But I only want to offer a different perspective. This forum, afterall, is about learning about different parts of the world. If anyone wishes to disagree, I welcome dialog.
In order to understand the Iraq foreign policy, it is important to become familiar with the background of the Middle East in the 20th Century to help debunk some of the myths and mis-information that tends to portray the United States as some "evil empire". The culprits are many, which includes Britain, France, Russia, and the United States (China also plays a part).
And to put everything in perspective, I will include below a lecture given by my Middle Eastern Political Science Professor, Dr. Kassem Nabulsi, and I just paraphrased his words….I may have elaborated towards the end (the conclusion), but the intellectual property is credited to him.
There are 3 events that shaped the modern borders of the Middle East as we know it today. These three events are the following: the Henry McMahon-Hussein bin Ali Correspondence, the Sykes-Picot Agreement, and the Balfour Declaration.
The first event - Henry McMahon-Hussein bin Ali Correspondence:
Notes:
- in 1908, the last Sultan of the Ottoman Empire, Sultan Abdul Hamid, appointed Sharif Hussein bin Ali as the Emir of Mecca.
- Sharif Hussein bin Ali was appointed the Emir of Mecca. An Emir is a prestigious Arab Islamic position in the Ottoman Empire, but it’s not an administrative position. The Sharif is the equivalent of a nobleman in English terms, and Sharif Hussein was chosen for this Emir position because he is a descendant of the prophet Muhammad from the clan of Hashim (which is related to the clan of Quraysh, which Muhammad belonged to). Being an Emir of Mecca is significant, because Mecca is the Holiest City in Islam, along with Medina (the two holiest cities). Being an Emir of Mecca gives him a slightly autonomous position from the Ottoman Empire, and his duty was to ensure the safety of pilgrimage to these holy cities.
- Sir Henry McMahon was the British High Commisioner in Egypt
- In 1915, Sharif Hussein, out of personal ambitions, made the initiative to contact McMahon of Egypt and they exchanged letters. Sharif Hussein detected prophetically that the future of the Ottoman Empire is doubtful, and saw that it is weakening. By 1915, the Ottoman Empire have for the past 400 years, controlled most of the Middle East, although it lost territories in the Balkans (South East Europe) and by this point, Ottoman rule is struggling to sustain their fragile hold of their empire. Also note, that during this time, there was yet no grasp of the notion of “self-national-identification”. The Ottoman subjects identified themselves firstly as Muslims, secondly as Ottomans, but no such thing as national identities. Moreover, the Ottoman Empire at this point had no official, or nationally recognized territorial borders.
In these letters between McMahon and Sharif Hussein, the Sharif told McMahon that he is willing to stage an uprising with the Ottoman Empire, and in exchange, he wanted Great Britain to ensure that he’ll be given control of independent Arab States within territories in which the inhabitants were mostly Arab speaking peoples.
There were a total of 10 letters in these exchanges. The first letter argued to exclude Egypt because the Sharif considered Egypt as not part of a purely Arabic territory.
The thorniest issue in these letters were concerning the frontiers demanded by the Sharif, which included the entire Arabian Peninsula, the provinces of Lebanon, Syria, Palestine, Iraq (basically, the Levant territories). These provinces were mostly Arabic speaking territories.
Note: Palestine at this point never existed as an independent territory or entity; it has always been a part of Greater Syria, which included Lebanon and Palestine.
He also demanded the inclusion of Iraq (again, at this point, there was yet no official “Iraq”, he was merely referring to the area now known as modern Iraq, which is basically the territories roughly around the Euphrates and Tigris rivers.)
It is also important to note that as Sharif of the Ottoman Empire, it was he who declared earlier of “Jihad” against the Triple Entente (the alliance between Great Britain, France, and Russia), but as we know, behind closed doors, he is secretly exchanging letters with Great Britain’s McMahon, and these letter exchanges sharply contradicted with his Jihad declaration of earlier.
These letters obviously pleased McMahon, because this served as a counterbalance to the Ottoman’s Jihad against them, and knowing that he had a secret alliance with an enemy in Sharif Hussein.
McMahon was unequivocally aware that he couldn’t thoroughly fulfill and deliver a guarantee to give the demanded territories to Sharif Hussein.
Subsequently, the McMahon-Hussein Correspondence is summarized as follows:
The districts, or regions west of Palestine couldn’t be promised; the region of Palestine will thus be further negotiated only after the War (World War I).
Both Britain and the Sharif will later have conflicting interpretations of these agreements.
The Sharif cleverly began a propaganda in 1916 that basically says the following:
We will liberate the caliph (Abdul Hamid) and defend the caliph from infidels from the CUP
Note: the CUP stands for: the Committee of Union and Progress, also known as the “Young Turks”, which is a revolutionary movement who attempted to abolish the Ottoman caliphate and reform Turkey; in fact, they succeeded later on.)
This propaganda was designed to garner support from Arabs to rebel, and so in 1916, a rebellion took place. The result of these rebellions was that Syria, Lebanon, and Palestine were successfully invaded by the Arabs, securing a unified Arab coalition that claimed independence from the ruling Ottoman Turks.
Second Event - Sykes-Picot Agreement
During World War I, the Triple Entente has signed a series of agreements designed to carve out “spheres of influence” to be determined after their victory of WWI. These were designed to protect the interests of Great Britain and it’s allies (includes France and Russia). Without Russia’s presence during the signing of the agreements, but with their consent, the agreement was signed in May, 1916.
These letters were designed for the purposes of dismantling the Ottoman Empire, after the war.
In these letters, Great Britain promised the French that they’ll have direct control of Syria (which includes the regions West of Palestine).
These agreements with the French utterly contradicts with Britain’s promise made to the Sharif. Britain was cleverly making these secret strategies to secure their self-interests).
Note: these letters were again clandestine agreements.
Vladimir Lenin of Russia will later publically deny any involvement in these secret agreements, although they secretly consented to it.
Great Britain and France, subsequently carved out, or “dismantled” (or dismembered, however you want to phrase it), the post-Ottoman territories between them, giving Syria to the French (which includes West Palestine), and Great Britain claiming the territories we now know as Iraq.
Both Britain and France also reserved a hold of Palestine because, as we know, Jerusalem is a Holy City for both.
Side note: when Rome in 70 AD expelled the Jews in Jerusalem, they renamed this region as Palestine as an attempt to erase the memory of Jewish memory in that region.
Yet again, we will learn that the Sykes-Picot Agreement will contradict a third event…
Third Event - the Balfour Declaration
This letter to Lord Rothschild, by the British Foreign Secretary Arthur James Balfour, was aimed at Jewish support for the Allies in the First World War. The letter, known as the "Balfour Declaration" became the basis movement to create a Jewish state in Palestine. The letter was published a week later in The Times (London) of London
Foreign Office
November 2nd, 1917
Dear Lord Rothschild:
I have much pleasure in conveying to you. on behalf of His Majesty's
Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet:
His Majesty's Government view with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.
I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge
of the Zionist Federation.
Yours,
Arthur James Balfour
(Source:
from Internet Modern History Sourcebook)
As quoted above, this is a Letter from the Foreign Minister of Great Britain, Arthur Balfour, to Lord Rothschild (who is a prominent Zionist British Leader).
In sum, this letter essentially declares that Great Britain will approve of the creation of the “State of Israel” in Palestine, and just to rephrase the letter again, this is what it says:
[1] that Britain looks favorably of the establishment of the State of Israel.
[2] Britain will use everything in their capacity to achieve this goal.
[3] to ensure that the religious and civil rights of the people in the region of Palestine are protected.
[4] That the civil and political status of Jews in the World should not be violated according to this declaration.
Summary
[1] Great Britain promised Sharif Hussein an independent Arab State.
[2] Britain and France both carved out Iraq (British Mandate) and Syria (French Mandate) between them both.
[3] Britain carved out Palestine for the Jews (which violated the French Mandate).
Great Britain betrayed Sharif Hussein, the French, and also the Jews!
Once the Arab Revolt of 1916 took place, Sharif Hussein’s son, Faisal, declared himself King of Syria, as what was promised by Britain to his father.
France expelled King Faisal and massacred his forces, because according to the French, they were promised by Great Britain, under the Sykes-Picot Agreement, that Syria was under their mandate.
Faisal will later rule Iraq, he’s happy, the French are happy because they’ll get to rule Syria.
Amir (Prince) Abdullah (Faisal’s brother, and the son of Sharif Hussein), will lead tribal forces from al-Hejaz (the Western Coast of the Arabian Peninsula) towards the region that is today modern Jordan.
Great Britain carves out a place for Abdullah called Trans-Jordan and makes him King of Trans-Jordan.
Again, this betrays the French, because part of Syria is taken as a result of this partition, and it also betrays the Jews, because part of Palestine is also taken.
Great Britain’s foreign policy this whole time, can be described as a policy that aims to appease everyone (the Arabs, France, and the Jews), while at the same time, Britain is cleverly finding ways to secure their national self-interests, and subsequently everyone is appeased but not altogether happy.
Great Britain neglected the fact that the people inhabiting these carved out regions did not at all get along with each other, because these inhabitants are divided along sectarian lines, and they have been this way for centuries.
In 1917, Great Britain imposes the notion of “national identities”, hence the creation of what are now:
Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Palestine (Jerusalem), and Iraq.
Great Britain will impose this notion of “national borders”, yet in the process, that religion and the autonomy of the indigenous inhabitants all be respected.
None of these provinces, up to this day, recognize each other.
For example: Syria does not recognize Lebanon today. Lebanon is not allowed to have an embassy in Syria, and vice versa.
Conclusion
The turmoil in the Middle East today can be traced back to the mess that Britain and France helped create. Once the United States entered the fray, it too, became involved and contributed to the worsening of the situation in the Middle East. But the fact of the matter is that the United States did not initiate these problems, and is not the only country that is guilty.
Today, the United States is unfairly blamed for all problems in the Middle East, as if to say that we deserved the attacks of 9/11. I’d like to see some evidence.
I wish I could have covered the events of post-World War I, but perhaps I’ll work on that some other time. America and Europe’s foreign policy in the Middle East, for most of the 20th Century, has always been about securing each other’s self-national interests, in some cases, at the expense of morality.
My point here is that France played a part in this mess. The United States are now stuck in a predicament of trying to amend the situation, although not without it’s flaws, since the Iraq War is a mess in and of itself.
I appreciate constructive criticism from France, but the New York Times article above, coming from the Foreign Minister, seems to give the impression as if to say that France has no wrongdoing, and that somehow, it is the United State’s fault, alone, that America and Europe’s image has faltered. Let’s all be honest here, and share some blame, before we begin to make bold criticisms and point fingers.
