To the Victor Goes the Spoils: The Formation of the Modern Middle East

The Middle East has always been a hotbed of contention and strife throughout the millennia, with one group or another trying to gain dominance of the region. The Ottoman Empire had been that domineering force for generations, but when they threw in their lot with Germany and their allies during World War I, it was the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. After the Triple Entente won the war, and the League of Nations was formed shortly thereafter, the groundwork was laid for the decadent and plagued nations we recognize today through the "Mandate System".

Before World War I, the Middle East was comprised of small pockets of like-minded people, living in semi-autonomous regions. Granted, they were most likely part of the Ottoman Empire, but they were – for the most part – left to govern themselves. After the fall of the Ottomans, however, the League of Nations was suddenly thrust upon the region. Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations granted the authority to the mandate powers, claiming it was to prepare the natives of each region for autonomous self-government. Both the British and French were granted mandates, even though both had been involved in the region long before the Great War, but their victory gave them the much needed opportunity to increase their reach. ("The League of Nations Mandate Provision", n.d.) Using both platforms of the Zionists and Arabs, the British asserted their dominance in the region, despite French protests. Between the Zionist support and the fact that the Her Majesty's Royal Army occupied the entire Fertile Crescent and through to Egypt, English forces merely strong-armed the various other national units in the region, and the main threat to the British – the Russians – had imploded and the Bolsheviks renounced the Russian claim on Constantinople. With the Soviet threat in the region eliminated, the Crown was able to shape the fledgling nation as they thought best.

Their sheer military might in the region gave them the ability to crush any local indigenous resistance, often mixing the iron fist of military might with the silver tongue of diplomacy. The French were more of an irritant than an actual threat, so the British begrudgingly forfeited the Syrian and Lebanese Mandates to their former ally. When France unceremoniously ousted Faisal ibn Abd al Aziz, whom the people had proclaimed as the King of Syra, the British government welcomed him and his entourage fled to British controlled Palestine. However, the local British governor grumbled about the swarm of people that had come along, stating that "they cannot stay here indefinitely."  ("Middle East (region, Asia)", n.d.) They couldn't just oust him as the French did though, so the British elites used their considerable influence to arrange for Faisal's 'election' as king of the newly formed Iraqi state. The British also successfully staved off  the French expansion in the area as well, with the British keeping a hold of the oil rich regions of northern Iraq, along with the historically significant region of Palestine. But when Faisal's brother, Abdullah I ibn Hussein, took the Middle Eastern world by storm, seeking to reclaim his brother's throne and attack the French in Transjordan with his rabble of an army, the British intervened on behalf of the French. The begrudgingly sent a number of officers to the region, to stave off a decline back into sheer anarchy. ("The Middle East After World War One", n.d.)

Once the British firmly established their unquestioned dominance in the region, and the French were resigned to their two holdings, they began to withdraw their military presence. It wasn’t truly by choice, however, as popular support for the overseas military waned drastically. Plagued by budget cuts and newspapers opposing the massive expenditures being amassed by the military, the British Army was reduced to small, scattered units, with the only exception being the standing force guarding the strategically crucial Suez Canal. This was the beginning of the end of English supremacy in the Middle East, and laid the groundwork for the formation of the modern Arab states we find there today. By the early 1920s, a majority of the populace had been agitated to the point of civil unrest against the British, so much so that even the Sunni and Shia Muslims in Iraq were banding together to resist, forming the Haras al Istiqlal, or "The Guardians of Independence". ("Iraq - WORLD WAR I AND THE BRITISH MANDATE", n.d.) These violent protests, along with the English forces left in the area arresting many of the leaders, forced the British government to rethink their stance of essentially keeping the Middle East as one giant colony or satellite state. However, Egypt was granted her independence in 1922, and it was there that the British experimented with essentially a puppet government to keep their superiority in the region. It was so successful, to an extent, that they later granted Iraq their freedom in 1932 under the same circumstances, but for each case, Britain maintained an efficient control over critical tactical and financial interests. The maintaining of this so-called 'veiled protectorate,' a term coined in the Egyptian case, merely aggravated nationalist dissatisfactions and hatred, but these were written off as posing no immediate threat to the British Empire.

However, with the threats of Hitler's Nazi Germany and Mussolini's Italy upon the homeland forced Great Britain to reprioritize her funds and military, and essentially neglected the Middle East upon the outset of WWII, leaving all of her mandates and protectorates to fend for themselves. This, coupled with the ruthless crushing of various uprisings helps to explain the current Middle Easter hatred for all things Western. The greed and inhumanity portrayed by the British and French poisoned entire generations, something that the Western Powers of today are still dealing with.

References

Iraq - WORLD WAR I AND THE BRITISH MANDATE. (n.d.). Country Studies. Retrieved March 5, 2013, from http://countrystudies.us/iraq/19.htm

Middle East (region, Asia). (n.d.). In Britannica Online Encyclopedia. Retrieved March 6, 2013, from http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/381192/Middle-East

The League of Nations Mandate Provision. (n.d.). MidEast Web Historical Documents. Retrieved March 6, 2013, from http://www.mideastweb.org/leaguemand.htm

The Middle East After World War One | The Non-Western World | Big Site of History ©. (n.d.). Big Site of History © | History of Civilization. Retrieved March 6, 2013, from http://bigsiteofhistory.com/the-middle-east-after-world-war-one-the-non-western-world

Where East Meets West: Europe and the Ottomans

In the 19^th Century, the Ottoman Empire was dying. Plagued by wars, civil unrest and revolts, and outside meddling, the Ottomans turned to Europe for help. However, the driving force behind a nation's foreign policies at the time were – and still are – the aims of the nation, not whichever country they are supposedly assisting. This is perfectly personified in the Russian Empire's diplomatic reaching out to the failing Ottoman Empire.

Russia, who themselves had begun to emulate western European nations, reached out to the Ottomans, but not in the way one would think. In spite of the Islamic Turks being just as distrusted as the European Catholics, the Russo-Turkish War gave the Russians a considerable hold on the Black Sea, and thus, a border with the Ottomans. ("Russian-Ottoman Relations: The Origins 1600-1800", n.d.) These were later lost in one of the Crimean Wars, where the British and French staved off Russian expansion – fearful Russia would also become a major power in the Near East and breaking the monopoly both England and France shared – and gave the Ottomans a respite. Unfortunately, the Ottoman sultan at the time of World War I sided with the Germans, effectively driving the British and French into Russia's arms, with defensive agreements forming as early as 1904 and again in 1907. (Agoston, n.d.) The sultan also was forced to forfeit Tunisia to the French, along with Cyprus becoming a British holding. This, coupled with further revolts and unrest in Egypt, continued to weaken the already frail Ottoman Empire. (Weatherby, 2012) This whole time, the czars have been slowly modernizing Russia, with selective reforms turning it into a European nation with the potential to become a major player on the political map.

All these factors fed the fire that became the Russian nobility's goals: modernization, and conquest. And who better to expand upon than the ever-weakening neighbor to the south, the Ottomans? Who's very capital, Istanbul, was coveted by the czars, and claimed to be their own through the Russian Orthodox Church? Czar Alexander even planned to move the capital of Russia to Istanbul after he captured it, renaming it Czargrad and reviving the old Roman Empire. (Weatherby, 2012) But the Ottomans were not out of the fight, and a nearly constant territorial war ensued, with Russia merely copying the tactics and technology of western nations, which they had easier access to than the Turks. However, in spite of being superior to the decaying Ottoman Empire, Russia was still competing with their former WWI allies to fill the ever-growing power void being left by the diminishing Turks. Nonetheless, the czars had a considerable advantage, as they were able to devote more men and resources to the Ottomans, since there were no other nations who had plans for Russia – with the exception of Napoleon, or the Poles during the Time of Troubles under Ivan the Terrible. It was Napoleon's advance that caused a cease-fire between the Russians and Turks, with the two factions even going so far as to create a temporary alliance.

But the uneasy peace was not meant to last. Overall, the Russians were more prepared to handle the drastic changes coming in the 20^th Century, and while wresting Turkish land was never easy, the fading Ottomans were discounted by the Russians, never being considered a serious adversary. Unlike Western Europe, the Turks quite simply didn't have the resources to launch a successful offensive on the Russians, so the czars held – rightly so – that they could just pick apart the Ottoman Empire at their leisure. And if their carnivorous approach to the Ottomans was not interrupted by the Bolshevik Revolution, Russia's appetite for expansion may have never been sated.

References

Agoston, G. (n.d.). Military Transformation in the Ottoman Empire and Russia, 1500-1800. Academia.edu - Share research. Retrieved February 3, 2013, from http://www.academia.edu/596738/_Military_Transformation_in_the_Ottoman_Empire_and_Russia_1500-1800

Russian-Ottoman Relations: The Origins 1600-1800. (n.d.). digento - Fachhandel fuer digitale Medien - Homepage. Retrieved February 4, 2013, from http://www.digento.de/titel/104485.html

Weatherby III, E. (2012, February 27). The Fall of the Ottomans. Pipe N' Slippers. Retrieved February 3, 2013, from http://pipenslippers.wordpress.com/2012/02/27/the-fall-of-the-ottomans/

Ancient Meets Modern Where the East Meets West

The year is 1839. The Ottoman Empire is dying. Mahmud II, Ottoman Emperor at the time, realized this harsh reality, and recognized that the Ottomans needed a reformation to survive. Multiple crises were erupting across the Empire, both domestic emergencies and threats from outside the borders, something had to be done, and it had to be both drastic and rapid. Enter, the 'Tanzimat'. Turkish for "reorganization", the Tanzimat was the building blocks for the modernization of the Ottoman empire. But was it effective? Or merely too little, too late?

First implemented in November of 1839, the Tanzimat was the first real attempt by a Muslim world power to change into something more civilized and Western. The reformist sultan Mahmud II first started the changes, which were applied gradually until 1876, and were the brainchild of the Great Mustafa Rashid Pasha. The reforms were directed at taking the Ottoman Empire in a more secular direction, and bringing the Empire alongside other European nations in both mindset and technology. Some changes were purely cosmetic, almost symbolic in their casting off of the old way of life: military uniforms and the formal dress of the ruling class were two of these. However, most of the reforms issued in the Hatt-al Serif of Gulhane, or "Noble Edict of the Rose Chamber", established institutions that were previously unheard of in the Muslim world, institutions that would assure a security of life, property, honor and more, to every person living in within their borders, Muslim or not.

Some discounted the reforms as merely attempting to garner European approval and support, pointing to the Armenian Genocide – which the Ottoman government claimed was due to World War I – and reports that taxes to allow non-Muslims into the Turkish army were simply rebranded and kept, but for the most part, the reforms were as they seemed to be. The army was recreated into a modern day force – albeit influenced heavily by the French, bureaucracies were centralized, justice and education systems were rejuvenated and secularized. Copious public work projects sought to the infrastructure and physical appearance of the Empire, while new cities, rail lines, roads and telegraph lines were constructed in a European fashion.

Overall, the Tanzimat was paramount for the Ottoman Empire, but not enough to save it. It was not in vain, however, because it laid the groundwork for modern-day Turkey, who remains one of the West's staunchest allies in the entire Middle East to this day.

References

Akgun, S. (n.d.). The Emergence of Tanzimat in the Ottman Empire. Ankara Üniversitesi Dergiler Veritabanı. Retrieved February 3, 2013, from http://dergiler.ankara.edu.tr/dergiler/19/834/10541.pdf

Era of Modern Reform: The Tanzimat. (n.d.). Countries Quest. Retrieved February 3, 2013, from http://www.countriesquest.com/middle_east/turkey/history/era_of_modern_reform/the_tanzimat.htm

Tanzimat (Ottoman reform movement). (2013). Britannica Online Encyclopedia. Retrieved February 1, 2013, from http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/582884/Tanzimat