The
term Middle East originated in British India offices in 1850s and became famous
after US Naval strategist Admiral Alfred Thayer Mahan started using the term in
his research papers. As of now, Middle East is used interchangeably with Near
East. The term is said to have originated because of the region’s distance from
the European cities of London and Paris. From an Asian perspective, however, it
is the region located on the Western periphery of the continent. It also
includes the states in the Northern belt of the African Continent. The term
‘broader middle east’ gained ground after the 9/11 attack to add the territories of
Afghanistan and Pakistan in the Middle Eastern framework.
Middle East has been home to the cradle of
civilizations, the Mesopotamian and Egyptian civilizations developed in this
very region on the banks of mighty rivers such as Nile, Tigris and Euphrates.
It is also the birth place of three of the most prominent religions followed
around the world namely Christianity, Judaism and Islam. The holy city of
Jerusalem which has prominent places of worship for all Semitic beliefs is
located in the Middle East. Historically, being at the epicenter of cultures
and civilizations, the region continues to attract attention from around the
world.
It also has a strikingly unique identity when it comes
to its geography. Located roughly at the centre of the world map, the region finds
the Mediterranean Sea as one of its defining features. On the left of the great
sea lies the Iberian Peninsula which is separated by the Gibraltar pass from
the Northern parts of continental Africa. The region is located at the tri-junction
of Asia, Africa and Europe. Historically significant, the Indian Ocean trade
routes were controlled by empires in the Middle East for centuries.
Home to some of the greatest empires the world has seen,
Middle East has experienced a rather rough transformation from its erstwhile
empires to present day European style nation state arrangement. The Ottoman
Empire at its epitome spanned across three continents governing subjects from a
diverse range of ethnicities and religiosities. However, at the turn of the
twentieth century, among other factors, the dismantling of the Ottoman Empire
changed the course of history for the region. The Middle Eastern states found
difficult keeping up with their northern neighbors in Europe.
Having been one of the most turbulent regions in the
recent history, the Middle East has experienced tensions originating from a range
of sources. The trouble in the region can be attributed to a number of factors
and sources and to describe them all is beyond the range of this article. Therefore,
it limits itself to three consequential events that defined the trajectory of
the fate of the Middle East.
The Arab
Revolt – 1916
The Semites
included the ancient Babylonians and Assyrians. Hebrews and Phoenicians,
Aramaneans and Abyssinians, and Sabaeans and the Arabs.[i] However, it was later established that
‘Semites’ had linguistic familiarities rather than ethnic. Historically, the
Arabic language is the youngest of the Semitic languages and is closer than
others to the original archetype; and the peninsular Arabs “by reason of their
geographical situation and the monotonous uniformity of desert life, have in
some respects preserved the Semitic character more purely and exhibited it more
distinctly than any people of the same family."[ii]
Most importantly, in the seventh century, there appeared
a force that expanded the reaches of the Arab empire from the Oxus River in the
central Asia to the Atlantic shores of the North-Western Africa and it
eventually reached Spain touching border territories of Western France. The
force was the new religion of Islam.
Islam
being the driving force, the cultural evolution of the region marked by the
conquest of Islam was essentially Arabic. The culture of the Arabs dominated
and was disseminated in Arabic language. The message of Islam played the most
significant role. However, the new politico-cultural identity that resulted in
the aftermath of this vast expansion came to be known as the Arab World.
With
time, the Arab dominance started breaking down and after the 10th
century the Arab empire was divided into big and small kingdoms until they all
fell in the arms of the Turkish-speaking Ottomans at the beginning of the
sixteenth century. The spirit of Arabism has since then been recessive and only
revived in the nineteenth century with the rise of Arab Nationalism. The aims
of the Arab nationalism grew with time.
The
Arab resentment was with the dominance of the Turkish speaking Ottomans. Arabs
were also disappointed with the non-acceptance of Arabic as an official
language in the Arab provinces. Moreover, they also wanted greater autonomy to
the state of affairs in the areas dominated by the Arabs. The reforms in the
form of “Tanzimat” to grant greater control to keep away the aspirations of
Nationalism were proving inadequate for Ottomans to keep Arabs under the
Ottoman umbrella. By the end of the nineteenth century, the voices from the
Fertile Crescent which consisted of areas under Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and
Palestine became dominant enough to adopt revolutionary aims.
Much like the Arab nationalists, other parts of the
Ottoman Empire were frustrated with Sultan Abdul Hamid. In 1880, the Arabs were
offered a political program by a Young Turks (Turkish revolutionary group) which
included complete independence for Syria and establishment of Arabic as the
official language. In July, 1908, the Young Turks succeeded in getting a constitution
for the Ottoman subjects. However, the promises in terms of provincial autonomy
and restoration of Arabic language made to the Arabs were forgotten.
This led to a divide in the Arab nationalists and Young
Turks. Regardless, the Arabs waited for their time to come and it did under the
leadership of Sharif Hussein of Mecca. In collaboration with the British, the
Arabs rose in revolt against the Ottoman Empire during the WWI. In return for
their cooperation, Arabs received guarantees that their aspirations for freedom
and unity in the Fertile Crescent and the Arabian Peninsula will be fulfilled
after the war.
Sykes-Picot
Agreement
Arguably,
the fateful year of 1798 proved to be more significant than any other in the
history of the Middle East. Napolean conquered Egypt at the end of the 18th
century and with his invasion, exposed the hapless state of affairs in the
region. European imperial forces started to look at the region with an
intention to expand their own influence. However, the disturbance of the
balance of power restrained Europeans from directly overtaking territories.
Europeans wanted the Ottoman Empire to stand in order to prevent the dispute
that was bound to ensue once the scramble for Middle Eastern territories would begin.
Notwithstanding, at the beginning of the twentieth
century the fall of the Ottomans seemed imminent. In order to get their fair
share of the spoils, Europeans led by Britain and France took various measures.
However, none of those measures was as consequential as the Sykes-Picot
agreement.
In the aftermath of the war,
the Arab had expected independence and sovereignty in their lands for the
revolt against the Ottomans, as promised by the British. Noteworthy here it is
that the Arab lands were part of the common territory of the Ottoman Empire and
not individual states in their own rights. They had no experience of their own
in dealing with other nation states. In Ottoman times, relations with the
European powers had been mediated through Istanbul.[i]
These factors resulted into Arabs having little say in the post war partition
of their lands under the League of Nations arrangement. The lands promised to
Arabs were distributed among the victorious under a new form of colonial system
known as “Mandates”.
The mandates system was part of the British-French
dealing to divide a good part of the fertile crescent into three separate
zones, in each of which Britain or France would be at liberty to establish
“direct or indirect administration or control”. The secret deal was concluded
even before the Great Arab Revolt broke out on June 5, 1916[ii]. The
British-French designs in the Middle East dealt a severe blow to the Arab
Nationalist aspirations. They had yet again been betrayed with nothing in their
hands at the end. The sacrifices made in the Arab Revolt went in vain for they
got no independence but only a change of masters.
The
Balfour Declaration- 1917
In
addition to the pact with Sharif Hussein of Mecca and the Sykes-Picot
agreement, the British concluded yet another deal with the World Zionist
Organization on November 2, 1917- promising the creation of Jewish ‘national
home’ in the land of Palestine. The deal is known as the Balfour declaration.
The double dealing on the part of the British was evident and the actual
division of territories took a different shape than that envisaged by the
Sykes-Picot agreement. The Fertile Crescent was divided into 5 five units: Iraq
(including Mosul) and Palestine were placed under British Mandates, Syria and
Lebanon under French Mandates, and Transjordan was constituted into a
semi-autonomous Amirate under British tutelage. [i]
The
tragedy of the takeover of the Palestinian lands by the Jews went beyond the
territorial aspect for the idea of Arab unity was exposed in the 1948 war
against the Jewish state. On one hand,
there was the Jewish front united, better organized and ready for the fateful
warfare. On the other hand were the Arabs, disunited without a single command
divided into groups with primitive organization.
The
division in the front became a reflection of the disunity among the Arabs. It
exposed the façade of Pan-Arabism. The ill-prepared performance on the battle
field was a result of the dispirited administration and the sorry state of
affairs rampant within the Arab world. For the idea of Arab nationalism to
realize will take more than the common Arabic language became clear.
The
Palestinian tragedy brought to the fore the failure of the Arab world’s
capabilities. It failed to confront the first crucial challenge it was expected
to overcome. The Palestine tragedy confirmed the notion that the Arab world
remains more of a cultural rather than a political unit.
Conclusion
Middle
East has experienced violence and struggle for most part of its recent history.
The evolution from the age of Empires to the European style nation state
arrangement has been rather rough. With flourishing monarchies and theocracies
on either side of the Persian Gulf, the wave of democracy has touched the
region only partially. It stands as the most visible example of a people
struggling with time itself. Most of the region remains faithful to its age-old
orthodox methods visible in the politics and organization of the Middle East in
the name of tradition.
Religion
plays yet another significant part in the politics of the Middle East. With most
states following state sponsored religion, masses remain deprived of the basic
human rights in the garb of morality. If recent history is to be considered, Islam
seems to have done more damage than good to the region. As a matter of fact, Indonesia
remains the largest country in terms of followers of Islam. However, it is the
Middle East that represents Islam and unfortunately in the bad light. The
example of Iran is the most relevant to understand how religious beliefs of
individuals can take over the daily affairs of the state to the peril of the
citizenry.
Religious
and ethnic diversities made further complex by the involvement of great powers
in the region have resulted into the most dehumanizing incidents of violence
recent history has witnessed. The future prospects for the region remain
unclear. The Arab uprisings that started from Tunisia a wave of democracy could
have brought a significant change in the political structure of the region but
its effects remained limited to North African states.
[i] Rogan L. Eugene;
Chapter-2(The emergence of the Middle East into the Modern Nation State System
[ii] Agwani M.S., Contemporary
West Asia (Har-Anand Publications, 1995) Pg 17
[i] Agwani M.S., Contemporary
West Asia (Har-Anand Publications, 1995) Pg 14
[ii] Agwani M.S., Contemporary
West Asia (Har-Anand Publications, 1995) Pg 14; Reynold A. Nicholson, A
Literary History of the Arabs (Cambridge : The University Press, 1969)
Comments