By ALBERTO MARTINEZ PIEDRA
“Qu’importe si cent mille coups de fusil partent en Afrique! L’Europene les entend pas” — Louis Philippe, 1835.
Louis Philippe d’ Orleans was probably right when he said that the European nations closed their eyes to the demands of the African people. Their lives were dictated by the foreign offices of London, Paris, and St. Petersburg, not to mention Berlin prior to World War I. For better or for worse, the destinies of the Middle East have been intertwined with the major European powers.
As George Lenczowski, the late professor of political science at the University of California, Berkeley, wrote in his book The Middle East in World Affairs: “The importance of this region in world affairs has been emphasized by the fact that the two world wars have had their Middle Eastern theaters; and events there, though not principal, weighed heavily in the final outcome of these giant international conflicts.”
It is only since the Truman and the Eisenhower foreign policy doctrines that the United States has had the Middle East as one of their objectives. The Nixon Doctrine had also a definite, though indirect, impact upon the region but it is only recently that Washington has been more directly or indirectly involved in the political future of the area, supporting the establishment of democratic regimes and the elimination of traditional dictatorships; a policy which has had little, if any, positive results both in economic development and human rights. Iraq and North Africa are perfect examples. Democracy, per se, will not do the trick. The level of violence has reached astronomical proportions.
For simplification purposes, I will limit my analysis to events occurring after World War I and which, in my opinion, finally led to the sad and even tragic state of affairs which the Middle East is experiencing at the dawn of the 21st century. Obviously, my views are debatable and need further scrutiny by more prominent scholars whose expertise in Middle Eastern affairs are far better known than mine.
The collapse of the Ottoman Empire and the disastrous decisions resulting from the Treaty of Versailles deserve special attention. Already during World War I the allied powers had made plans to annex or control large sectors of the Sultan’s possessions (1916). A secret agreement was reached between Paris and London with the approval of St. Petersburg (Tsarist Russia) as to how the partition of the Ottoman Empire was to be made. Lord Mark Sykes of the UK and France’s Georges-Picot signed the agreement.
The following year in November 1917, the UK’s Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour sent a letter to Walter Rothschild, a well-known Zionist and friend of Chaim Weizmann, stating that his government favored and supported a national home in Palestine for the Jews. This policy of the United Kingdom seemed to contradict Downing Street’s previous promise to Hussein, the Sharif of Mecca, that England would support the creation of an independent Arab kingdom and those promises supposedly made to several Arab sheiks.
The San Remo Peace Conference of April 1920 established by the League of Nations granted France the Mandate of Syria and Lebanon and Britain the Mandate of Mesopotamia (later known as Iraq), not to mention the creation of Palestine and Trans Jordan. Kuwait, Bahrain, and Qatar remained British protectorates.
The goal of the victorious allied powers to control the Middle East and the road to India and the Far East had been accomplished.
The partition of the Middle East by the major European powers was confirmed by the signing of the Treaty of Sevres in August 1920. It forced Turkey to renounce all rights over Arabs in Asia and North Africa. Because of the radical opposition to the treaty by the newly created Turkish national movement led by Ataturk, the treaty was later modified and replaced by the Treaty of Lausanne (1923). These treaties led to a radical territorial reconfiguration of the area previously under the control of the Ottoman Empire.
Furthermore, the promises that were made by the allies to both Jews and Arabs, whose assistance they needed during the war, were never fulfilled. The cries of betrayals by both of them were heard around the world. The balance sheet resulting from these policies has been less than successful. Since then, relations between the Arab world and the Western allies have gone from bad to worse.
History has demonstrated that the policies carried out by the major European powers since the First World War have not really contributed to the progress of the native populations of the area. They may have benefited the imperial and financial interests of London and Paris, and enriched the upper sectors of society, well connected with the prevailing royal families “imposed” by Britain, but not the average citizen.
The more recent attempt to impose democratic systems in areas which are not yet culturally prepared for them has not only been unsuccessful but have also led to thousands of innocent deaths, chaos, destruction, and civil strife. Iraq and Libya, not to mention Syria, are perfect examples. They may have gotten rid of the dictatorships of Saddam Hussein and Moammar Qadhafi, but at what a price: Chaos! Is Syria the next on the list, if she is not already there?
Furthermore, if any economic development has taken place, it has only enriched the new “elites” and has hardly ever trickled down to the impoverished masses. The ghost of Wilson’s idealism still hangs over us. Idealistic goals might be good to hold but never at the expense of ignoring reality.
With the arrival of the new millennium, the situation in the Middle East has become even more complex. The rising threat of ISIS, the establishment of Israel and its territorial expansionary goals, are among the many factors that have aggravated the already tense situation in the area.
These facts cannot be ignored by the United States but, simultaneously, it cannot permit the erosion of America’s friendship with the Arab communities nor its pledge to follow Wilson’s principle of self-determination of peoples; a difficult balancing act. More than ever before, the United States needs to practice the virtue of prudence in its foreign policy and not be carried away by rash decisions which are later regretted.
Democracy is a delicate flower but not necessarily suited for all nations at all times; a fact that we often tend to overlook. Aristotle, centuries ago, already warned about the potential dangers posed by democratic systems, if not based on solid ethical principles. The brilliant French nobleman Alexis de Tocqueville also warned the American people about what he called the “tyranny of the majority,” a warning that should not be ignored by American foreign policy decision-makers when dealing with Middle Eastern affairs; much more when they try to impose democracy on countries that do not want it or are not prepared for it.
Let me conclude with a famous Arab proverb: “If you open a window to the right and another to the left, don’t be surprised if you get caught in the draught.”
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress