Daily Times

The recent past in the Middle East and North Africa has seen an ever-increasing trend of violence, political disputes turning into wars and insurgencies turning into militant sectarianism. Rising violence worsens with the passage of time. Sadly, the situation is entangled and defies solutions to cycles of violence. The Middle East today is the outcome of over a century and a half of mismanaged state affairs by many dictators, unresponsive monarchies, senseless invasions, betrayals, greed and massacres. All put together, they have resulted in extreme militancy, alienated and suppressed populations and the rise of organisations like Islamic State (IS) and al Qaeda. Of course, no dictator or militant organisation can take refuge behind the force of history. The role of colonial powers in the 20th century is significant in shaping the present strife in the Middle East. Addressing students in Istanbul in October last year, President Erdogan stated: “Each conflict in this region was designed a century ago.”
The Ottoman Empire came to an end in 1922 after a reign of about 500 years spread over territories in Africa, Asia and Europe. The Ottoman rulers’ preference of extension of military invasions led to economic impoverishment in the 19th century. The emerging Industrial Revolution in the 19th century in the west was a challenge and an opportunity that the Ottoman Empire could not make use of. Perhaps the present day absence of an industrial culture and liberal economies in the Middle East and North Africa can be attributed to losing this great opportunity. In the new global economic era, the Ottoman Empire started facing economic challenges, necessitating heavy borrowing from Europe; by 1876 it faced difficulties in retiring foreign debt to European powers. Soon enough, Britain changed its policy of protection and preferences towards the Ottoman Empire, and extended its control over Cyprus, Ottoman Egypt, and the Suez Canal, leaving Ottoman rulers with nominal control over these territories. The Middle East for European powers was, “a stupendous source of strategic power and one of the greatest material prizes in world history” as was reported in1945 by US foreign relations government prints.
In the early years of the 20th century, Britain promised self-rule and territories to the Arab tribes that would join a revolt against the Ottoman Empire. British officers like T E Lawrence, better known as Lawrence of Arabia, directed the rising in Hejaz against the Ottoman Empire. The term Middle East was coined in the middle of the 19th century and gained currency after World War I. The new term signified emerging political scenarios in territories of the Ottoman Empire and the future political strategy in the region of European empires.
The Arab dream of freedom and self-rule after World War I came to a rather deceptive end by a secret pact in 1916, the Sykes-Picot Agreement. Under this agreement, territories belonging to the Ottoman Empire in the Middle East, after World War I were to be divided between the UK and France; Czarist Russia also a minor signatory was promised territories from mainland Turkey. Britain was to get a mandate over Jordan and Iraq, France was to get Syria, Lebanon and Mosul, the oil rich province of Iraq. Division of territories, deceptively called ‘mandates’ by Britain and France, were superficial, hasty and arbitrary, like lines in the sand that ignored history, culture, aspirations of nations like the Kurds and areas historically occupied by one sect or the other, whose destabilising effect is being felt today.
A Line in the Sand is the title of a book published in 2011 by James Barr concerning the division of the disintegrating Ottoman Empire, under the secret Sykes-Picot Agreement. The agreement was driven by self-interest and a desire for continuation of colonial rule in the Ottoman Middle East. Britain’s interest emanated from its global ambition to capture the Suez Canal as the shortest route to India, Mesopotamian oil wealth and the “establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people”, as declared in 1917 by Arthur Balfour, at that time the British foreign secretary. France had heavily invested in infrastructure projects, a telegraph system, roads, ports and educational institutions. It had a large number of schools in Lebanon and Syria. The French believed in its mission of ‘civilisatrice’. European colonial empires erred in ignoring that Arabs had previously for centuries commanded global empires and were capable of handling their own affairs. It was colonial shortsightedness that contributed, in no small way, to the Middle East of today. Britain and France, as victors in World War I, lost the historic opportunity of granting meaningful self-rule and establishing liberal economies. Self-rule institutions might have discouraged violent nationalist movements of the Ba’athist party in Syria and Iraq.
President Woodrow Wilson declared in 1916, before the US’s entry into World War I, the principle of national self-determination for all people globally and envisaged “peace without victors”.
Yet, in reality, Britain and France did not follow the principles laid down by President Woodrow Wilson. Britain and France commenced the process of placing compliant rulers in their newly acquired mandates, which were required to serve colonial interests. Faisal bin Hussein of Hejaz, also known as King Faisal I of Iraq, was installed as the sovereign of Iraq in 1921, in recognition of helping the British oust the Ottomans from Hejaz. Abdullah bin Hussein of Hejaz was made the ruler of Jordan and the dynasty in Jordan continues to the present day. However, Syria had a more turbulent history with periods of instability like the Druze revolt from 1925 to 1927 against France.
King Faisal I of Iraq is remembered as a reformist, as the man who initiated the process of making Iraq into a progressive state. An alien to Iraq, coming from Hejaz, he never let issues of sectarianism or race determine the course of his government. Newly acquired oil wealth was used for building hospitals and universities. The dynasty came to a tragic end in 1958, with the assassination of Faisal II, the young grandson of Faisal I, by Baathist troops. This was the beginning of a long nightmare for the Middle East, which had dictators like Saddam Hussein and Hafiz al Assad. The Baathists took power under the banner of nationalism. The condition of countries like Iraq, Syria, Libya and Egypt can all be placed in this category of takeovers in the name of nationalism. Suppression in the name of state security was the policy of almost all dictators across the Middle East, which only fostered underground militant groups and a corrupt repressive, inefficient bureaucracy. Added to all this, Israel’s unjust treatment of the Palestinians for decades further added to militancy in the Middle East. Even Europe has started facing cultural and economic problems caused by refugees and migrants from the Middle East and North Africa. Migration from North Africa into France started from the days of the Algerian war of independence (1954-1962) against French rule.
European colonial empires did not have the vision to appreciate the aspirations of the people of the Middle East in the 20th century. Territories and oil wealth is all that mattered. For the present a solution has to be thought out by the Arab nations themselves if they are to correct the colonial fault lines. Allowing foreign nations to intervene, that too militarily, like the US and UK invasion of Iraq in 2003 will only further deteriorate the situation, making way for irreversible upheavals. The Arab solution has to be based upon adopting a fair and liberal economy, an industrial culture of innovation and invention and allowing the youth to realise their dreams. Such solutions seem farfetched in the present political set up. The deteriorating situation concerns many Arab countries, and requires imaginative and innovative solutions.

The writer is a former member of the police service of Pakistan. He can be reached at humayunshafi@gmail.com