Middle Eastern Politics for the last 100+ years

[rhoenix]

This topic isn't based around a particular news article, but instead out of my own desire to get a better understanding of just what the hell is going on in the Middle East currently, and now it came to be this way.

I've spoken to a number of people on subjects related to this, but this recent issue in Syria has really highlighted to me how little of the situation there I understand, and "oh they're all tribal-thinking morons" just doesn't sit right with me. After all, we see the same kind of thinking over here in the States, just in a different form (such as being adamantly opposed to the idea that humans played a part in today's climate issues, for instance). Therefore, I have to conclude that there's much about the entire situation in the Middle East currently that I don't yet understand, to grant better context to current events.

History is not my best subject; as much as I enjoy discussing facts and times and dates and people in historical terms, I don't read up on historical happenings anywhere near as much as others. With all that said, from what I have read (through wikipedia and a few other sites), it seems to have its roots right after World War I, when the Ottoman Empire was partitioned into the nations we know today: Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and Palestine/Transjordan.

Israel as a nation appears to have been founded in May 1948, and expanded to the former borders of the above nation of Palestine in the years since then.

So, here are the questions of my own that I'm attempting to answer - and if I got anything wrong with the above, by all means elaborate, since I'm trying to get a better understanding of this subject.

---

1. During my reading of how the nations were broken up following WWI, it seems as if each nation created had a specific population ratio of certain sects of Islam per nation. I've found references to this, but no breakdown of who went where, by what percentages, and why. Without that, I'm left with the inference that this sort of population breakdown by sect per nation has a strong tendency for instability over time, given the attitudes involved.

So - if this is accurate, how did the population breakdown of the above nations work out, and why was this done originally?


2. If the precept behind question #1 is correct, then was there a longer-term plan in terms of the nations that formerly made up the Ottoman Empire, or was carving the empire up into a bunch of nations pretty much it? Additionally, were there any long-term plans made or implemented to try to encourage these nations to be less sectarian in terms of population breakdown?


3. At the time of the Ottoman Empire being carved up into the nations we know today, was there a plan in place at the time to address the idea of Jews having a homeland again, or did the issue of Jews having a nation pretty much only begin coming up during and after WWII?


My thanks in advance for any replies this post may receive.

[frigidmagi]

Oh, tough questions with no easy answers. I will attempt to explain a few things but in all honesty middle eastern history tends to make me throw up my hands and scream.

Okay, after the fall of the Ottoman Empire after WWI, the victorious powers (that would be our side) got out the knives and got to work. To be fair, this is just what you did after winning wars in that time and I'm not sure things have really changed that much (expect the modern US disproves of people redrawing borders after a war usually). The Austrian Hungarian Empire was cut up pretty hardcore and Germany lost a fair amount of territory (parts went to make Poland and other parts were gobbled up by the French mostly).

The divided up segments of the Ottoman Empire were turned into "mandates" In the middle east the mandates were divided between France and Britain. France got Syria and Lebanon. Britain got Palestine, Jordan and Iraq. You can see a map here. They were given political independence either a little before or after WWII. Now I can't speak to Jordan, Syria or Lebanon but I can speak a bit about Iraq.

Iraq had never been a country before. Not in the modern sense. It had been at times ruled by Arabic powers, Iranian powers and Turkish powers and quiet often had been a battleground. It had been the center of an Arabic Empire many, many moons ago and at that time Baghdad had been one of the greatest cities of the world with a population greater then Paris, London and Rome combined at the time. That was then, in the period of division Iraq was a rather sleepy backwater with a deep and rich history.

I have no data on why the British mashed Kurds (for some reasons no one seemed in favor of a Kurdistan), Sunni and Shittes together in a single country but I do know it was somewhat a piece with their standard colonial practices. The British loved to used minority groups as front men and local administers. These people would be dependent on the British Empire for protection from the majority, who would hate them for being the agents of a foreign power and they would administer the area much more cheaply then sending Englishmen to do it. In Iraq these frontmen were the Sunni. And to lead the Sunni, the English invited a Hashemite (a clan of Arabic rulers and nobles who claim to be descendant from Muhammad's daughter Fatimah) King named Faisal to rule in their name (he had been chased out of Syria by the French).

That's another thing, the Brits seemed to love setting up local royalty and making them part of the local government. They did it in Nigeria, Malaysia and various other places. My supposition is that way if anything goes wrong they can blame the king, depose him and stick in a nephew and keep on rolling... And it is cheaper. In Nigeria, they made the kings the tax collectors of the Empire... Which made them unpopular from time to time.

Well the royalty didn't take, there were a number of coups in the 30s (Iraq being granted a sort of independence in 1932, they were kind of like Japan today, they were independent but with alot of strings) and the British stepped in to offset the coups and put the kings back on the throne (mostly to fears that the military coupers would be friendly to Axis powers and cut off oil supplies to England). In about 1958... A coup finally stuck. From then til 2003, Iraq would be ruled by a series of strongmen the last of which was Saddam... Who is known to you.

I will note that Iraq was not a US client state, Saddam had close personal friends in the Soviet government and was regarded as the USSR's closest ally in the middle east (the Iraq Army used Soviet gear and trainers for example) in the 1970s. So calling Saddam a US ally is a ridiculous stretch of the term. That said, Iraq wasn't really a client state of the USSR's either. Iraq traded oil for weapons and sided with the USSR against the west, who the rulers of Iraq regarded as imperialists trying to dominate them (to be fair, they had good reason for that). Additionally we did help Iraq during the Iraq/Iran war. As did large amounts of the human race. It wasn't that we liked Iraq, it was that were that pissed off at Iran (some of us may recall this thing with hostages, others of us may have seen a movie).

Anyways, while there have been feelings of nationalism in Iraq in the last couple decades (Many Iraqi Shittes fought voluntarily against Iran, or so they say even in 2007) it's really shallow and not widespread. The Kurds certainly don't feel nationalism for Iraq. Most Iraqis have seen themselves as members of their clan or tribe first, and maybe if there is time, an Iraqi. For my own part, I quickly learned that if I wanted anything worthwhile, I had to talk to tribal elders not government officials. You want quiet and peace, you don't go to the cops, you go to the Clan Bosses.

The leaders of Iraq have typically seen Iraq has a prize to loot for the benefit of themselves, their clan/tribe and their allies. For example despite having an amazing highway system that made the invasion really easy... There were no gas stations or towns along the highway that would suggest that normal people could use these roads. Additionally Baghdad airport was quiet nice, but the majority of people I saw lived in mud huts and used donkeys for transport. Yes, there were cars! But they belonged to the Sunni who allied themselves to Saddam or were old rust buckets held together by baling wire and faith in the Almighty. Schools were primitive, jails were modern horrors. In 2003 if you were troop paying attention you swifty got the sense that excluding his hometown and Baghdad... Saddam simply didn't give a shit about how his countrymen lived, got decent medical care, moved, was educated or anything really expect doing what he told them to do.

Given that Iraq has been treated not as a country to be govern but as a warehouse to be looted by the majority of it's leaders... It's no wonder that the people in it don't feel like citizens of a country.

Honestly I assume the situation is common among the middle east. The Jordanians (army men all) talked of loyalty to the King and to God. Little of the nation. Saudi Arabia is run for the benefit of the House of Saud. That's why the hundreds of Saud Princes are all richer then God himself and the average Saudi citizen lives a rather empty life dependent on government bribes. Large chunks of the United Arab Emrites were the same way (fun fact, I was offered a job because the idea of having a unit made up of US Marines around seemed real cool and kick ass to a certain nobleman, I didn't take it because frankly... I found him repulsive and odious.).

Europe was the same way once, that's why you had things like the 30 year war. Granted Nationalism can stir up wars to.

[rhoenix]

This is fascinating stuff - thank you for all of that, Frigid. I can tell already that I'll be re-reading it more than a few times in the coming days.

If Iraq is (in microcosm) similar to what happened with the other nations at the time (Turkey, Saudi Arabia, etc.) due to the king-making policies of Britain, then if my understanding is correct, it was done in an effort to basically divide up and conquer the region Rome-style, and keep differing groups at odds with one another politically as a matter of design.

If the above is correct, then it suggests to me that there was no longer-term plan in place at the time, other than keeping the new nations that formerly comprised the Ottoman Empire at odds with one another to the point where it would be very unlikely that they'd ever reform into another Empire. Additionally, it would suggest that there were no plans for a Jewish nation in place at that time, and plans for it only arose after WWII was coming to an end, at least partially as a result of the atrocities Jews suffered world-wide.

So if my understanding of the above is correct, and that the nations that arose out of the former Ottoman Empire are basically unstable by design, is there a proposed solution for this? Even from my limited reading, it seems like the story has been similar in the Middle East basically since those nations were formalized.

I mean, my first thought is quite American-centric, and I recognize that, but has anyone proposed setting up a Middle Eastern Union sort of democracy (complete with a constitution paper written with their needs and climate in mind) with member nations of the Middle East? Or is this completely out of the question with the current climate?

[frigidmagi]

Turkey is a different story has it was never really subjected to foreign rule.

[Josh]

Turkey is a different story has it was never really subjected to foreign rule.

And had a distinct national identity from a while back.

[rhoenix]

Turkey is a different story as it was never really subjected to foreign rule.

Ah, okay. Has Turkey been much of a political influence on the nations made out of the former Ottoman Empire (Syria, etc.) since they were formed?

[Norseman]

Turkey is a different story as it was never really subjected to foreign rule.

Ah, okay. Has Turkey been much of a political influence on the nations made out of the former Ottoman Empire (Syria, etc.) since they were formed?

I'm sure hanging on to the Caliphate for a while was an attempt to maintain some control over the region, but they dropped that when it was clear there were no dice.

For my novel I've also done some research of Iraq during the Turkish period (MC travels through the area), and what I found was basically this: The Turkish government controlled Basra and Baghdad and some other minor cities. Basra and Baghdad were even noted as being bustling cities with the growing oil industry (even in 1896) causing great prosperity.

However there were large swatches of the lower Euphrates all the way to Nasiriyah, that is the swamps, that were flat out beyond Turkish control. The local arabs claimed allegiance to the Sultan, but cared not at all for his servants. In travellers notes they all say basically the same: If you wanted workers or to get anything done that didn't involve import / export you were forced to work with the local sheikhs. Similar things were found throughout the Arab world, Pickthall (who is credible on the grounds of actually speaking the language) on his travels through the area remarked on how free the arabs were; only local village authorities really mattered. This to the point where people going up the Euphrates were at serious risk of random attacks by the local Arabs.

In short no one really *cared* about most of the countryside other than as a source of tax-revenue. There were some attempts at changing that, railways were being extended through the regions, and so forth. World War One stopped those plans cold. But what we are seeing after WWI is simply more of the same. The only difference was that once the Turks were out there wasn't even the pressure of religion to keep the locals from rebelling against their colonial overlords.