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
Thursday, September 30, 2010
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)