used local pro-Israeli thugs to perpetrate massacres of Palestinians in refugee camps near Beirut.
Hizbullah resistance took a heavy toll on the Israeli military, however, and they were soon obliged to retreat unilaterally, leaving Hizbullah and Syria once again in control of Lebanon.
In February 2005, Prime Minister Rafik Hariri was assassinated when his motorcade was destroyed by a bomb estimated at over 2,000 lbs of TNT parked in a truck. The attack was widely believed to be a Syrian-ordered assassination to silence Hariri, who opposed Syrian control of Lebanon. The assassination sparked nation wide protests, with an estimated 500,000 civilians marching in the streets of Beirut. the Syrian army - which had occupied Lebanon for years - was forced to withdraw, and the pro-Syrian Lebanese government resigned.
Known as the Cedar Revolution, the popular uprising led to the hope that Lebanon would enter a period of greater political independence and openness. The period of hope was marred, however, by a month-long conflict the next year between Hizbullah and Israel in which Israeli airstrikes inflicted enormous damage on the Lebanese civilian infrastructure and killed an estimated 1,200 Lebanese civilians.
The international UN-led investigation into the assassination of Hariri is about to release an indictment of the guilty parties at the time of this writing. Lebanon is in crisis over the upcoming decision, as it is widely believed that Hizbullah leaders will be implicated; the resulting struggle to prosecute any indicted militants could plunge the country into civil war, as Syria is adamant that Hizbullah remain in southern Lebanon, and many elements in the Lebanese establishment are sympathetic to the organization's cause.
Wednesday, December 1, 2010
The Six Day War
By 1967, the state of Israel had been in existence for nearly twenty years. The violence of Israel's creation, and the animosity it created between it and its neighbors in the region, had remained just below the surface. In fact, Israel had had invaded Egypt (with the support of the British and French) in 1955 to prevent the Egyptians from nationalizing the Suez Canal. Though unsuccessful, the adventure proved how volatile and violent the region could be.
Though divided by competition and disagreement on many issues, all of Israel's neighbors - Egypt, Jordan and Syria (Lebanon remained politically less involved in the region's conflicts than its neighbors until the 1980s) were united in their desire to restore Palestine to the Palestinians, and erase what they saw as an illegitimate Zionist state from the map. While avoiding direct military confrontation, the rhetoric of the three states' leaders was often inflammatory.
By the summer of 1967, the Israeli military and political leadership was convinced that the Arab states (Egypt, Syria, Jordan) were preparing for an imminent attack, whose goal was nothing other than the eradication of the Jewish state. Since Israel is very small territorially, its leadership decided that its only real hope of survival was a pre-emptive strike, destroying the Arab armies before they had a chance to drive the Israelis "into the sea."
As a result, on the morning of June 5, 1967, the Israeli Air Force initiated hostilities by attacking the Egyptian Air Force as it sat on the ground. The assault was devastating: nearly the entire Egyptian Air Force was destroyed that morning. Following the air assault, the IDF (Israeli Defense Force) invaded the Sinai Peninsula and the Gaza Strip (Egyptian territory), the Golan Heights (Syrian territory), and the West Bank (Jordanian territory). The Arab armies were defeated soundly on all fronts, and within 6 days all the above mentioned territories were in Israeli control. With the exception of the Sinai - which Israel returned to Egypt in return for a peace treaty and recognition of the state of Israel by the Egyptian president - Israel still controls these territories to this day.
This war was extremely influential because it defined the current debate and dialogue between Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA) over the possibility of a future Palestinian state. The PA claims all of the West Bank and Gaza (the pre-1967 borders) as the the boundaries of the Palestinian state. Israel is reluctant to return the territory because it includes part of Jerusalem, and because thousands of Jewish settlers moved into the West Bank after the war.
Though divided by competition and disagreement on many issues, all of Israel's neighbors - Egypt, Jordan and Syria (Lebanon remained politically less involved in the region's conflicts than its neighbors until the 1980s) were united in their desire to restore Palestine to the Palestinians, and erase what they saw as an illegitimate Zionist state from the map. While avoiding direct military confrontation, the rhetoric of the three states' leaders was often inflammatory.
By the summer of 1967, the Israeli military and political leadership was convinced that the Arab states (Egypt, Syria, Jordan) were preparing for an imminent attack, whose goal was nothing other than the eradication of the Jewish state. Since Israel is very small territorially, its leadership decided that its only real hope of survival was a pre-emptive strike, destroying the Arab armies before they had a chance to drive the Israelis "into the sea."
As a result, on the morning of June 5, 1967, the Israeli Air Force initiated hostilities by attacking the Egyptian Air Force as it sat on the ground. The assault was devastating: nearly the entire Egyptian Air Force was destroyed that morning. Following the air assault, the IDF (Israeli Defense Force) invaded the Sinai Peninsula and the Gaza Strip (Egyptian territory), the Golan Heights (Syrian territory), and the West Bank (Jordanian territory). The Arab armies were defeated soundly on all fronts, and within 6 days all the above mentioned territories were in Israeli control. With the exception of the Sinai - which Israel returned to Egypt in return for a peace treaty and recognition of the state of Israel by the Egyptian president - Israel still controls these territories to this day.
This war was extremely influential because it defined the current debate and dialogue between Israel and the Palestinian Authority (PA) over the possibility of a future Palestinian state. The PA claims all of the West Bank and Gaza (the pre-1967 borders) as the the boundaries of the Palestinian state. Israel is reluctant to return the territory because it includes part of Jerusalem, and because thousands of Jewish settlers moved into the West Bank after the war.
Sunday, November 28, 2010
1938: the death of Turkey's founding father
On November 10, 1938, Mustafa Kemal - the founder of modern Turkey and the first president of the Turkish Republic - died. He left a legacy, however, that endures to this day; his impact and influence on modern Turkey are difficult to overstate. His people endearingly call him "Ataturk" - the father of the Turks.
Mustafa Kemal's legacy began at the end of World War I. With the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, Turkey was threatened with the prospect of colonization at the hands of England, France and Italy. Kemal - a general in the Ottoman army - rallied the Turks and defeated the imperialist powers, securing independence for his people and declaring the birth of the Turkish Republic from the ashes of the Ottoman Empire.
Having secured his country's future through military means, Kemal set aside his fatigues and became a statesman. Under his direction, the Turkish government passed and implemented a radical series of reforms, aimed at transforming the country into a modern, secular state modeled after the nation states of Western Europe. These reforms affected the daily lives of ordinary Turks in astonishing ways. One reform changed the weekend from Thursday-Friday (the Muslim day of worship is Friday) to Saturday-Sunday, in line with the Christian West. Another outlawed traditional dress and hats, mandating instead the adoption of Western style dress.
But not all reforms involved abandoning Ottoman-Turkish cultural traditions in favor of Western ones. Modern civil codes, economic reform (including industrialization), and political reform were also crucial to Mustafa Kemal's vision of a modern Turkish state. While his rule was autocratic and he wielded absolute power during his lifetime, Kemal viewed Turkey eventually developing into a vibrant democracy, one in which the Turkish people would carry on his vision of reform and modernization.
This transition began in 1950, twelve years after his death, when the first multi-party elections were held. The opposition party won handily - evidence that the elections were fair and free. Turkey's subsequent political history is far from smooth, marked by periods of violence and military intervention in politics. Today, however, Turkey's economy is five times that of Egypt, and its political system is still democratic - a testament to the enduring strength of Turkey's founding father.
Mustafa Kemal's legacy began at the end of World War I. With the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, Turkey was threatened with the prospect of colonization at the hands of England, France and Italy. Kemal - a general in the Ottoman army - rallied the Turks and defeated the imperialist powers, securing independence for his people and declaring the birth of the Turkish Republic from the ashes of the Ottoman Empire.
Having secured his country's future through military means, Kemal set aside his fatigues and became a statesman. Under his direction, the Turkish government passed and implemented a radical series of reforms, aimed at transforming the country into a modern, secular state modeled after the nation states of Western Europe. These reforms affected the daily lives of ordinary Turks in astonishing ways. One reform changed the weekend from Thursday-Friday (the Muslim day of worship is Friday) to Saturday-Sunday, in line with the Christian West. Another outlawed traditional dress and hats, mandating instead the adoption of Western style dress.
But not all reforms involved abandoning Ottoman-Turkish cultural traditions in favor of Western ones. Modern civil codes, economic reform (including industrialization), and political reform were also crucial to Mustafa Kemal's vision of a modern Turkish state. While his rule was autocratic and he wielded absolute power during his lifetime, Kemal viewed Turkey eventually developing into a vibrant democracy, one in which the Turkish people would carry on his vision of reform and modernization.
This transition began in 1950, twelve years after his death, when the first multi-party elections were held. The opposition party won handily - evidence that the elections were fair and free. Turkey's subsequent political history is far from smooth, marked by periods of violence and military intervention in politics. Today, however, Turkey's economy is five times that of Egypt, and its political system is still democratic - a testament to the enduring strength of Turkey's founding father.
Friday, November 26, 2010
Treaty of Lausanne and the Birth of a Democracy
In October of 1918 the First World War was nearing its end - and so was the Ottoman Empire. Allied troops occupied Istanbul, the capital, as well as several other cities and ports. Having allied itself with Germany and Austria during the War, the Ottoman Empire found itself at the mercy of the victorious Triple Entente (Britain, France and Italy) - who would soon dismember the empire and distribute its territories among themselves.
Founded in the 15th century in what is modern Turkey, the Ottoman Empire soon expanded to include most of the Middle East, as well as much of North Africa, the Balkans and South Eastern Europe. By the late 19th century, however, its glory days were long past, and other European powers dubbed it the sick man of Europe. The end of WWI was the coup de grace.
During the negotiations following the end of the war, the Allies decided to partition the Ottoman Empire's territories: what is now Israel-Palestine, Jordan and Iraq went to Britain; Syria, Lebanon, and Southeastern Turkey were to go to France; Italy was to have Southern and Southwestern Turkey, and Greece and Armenia were given pieces of the pie as well. With their capital occupied by foreign troops, the Ottoman government had no choice but to accept. The Treaty (known as the Treaty of Sevres) was ratified by the Ottoman government.
In Ankara, however, a Turkish nationalist movement had formed around the Turkish army, under the leadership of General Mustafa Kemal. The nationalists refused to accept the Treaty of Sevres; they were horrified at the prospect of Turkey becoming merely another colony of Britain and France. In addition, they refused to cede territory to Greece or Armenia.
In order to enforce the Treaty of Sevres, the allies decided to use force. The British held Istanbul, the French attacked from the south east, and - under cover from British and French warships - the Greeks landed and attacked from the west. Known in Turkey as the War of Independence, this conflict began in 1919 and ended four years later in 1923 in a stunning Turkish victory. With all their enemies driven from Turkish soil, a new treaty was negotiated.
This new treaty - the Treaty of Lausanne - resulted in the creation of the modern state of Turkey. Mustafa Kemal became its first leader, and set the nation on a path towards democracy - a path it still follows today. As of the writing of this article, Turkey is the only democracy in the Middle East - and the only Middle Eastern country to have successfully resisted colonization by Western Europe.
Founded in the 15th century in what is modern Turkey, the Ottoman Empire soon expanded to include most of the Middle East, as well as much of North Africa, the Balkans and South Eastern Europe. By the late 19th century, however, its glory days were long past, and other European powers dubbed it the sick man of Europe. The end of WWI was the coup de grace.
During the negotiations following the end of the war, the Allies decided to partition the Ottoman Empire's territories: what is now Israel-Palestine, Jordan and Iraq went to Britain; Syria, Lebanon, and Southeastern Turkey were to go to France; Italy was to have Southern and Southwestern Turkey, and Greece and Armenia were given pieces of the pie as well. With their capital occupied by foreign troops, the Ottoman government had no choice but to accept. The Treaty (known as the Treaty of Sevres) was ratified by the Ottoman government.
In Ankara, however, a Turkish nationalist movement had formed around the Turkish army, under the leadership of General Mustafa Kemal. The nationalists refused to accept the Treaty of Sevres; they were horrified at the prospect of Turkey becoming merely another colony of Britain and France. In addition, they refused to cede territory to Greece or Armenia.
In order to enforce the Treaty of Sevres, the allies decided to use force. The British held Istanbul, the French attacked from the south east, and - under cover from British and French warships - the Greeks landed and attacked from the west. Known in Turkey as the War of Independence, this conflict began in 1919 and ended four years later in 1923 in a stunning Turkish victory. With all their enemies driven from Turkish soil, a new treaty was negotiated.
This new treaty - the Treaty of Lausanne - resulted in the creation of the modern state of Turkey. Mustafa Kemal became its first leader, and set the nation on a path towards democracy - a path it still follows today. As of the writing of this article, Turkey is the only democracy in the Middle East - and the only Middle Eastern country to have successfully resisted colonization by Western Europe.
Sunday, November 7, 2010
The 1948 War and the Creation of Israel
The history of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War dates back to at least the late 19th century and the beginnings of the Zionist movement. In response to intense persecution in Eastern Europe, Russia and elsewhere, some Jews began to speak of the need for a homeland for the Jewish people. At the First Zionist Congress, held in Basel, Switzerland in 1897 the World Zionist Organization was created, and prominent Zionist leaders, such as Theodore Herzl, proposed a return to the land of Palestine, the Biblical Jewish homeland. Negotiations with the Ottoman Empire, however, proved unsuccessful. As a result, the WZO opted for small-scale immigration to Palestine.
This policy intensified after World War I, when the British took control of Palestine from the Ottomans. The famous Balfour Declaration, issued by British Foreign Secretary Lord Balfour, proclaimed British support for the Zionist goal of a Jewish national home in Palestine; as a direct result, Jewish immigration to Palestine increased dramatically throughout the first half of the 20th century. After World War II and systematic murder of approximately six million Jews in Europe at the hands of Nazi Germany, both immigration to Palestine and international support for the creation of a Jewish national homeland surged to their highest levels.
Meanwhile, the influx of hundreds of thousands of Jews caused increasingly heated friction with the native population of Arabs. Attempts by the British to mediate the two factions failed, as did their attempts to limit Jewish immigration. Finally, the British gave up and turned the territory over to the United Nations, which issued a partition plan for the territory - essentially dividing it into a Jewish state and an Arab state. The Arabs rejected this plan, saying it gave far too much land to the Jewish state, given their respective populations. The Zionists, however, responded by declaring the creation of the state of Israel on May 14, 1948.
War promptly ensued, with armies from the neighboring Arab states of Egypt, Jordan and Syria invading the nascent state. The result was a resounding victory for Israel, and in midst of the conflict nearly all of Israel's Arab inhabitants (~90%) either fled or were forcibly driven from their homes by the Israeli army. To this day, these refugees (several million in number) are unable to return to their homes; their fate is perhaps the most significant obstacle in the negotiation of a Palestinian-Israeli peace agreement.
This policy intensified after World War I, when the British took control of Palestine from the Ottomans. The famous Balfour Declaration, issued by British Foreign Secretary Lord Balfour, proclaimed British support for the Zionist goal of a Jewish national home in Palestine; as a direct result, Jewish immigration to Palestine increased dramatically throughout the first half of the 20th century. After World War II and systematic murder of approximately six million Jews in Europe at the hands of Nazi Germany, both immigration to Palestine and international support for the creation of a Jewish national homeland surged to their highest levels.
Meanwhile, the influx of hundreds of thousands of Jews caused increasingly heated friction with the native population of Arabs. Attempts by the British to mediate the two factions failed, as did their attempts to limit Jewish immigration. Finally, the British gave up and turned the territory over to the United Nations, which issued a partition plan for the territory - essentially dividing it into a Jewish state and an Arab state. The Arabs rejected this plan, saying it gave far too much land to the Jewish state, given their respective populations. The Zionists, however, responded by declaring the creation of the state of Israel on May 14, 1948.
War promptly ensued, with armies from the neighboring Arab states of Egypt, Jordan and Syria invading the nascent state. The result was a resounding victory for Israel, and in midst of the conflict nearly all of Israel's Arab inhabitants (~90%) either fled or were forcibly driven from their homes by the Israeli army. To this day, these refugees (several million in number) are unable to return to their homes; their fate is perhaps the most significant obstacle in the negotiation of a Palestinian-Israeli peace agreement.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Birth of the Islamic Republic
The Iranian Revolution
After a CIA backed coup ousted the country's Prime Minister, Mossadegh, in 1953 (for more info see the earlier post entitled "Iran Nationalizes the Oil Industry"), Iran was ruled by a monarch - Mohammed Reza Shah. Supported by the United States, the Shah's policy sought to modernize and westernize Iran, using the US and Europe as models.
Heavy handed rule
Unfortunately, the Shah also insisted on absolute control over all levers of power, and his rule became more and more dictatorial and repressive. Those who spoke out against him or his policies often suffered torture, imprisonment and execution at the hands of his notorious secret police. Among those who resisted him most virulently were the religious conservatives.
The Shiite Muslim clerics represented a force in Iranian society that the Shah had long sought to control, and whose power he had long sought to break. Many of his western inspired reforms in fact doubled as weapons to fight the religious clerics. The establishment of state run public schools, for example, was a carefully aimed blow at the ancient tradition of religious education in Iran.
Popular discontent
Not surprisingly, it was the religious scholars and their pupils who first began organized demonstrations against what they saw as a brutal, Western-backed regime intent on forcing foreign ideals and values on the country. Demonstrations began in earnest in 1978, and despite violent attempts by the government forces to disperse and suppress them, they grew in number throughout the year and into 1979. Before long, the Shah fled the country for fear of his life, and soon afterwards the regime collapsed.
The rise of the Islamic Republic
While the resistance to the Shah's regime began with the religious conservatives, it was by no means limited to them. Virtually every social group wanted the Shah's regime to end, and had a stake in the new government. The religious establishment quickly consolidated absolute control over the country, however, led by a religious leader, the Ayatollah Khomeini, newly returned from his exile in France.
Iran was proclaimed an Islamic Republic with Khomeini as its Supreme Leader. Western ideals and values were rejected, and the country's constitution and laws were said to be inspired by and based on the Koran and Islamic Law. While in practice many aspects of Iranian life introduced during the Shah years, such as cinema, popular music and Western clothing, remained popular, the official stance of the government was fiercely anti-Western, and in particular anti-US.
After a CIA backed coup ousted the country's Prime Minister, Mossadegh, in 1953 (for more info see the earlier post entitled "Iran Nationalizes the Oil Industry"), Iran was ruled by a monarch - Mohammed Reza Shah. Supported by the United States, the Shah's policy sought to modernize and westernize Iran, using the US and Europe as models.
Heavy handed rule
Unfortunately, the Shah also insisted on absolute control over all levers of power, and his rule became more and more dictatorial and repressive. Those who spoke out against him or his policies often suffered torture, imprisonment and execution at the hands of his notorious secret police. Among those who resisted him most virulently were the religious conservatives.
The Shiite Muslim clerics represented a force in Iranian society that the Shah had long sought to control, and whose power he had long sought to break. Many of his western inspired reforms in fact doubled as weapons to fight the religious clerics. The establishment of state run public schools, for example, was a carefully aimed blow at the ancient tradition of religious education in Iran.
Popular discontent
Not surprisingly, it was the religious scholars and their pupils who first began organized demonstrations against what they saw as a brutal, Western-backed regime intent on forcing foreign ideals and values on the country. Demonstrations began in earnest in 1978, and despite violent attempts by the government forces to disperse and suppress them, they grew in number throughout the year and into 1979. Before long, the Shah fled the country for fear of his life, and soon afterwards the regime collapsed.
The rise of the Islamic Republic
While the resistance to the Shah's regime began with the religious conservatives, it was by no means limited to them. Virtually every social group wanted the Shah's regime to end, and had a stake in the new government. The religious establishment quickly consolidated absolute control over the country, however, led by a religious leader, the Ayatollah Khomeini, newly returned from his exile in France.
Iran was proclaimed an Islamic Republic with Khomeini as its Supreme Leader. Western ideals and values were rejected, and the country's constitution and laws were said to be inspired by and based on the Koran and Islamic Law. While in practice many aspects of Iranian life introduced during the Shah years, such as cinema, popular music and Western clothing, remained popular, the official stance of the government was fiercely anti-Western, and in particular anti-US.
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Sykes-Picot Agreement Betrays Arab Nation
Empires plot in secret
On 16 May, 1916, an agreement was concluded between Francois Georges-Picot (representing France) and Sir Mark Sykes (representing Great Britain) concerning the fate of the Ottoman Empire, should the Allies succeed in defeating Germany, Austria-Hungary, and the Ottomans in the First World War. It was decided that the territories belonging to modern-day Syria, Lebanon, Israel-Palestine, Jordan, Iraq and Kuwait would be divided up between Britain and France, with France getting control of Syria and Lebanon, and Britain obtaining the rest.
The Arabs revolt
At the instigation of the British, the Arabs of the Arabian Peninsula, under Sharif Hussein, revolted and declared their independence from the Ottoman Empire, which had ruled the are for hundreds of years. In the name of the British government, Sir Henry McMahon (the British High Commissioner in Egypt) promised Sharif Hussein that, if the Arabs helped the British during the war, Great Britain would ensure the creation of an independent Arab state from Damascus to the Arabian Sea. With the help of Hussein and the Arabs, the British forces in Egypt were able to push the Ottomans back to the borders of modern Turkey, leaving the regions divided up under the Sykes-Picot Agreement in Allied hands.
Post-war aftermath: self-determination, or colonialism?
The British were now in a quandry as to whether they should honor their pledges to Sharif Hussein or to their ally, France. At the time, Woodrow Wilson (the American President during the talks that decided the fate of the Middle East) was actively promoting the '14 points,' one of which was the right of all peoples to self-determination. The British and French had to decide between honoring the principle of democracy and self-determination - as well as Britain's pledge to the Arabs to do so - or to pursue a policy of imperialism in the Middle East. Judging by a joint Anglo-French declaration issued on November 7, 1918, the two powers appeared committed to the former course of action:
The objective aimed at by France and Great Britain in prosecuting in the East the War let loose by the ambition of Germany is the complete and definite emancipation of the peoples so long oppressed by the Turks and the establishment of national governments and administrations deriving their authority from the initiative and free choice of the indigenous populations.
Betrayal and its legacy
On March 8, 1920, a congress of Arabs at Damascus proclaimed an independent Arab state, with King Faisal (Hussein's son) as head of state. The French insisted that this territory had been granted to them under the Sykes-Picot Agreement, and moved an army in to take control of the region. In August, the French force defeated the Arabs at the Battle of Maysalun and deposed King Faisal. They administered the whole of modern-day Syria and Lebanon directly until World War II.
For their part, the British took direct control over Palestine, Jordan and Iraq. The whole of the territory promised to the Arabs for their help in defeating the Ottomans was now under British or French colonial rule. The boundaries of the modern Middle East were drawn (often arbitrarily) at this time by British and French negotiators, and hope of a united, independent Arab state was destroyed.
For more information, check out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes%E2%80%93Picot_Agreement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteen_Points
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hussein-McMahon_Correspondence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Revolt
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_ww1_british_promises_arabs.php
On 16 May, 1916, an agreement was concluded between Francois Georges-Picot (representing France) and Sir Mark Sykes (representing Great Britain) concerning the fate of the Ottoman Empire, should the Allies succeed in defeating Germany, Austria-Hungary, and the Ottomans in the First World War. It was decided that the territories belonging to modern-day Syria, Lebanon, Israel-Palestine, Jordan, Iraq and Kuwait would be divided up between Britain and France, with France getting control of Syria and Lebanon, and Britain obtaining the rest.
The Arabs revolt
At the instigation of the British, the Arabs of the Arabian Peninsula, under Sharif Hussein, revolted and declared their independence from the Ottoman Empire, which had ruled the are for hundreds of years. In the name of the British government, Sir Henry McMahon (the British High Commissioner in Egypt) promised Sharif Hussein that, if the Arabs helped the British during the war, Great Britain would ensure the creation of an independent Arab state from Damascus to the Arabian Sea. With the help of Hussein and the Arabs, the British forces in Egypt were able to push the Ottomans back to the borders of modern Turkey, leaving the regions divided up under the Sykes-Picot Agreement in Allied hands.
Post-war aftermath: self-determination, or colonialism?
The British were now in a quandry as to whether they should honor their pledges to Sharif Hussein or to their ally, France. At the time, Woodrow Wilson (the American President during the talks that decided the fate of the Middle East) was actively promoting the '14 points,' one of which was the right of all peoples to self-determination. The British and French had to decide between honoring the principle of democracy and self-determination - as well as Britain's pledge to the Arabs to do so - or to pursue a policy of imperialism in the Middle East. Judging by a joint Anglo-French declaration issued on November 7, 1918, the two powers appeared committed to the former course of action:
The objective aimed at by France and Great Britain in prosecuting in the East the War let loose by the ambition of Germany is the complete and definite emancipation of the peoples so long oppressed by the Turks and the establishment of national governments and administrations deriving their authority from the initiative and free choice of the indigenous populations.
Betrayal and its legacy
On March 8, 1920, a congress of Arabs at Damascus proclaimed an independent Arab state, with King Faisal (Hussein's son) as head of state. The French insisted that this territory had been granted to them under the Sykes-Picot Agreement, and moved an army in to take control of the region. In August, the French force defeated the Arabs at the Battle of Maysalun and deposed King Faisal. They administered the whole of modern-day Syria and Lebanon directly until World War II.
For their part, the British took direct control over Palestine, Jordan and Iraq. The whole of the territory promised to the Arabs for their help in defeating the Ottomans was now under British or French colonial rule. The boundaries of the modern Middle East were drawn (often arbitrarily) at this time by British and French negotiators, and hope of a united, independent Arab state was destroyed.
For more information, check out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes%E2%80%93Picot_Agreement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteen_Points
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hussein-McMahon_Correspondence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arab_Revolt
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_ww1_british_promises_arabs.php
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Balfour Declaration: Seed of a 60-year-old Conflict
On 2 November, 1917, British Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour made the following declaration of British policy:
His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.
The British declaration of support for the creation a Jewish national home in Palestine would have life-changing ramifications for the Arabs living there. Within a few years of Balfour's declaration, at the end of the First World War, Britain took control of Palestine from the Ottoman Empire under the auspices of a League of Nations Mandate. While the Mandate government was supposed to prepare the local population for eventual self-rule, it is clear from Balfour's own statements that neither the British nor their allies had any such intentions:
Instead, British control of Palestine encouraged the immigration of tens of thousands of Jews to the region in the ensuing decades. The systematic murder of millions of European Jews by the Nazi regime in Germany during World War Two only increased the flow of Jewish immigrants, and tensions increased between them and the local population. Violence escalated until Britain voluntarily relinquished control of Palestine, turning the issue over to the United Nations (the successor to the defunct League of Nations).
The United Nations Partitions Palestine
The United Nation's solution to the violence in Palestine was to bisect the territory into two states: one Palestinian and the other Jewish. On 29 November, 1947, the United Nations resolution to this effect was passed; the British announced their withdrawal, to be completed the 15th of May. On the eve of 15th, the Jewish community in Palestine proclaimed their independence as the State of Israel. The following day, five Arab armies entered Palestine, and the 1948 Arab-Israeli war began. In many ways, it has not yet ended.
The Balfour quotations were taken from the "Balfour Declaration of 1917" article on Wikipedia. Other sites to visit for more information include (but are not limited to):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine
http://www.mideastweb.org/mebalfour.htm
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/balfour.html
His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.
The British declaration of support for the creation a Jewish national home in Palestine would have life-changing ramifications for the Arabs living there. Within a few years of Balfour's declaration, at the end of the First World War, Britain took control of Palestine from the Ottoman Empire under the auspices of a League of Nations Mandate. While the Mandate government was supposed to prepare the local population for eventual self-rule, it is clear from Balfour's own statements that neither the British nor their allies had any such intentions:
I do not think that Zionism will hurt the Arabs, but they will never say they want it. Whatever be the future of Palestine it is not now an ‘independent nation’, nor is it yet on the way to become one. Whatever deference should be paid to the views of those living there, the Powers in their selection of a mandatory do not propose, as I understand the matter, to consult them. In short, so far as Palestine is concerned, the Powers have made no statement of fact which is not admittedly wrong, and no declaration of policy which, at least in the letter, they have not always intended to violate.
Instead, British control of Palestine encouraged the immigration of tens of thousands of Jews to the region in the ensuing decades. The systematic murder of millions of European Jews by the Nazi regime in Germany during World War Two only increased the flow of Jewish immigrants, and tensions increased between them and the local population. Violence escalated until Britain voluntarily relinquished control of Palestine, turning the issue over to the United Nations (the successor to the defunct League of Nations).
The United Nations Partitions Palestine
The United Nation's solution to the violence in Palestine was to bisect the territory into two states: one Palestinian and the other Jewish. On 29 November, 1947, the United Nations resolution to this effect was passed; the British announced their withdrawal, to be completed the 15th of May. On the eve of 15th, the Jewish community in Palestine proclaimed their independence as the State of Israel. The following day, five Arab armies entered Palestine, and the 1948 Arab-Israeli war began. In many ways, it has not yet ended.
The Balfour quotations were taken from the "Balfour Declaration of 1917" article on Wikipedia. Other sites to visit for more information include (but are not limited to):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Partition_Plan_for_Palestine
http://www.mideastweb.org/mebalfour.htm
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/balfour.html
Friday, September 10, 2010
Iran nationalizes the oil industry
This week's important date continues with the theme of oil and its impact on the modern Middle East. On March 20, 1951, the Iranian parliament - the Majlis - voted to nationalize the country's oil industry. This meant that the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC) - the predecessor of British Petroleum (BP) - lost all of its assets in Iran, including not only the right to drill for oil, but also the facilities and infrastructure that it had built.
The relationship between the AIOC and Iran dates back to 1908, when an agreement was reached between D'Arcy, a British millionaire, and the Shah of Persia. The agreement gave D'Arcy the exclusive right to prospect for oil in virtually the whole of the country in exchange for a lump sum and 16% of future profits. Over the ensuing decades, Iranian discontent with the terms of the contract - which favored the AIOC far more than similar agreements in other countries in the Middle East at the time - lead the Iranian government to seek a new contract. In the meantime, however, the British government - under the leadership of then First Lord of the Admiralty Winston Churchill - had aquired a large stake in the AIOC in order to ensure a constant supply of oil for its navy. With the backing of the British government, the AIOC saw no need to make concessions to the Iran and as a result negotiations stalled.
In a sudden bold move, the Shah of Iran in 1933 canceled the D'Arcy agreement and informed the AIOC that it no longer had the right to drill in Iran. Furious, Churchill declared that the British government would "take all such measures as the situation demands for the Company's protection." Frightened by British power, the Shah backed down and agreed to slightly improved terms to the original D'Arcy agreement - but which were much weaker than those enjoyed by other Middle Eastern countries.
In 1950, a strong nationalist movement swept through Iran, bringing with it a desire to reform, modernize and develop the country's economy. The politicians of the day, led by a man named Mohammad Mosadegh, planned to finance their reforms through oil proceeds. The unfavorable terms of the AIOC contract again came under intense criticism, and the Iranian government demanded that the treaty be re-negotiated. Again, the AIOC was obstinate, but as popular discontent and anger towards the British (who were embattled throughout their dying empire) grew, the AIOC agreed to a 50-50 profit sharing agreement. By this time, however, Mossadegh (who was voted Prime Minister) had become so popular that he no longer felt the need to deal with foreign companies at all, and on March 20, 1950 declared that all of the AIOC's assets in Iran were the property of the Iranian government, and that all proceeds from the sale of oil would go directly into Iranian coffers. The D'Arcy agreement was annulled once and for all.
The British were furious and pestered the Americans to help them remove Mossadegh from power. The Truman administration was unsympathetic and supported Mossadegh, citing British arrogance and obstinacy. Mossadegh quickly became a dictator, however, demanding - and receiving - absolute power for 12 months, and finally dissolving the Majlis entirely. This turn of events frightened the administration of US President Eisenhower, who feared that his dictatorial style and socialist leanings would lead Iran into the Soviet camp. Mossadegh's iron-fisted rule destroyed his popularity, and in 1953, the CIA engineered a coup which toppled his government.
The Iranian oil industry was again privatized, but the AIOC only held 40% of the consortium, and a 50-50 profit sharing agreement was reached. The fallout from the coup, however, is felt even today. The Shah, who was installed as the absolute ruler of Iran after the fall of Mossadegh, became even more unpopular than his predecessor had been, and in 1979 a popular revolt removed him from power and established the Islamic Republic of Iran. To this day, Iran views the United States with a great deal of distrust - distrust predicated on American intervention in Iranian affairs, primarily in the name of oil.
For more information, check out the following links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Persian_Oil_Company#Exploration_and_discovery
http://www.iranchamber.com/history/oil_nationalization/oil_nationalization.php
The relationship between the AIOC and Iran dates back to 1908, when an agreement was reached between D'Arcy, a British millionaire, and the Shah of Persia. The agreement gave D'Arcy the exclusive right to prospect for oil in virtually the whole of the country in exchange for a lump sum and 16% of future profits. Over the ensuing decades, Iranian discontent with the terms of the contract - which favored the AIOC far more than similar agreements in other countries in the Middle East at the time - lead the Iranian government to seek a new contract. In the meantime, however, the British government - under the leadership of then First Lord of the Admiralty Winston Churchill - had aquired a large stake in the AIOC in order to ensure a constant supply of oil for its navy. With the backing of the British government, the AIOC saw no need to make concessions to the Iran and as a result negotiations stalled.
In a sudden bold move, the Shah of Iran in 1933 canceled the D'Arcy agreement and informed the AIOC that it no longer had the right to drill in Iran. Furious, Churchill declared that the British government would "take all such measures as the situation demands for the Company's protection." Frightened by British power, the Shah backed down and agreed to slightly improved terms to the original D'Arcy agreement - but which were much weaker than those enjoyed by other Middle Eastern countries.
In 1950, a strong nationalist movement swept through Iran, bringing with it a desire to reform, modernize and develop the country's economy. The politicians of the day, led by a man named Mohammad Mosadegh, planned to finance their reforms through oil proceeds. The unfavorable terms of the AIOC contract again came under intense criticism, and the Iranian government demanded that the treaty be re-negotiated. Again, the AIOC was obstinate, but as popular discontent and anger towards the British (who were embattled throughout their dying empire) grew, the AIOC agreed to a 50-50 profit sharing agreement. By this time, however, Mossadegh (who was voted Prime Minister) had become so popular that he no longer felt the need to deal with foreign companies at all, and on March 20, 1950 declared that all of the AIOC's assets in Iran were the property of the Iranian government, and that all proceeds from the sale of oil would go directly into Iranian coffers. The D'Arcy agreement was annulled once and for all.
The British were furious and pestered the Americans to help them remove Mossadegh from power. The Truman administration was unsympathetic and supported Mossadegh, citing British arrogance and obstinacy. Mossadegh quickly became a dictator, however, demanding - and receiving - absolute power for 12 months, and finally dissolving the Majlis entirely. This turn of events frightened the administration of US President Eisenhower, who feared that his dictatorial style and socialist leanings would lead Iran into the Soviet camp. Mossadegh's iron-fisted rule destroyed his popularity, and in 1953, the CIA engineered a coup which toppled his government.
The Iranian oil industry was again privatized, but the AIOC only held 40% of the consortium, and a 50-50 profit sharing agreement was reached. The fallout from the coup, however, is felt even today. The Shah, who was installed as the absolute ruler of Iran after the fall of Mossadegh, became even more unpopular than his predecessor had been, and in 1979 a popular revolt removed him from power and established the Islamic Republic of Iran. To this day, Iran views the United States with a great deal of distrust - distrust predicated on American intervention in Iranian affairs, primarily in the name of oil.
For more information, check out the following links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Persian_Oil_Company#Exploration_and_discovery
http://www.iranchamber.com/history/oil_nationalization/oil_nationalization.php
Monday, August 30, 2010
United States and Saudi Arabia forge alliance
On February 14, 1945 - Valentine's Day - President Franklin D. Roosevelt of the United States and King Abdulaziz of Saudi Arabia met aboard a United States Navy vessel in Egyptian waters. While the meeting was little noticed at the time - and remains largely unremembered even today - it has played a profound role in the shaping of the modern Middle East. The two leaders forged an alliance that day that has endured well into the 21st century, the terms of which have profoundly influenced the relationship between the Middle East and Western nations.
Essentially, President Roosevelt agreed to protect Saudi Arabia with the military might of the United States - and to ignore the country's internal affairs - in exchange for a constant stream of cheap Saudi crude flowing to the US. The agreement was mutually beneficial, and the terms have remained more or less unviolated for more than 60 years.
In order to analyze the true impact of the relationship forged that day, however, the full range of consequences must be considered. US support for King Abdulaziz - transferred to his successors - has given the King of Saudi Arabia a free hand to maintain power and rule his country in any way he chooses. As a result, the democratic process, civil government, women's rights and many other issues have been slow to develop. And other leaders have sought similar arrangements with the US, such as the Shah of Iran, with disastrous results and implications for the United States in the 21st century.
For more information, check out the following address:
http://www.saudi-us-relations.org/newsletter2005/saudi-relations-interest-02-12.html
Essentially, President Roosevelt agreed to protect Saudi Arabia with the military might of the United States - and to ignore the country's internal affairs - in exchange for a constant stream of cheap Saudi crude flowing to the US. The agreement was mutually beneficial, and the terms have remained more or less unviolated for more than 60 years.
In order to analyze the true impact of the relationship forged that day, however, the full range of consequences must be considered. US support for King Abdulaziz - transferred to his successors - has given the King of Saudi Arabia a free hand to maintain power and rule his country in any way he chooses. As a result, the democratic process, civil government, women's rights and many other issues have been slow to develop. And other leaders have sought similar arrangements with the US, such as the Shah of Iran, with disastrous results and implications for the United States in the 21st century.
For more information, check out the following address:
http://www.saudi-us-relations.org/newsletter2005/saudi-relations-interest-02-12.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)