Chapter 2: The Middle East since 1918 Case Study: Egypt, a ... · Chapter 2: The Middle East since 1918 4 Source 2: Securing the Canal, the Middle East to 1945 Source: Penguin Historical

Chapter 2: The Middle East since 1918

1

Case Study: Egypt, a stake for the Western powers since 1918 Problematic: How has Egypt tried to become a power in the Middle among the pressures exerted by the Western powers since 1918? From a British condominium to independence Factfile: In 1898, after several treaties and fights with other European countries, the British decided to reconquer the Sudan. In March 1899, the new Anglo-Egyptian condominium of Sudan was fixed by agreement. Britain was left with the problem of containing Egyptian and Sudanese nationalism, but the fiction of Ottoman authority on Egypt was finally abandoned in 1914 when Egypt was declared a protectorate. Source 1: Anglo-Egyptian condominium left the British the only leaders Anglo-Egyptian Condominium, the joint British and Egyptian government that ruled the eastern Sudan from 1899 to 1955. It was established by the Anglo-Egyptian Condominium Agreements of January 19 and July 10, 1899, and, with some later modifications, lasted until the formation of the sovereign, independent Republic of the Sudan on January 1, 1956. (The Anglo-Egyptian Agreement of 1953 had outlined the steps to be taken for Sudanese self-rule and self-determination.) The Condominium agreements established an office of governor-general, to be appointed, on British recommendation, by the khedive of Egypt and vested with supreme civil and military command. In theory Egypt shared a governing role, but in practice the structure of the Condominium ensured full British control over the Sudan. The governors and inspectors were customarily British officers, though technically serving in the Egyptian Army, and key figures in the government and civil service always remained graduates of British universities and military schools.

Source: Encyclopedia Britannica, DVD edition 2013. Source 2: Egypt wanted to be independent In November 1914 Britain declared war on the Ottoman Empire and in December proclaimed a protectorate over Egypt […]. Kitchener was succeeded by Sir Henry McMahon, and he by Sir Reginald Wingate, both with the title of high commissioner. Although Egypt did not have to provide troops, the people, especially the peasantry, suffered from the effects of war. The declaration of martial law and the suspension of the Legislative Assembly temporarily silenced the nationalists. […] On November 13th, 1918, two days after the Armistice, Wingate was visited by three Egyptian politicians headed by Saʿd Zaghlūl, who demanded autonomy for Egypt and announced his intention of leading a delegation (Arabic wafd) to state his case in England. The British government's refusal to accept a delegation, followed by the arrest of Zaghlūl, produced a widespread revolt in Egypt; and Sir Edmund Henry Hynman Allenby (later Lord Allenby), the victor over the Ottomans in Palestine, was sent out as special high commissioner. Allenby insisted on concessions to the nationalists, hoping to reach a settlement. [Egyptian nationalists finally] led his delegation to the Paris Peace Conference (1919–20), where it was denied a hearing to plead for Egypt's independence. The Wafd, in the meanwhile, had become a countrywide organization that dominated Egyptian politics. […] Finally, hoping to outmaneuver Zaghlūl1 and to build up a group of pro-British politicians in Egypt, Allenby pressed his government to promise independence without previously securing British interests by a treaty. The declaration of independence (Feb. 28, 1922) ended the protectorate but, pending negotiations, reserved four matters to the British government's

1 Egyptian nationalist leading the movement for the Egyptian independence.


2

discretion: the security of imperial communications, defense, the protection of foreign interests and of minorities, and the Sudan. […]

Source: Encyclopedia Britannica, DVD edition 2013. Source 3: British vision of Egyptian occupation and independence

Source: Cambridge History of Egypt, vol. 2, 1998, p. 247

Source 4: Egyptian independence, is it real?

Source: Cambridge History of Egypt, vol. 2, 1998, p. 250

Questions: 1. How did the British rule Egypt in the first quarter of the 20th century? The British didn’t rule properly Egypt as a colony in the first quarter of the 20th century. In 1899 they dominated Sudan in a condominium with the Egyptian king but, by the way, the Egyptian sultan didn’t many ways to act. In 1914, when he died, Egypt became a British protectorate but the British had to face Egyptian nationalists who refused the British domination.


3

2. On which ideas was based the British domination on Egypt? The British based their occupation on Egypt on colonial ideas. Indeed, the British needed to control and secure the route to the East, especially India so they figured out that controlling Egypt would be the key. They considered Egyptian as inferior and incapable of helping them to control this route. It’s also based on the ideas of the scramble for Africa where European people wanted to control more and more territories in Africa, and in the fight for that control with the French and the German. 3. What did the British have to face in Egypt and push them to give Egypt its independence? In Egypt, the British had to face nationalist movement directed by Zaghlul. They refused the control of the British on Egypt. They expected to be rewarded by the British from whom they fought during WWI in order to protect their interest from the Ottoman Empire and the German. The pressure put on the British in very important with revolts, complains at the Paris peace conference – even if the Egyptian delegation wasn’t listened –, and the use of the Wilson’s vision of self determination. 4. Was the independence of Egypt real? Why did the British tried to remain a large control

on Egypt? The independence of Egypt was partial. Indeed, even if the Egyptian government was at that time free to act, the British maintained their power on the territory to protect the route to the East. Four matters were preserved to the British government's discretion: the security of imperial communications, defense, the protection of foreign interests and of minorities, and the Sudan. Securing the route to the East and the Suez Canal Source 1: Britain’s steamship network

Source: Penguin Historical Atlas of the British Empire, p. 90


4

Source 2: Securing the Canal, the Middle East to 1945

Source: Penguin Historical Atlas of the British Empire, p. 117

Source 3: Secure the route to the East, a stake from the British When the Suez Canal opened in 1869, Egypt acquired an even greater strategic importance for the British Empire. […] Britain had a well-defended main line of communications based on naval power, strongpoints from Gibraltar to Aden and control adjacent territories. […] At the end of the war, Egyptian nationalism exploded in revolt (1919). To overcome the difficulties and expense of direct rule, Britain created a system of control by treaty, allowing independence (1922) but retaining a key role in Egyptian foreign affairs and defence. A treaty of 1936 arranged for the withdrawal of British troops, except from the Canal Zone, which was recognized as a British vital interest. […]

Source: Penguin Historical Atlas of the British Empire, p. 116-117 Questions: 1. Explain why controlling Egypt and the Suez Canal is so important for the British. Controlling the Suez Canal was very important for the British for several reasons:

- Securing the commercial routes from all around the Empire - Securing the route to the East


5

- Securing the maritime route allowing the exportation of oil, a raw material which has begun to be very coveted by all the power and the British controlled oil in Iraq by the company British Petroleum, called at that time the Anglo-Persian Oil Company.

2. Explain what kind of new raw material give the Suez Canal a particular importance. In that period, the second Industrial Revolution and transports revolution needed more and more oil to make work new machines and new cars, trucks, steamships and so on. Oil became very coveted and the Suez Canal was the easiest way to transport it to Europe and the USA. 3. Show that the British influence on Egypt was dropping except for the Canal Zone. Try to

figure out why. The British influence on Egypt dropped because in 1936 a treaty was signed for a completed independence. By the way, the British took the opportunity to limit the number of their soldiers in the Middle East at a time of the development of nationalism in many colonies and at a time of the discussions of the development of self government in many territories of the British Empire, even if it wasn’t for the immediate tomorrow. However the Canal Zone was still controlled by the British, because in a time of international uncertainty, they need to control the route to the East and to India to secure the area in a case of German or a Japanese attack and to secure the oil supply. 4. Did Egypt have the ability to exert a power in the Middle East at that time? It was hard for Egypt to exert a power in the Middle East at that time because it was still submitted to the western interests. From the British control to the American control Source 1: The Suez crisis, the end of British control in Egypt (1956), international crisis in the Middle East, precipitated on July 26, 1956, when the Egyptian president, Gamal Abdel Nasser, nationalized the Suez Canal. The canal had been owned by the Suez Canal Company, which was controlled by French and British interests. The Suez Crisis was provoked by an American and British decision not to finance Egypt's construction of the Aswan High Dam, as they had promised, in response to Egypt's growing ties with communist Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union. Nasser reacted to the American and British decision by declaring martial law in the canal zone and seizing control of the Suez Canal Company, predicting that the tolls collected from ships passing through the canal would pay for the dam's construction within five years. Britain and France feared that Nasser might close the canal and cut off shipments of petroleum flowing from the Persian Gulf to Western Europe. When diplomatic efforts to settle the crisis failed, Britain and France secretly prepared military action to regain control of the canal and, if possible, to depose Nasser. They found a ready ally in Israel, whose hostility toward Egypt had been exacerbated by Nasser's blockage of the Straits of Tīrān (at the mouth of the Gulf of Aqaba) and the numerous raids by Egyptian-supported commandos into Israel during 1955–56. On Oct. 29, 1956, 10 Israeli brigades invaded Egypt and advanced toward the canal, routing Egyptian forces. Britain and France, following their plan, demanded that Israeli and Egyptian troops withdraw from the canal, and they announced that they would intervene to enforce a cease-fire ordered by the United Nations. On November 5 and 6, British and French forces landed at Port Said and Port Fuad and began occupying the Canal Zone. This move was soon met by growing opposition at home and by U.S.-sponsored resolutions in the UN (made in part to counter Soviet threats of intervention), which quickly put a stop to the Anglo-French action. On December 22 the UN evacuated British and French troops, and Israeli forces withdrew in March 1957. Nasser emerged from the Suez Crisis a victor and a hero for the cause of Arab and Egyptian nationalism. Israel did not win freedom to use the canal, but it did regain shipping rights in the


6

Straits of Tīrān. Britain and France, less fortunate, lost most of their influence in the Middle East as a result of the episode.

Source: Encyclopedia Britannica, DVD edition 2013. Source 2: Nixon’s vision of cooperation with Anwar Al-Sadat2 […] As a leader, President Nasser did much to shape the destiny of his nation and the history of his era. It is significant to us that in his final days, he looked toward the prospects for peace as offered in the US proposal for a limited cease-fire and for talks between the parties to the Arab-Israeli conflict. We are encouraged by that constructive choice and by your assurances to Secretary Richardson that under your leadership, the United Arabic Republic continue to pursue these goals. The achievement of those goals is among the highest hopes of my country as well. […]

Source: Letter from Nixon to Sadat, October 14th 1970 (CIA website) Source 3: Anwar Al-Sadat’s vision of the cooperation with the USA3 […] We honestly believed, dear President, that Gamal Abdel Nasser was an historic figure, who transcended, through the formidable role he filled, all the bounds and obstacles of the […] narrow differences brought about the political development of events. For he gave his life and dedicated his effort to the cause of just struggle of his Arab nation and that of other nations looking forward to, and hoping and struggling or, the realisation of political and social progresse for subjugated peoples, the prevalence of principles of true freedom [in the lives] of both nations and individuals, and the vindication of the principles of peace based on justice. […] All these objectives and principles were not Gamal Abdel Nasser’s alone. Nor are they ours alone as we continue, after him, our only means to [insure] the security of that part of the world in which we live and the tranquility and well-being of its people – all of which affect world progress and peace. It had long been his view, and likewise has been ours, that the achievement of all these objectives could be brought about through close relations with the people and Government of the USA. […] In his relationship with the USA, President Gamal Abdel Nasser did not ask for much. Nor do we, after him, ask for much. He stated several times, and I have since confirmed, that what we seek and desire the most is an understanding of the realities of our position, the motives of our struggle, and our concern about the security and territorial integrity of our nation, which have been violated by Israel three times within lifetime of our generation. […]

Source: Letter from Sadat to Nixon, November 23rd 1970 (CIA website) Source 4: Egypt alliance with the USA: Egypt is the United States’ most reliable and influential Arab ally. Its size, central geographic location, and cultural and political leadership render it an indispensable partner for the United States. Egyptian-American relations are based on common goals and interest and have been vital for advancing peace and stability in the Middle East. Throughout the last three decades, Egypt proved that it is prepared to play its role as the foremost regional leader. The Egyptian American relationship has matured into a partnership based on numerous shared goals and values. The current persisting challenges in the Middle East necessitate more cooperation between both countries. The mutual interests and objectives of both countries continue to drive them to engage each other into the future. […] Needless to say, Egypt is also situated in an important geo-strategic location, connecting east and west through the Suez Canal.

2 This letter was sent after Nasser’s funeral where an American delegation led by Mr. Richardson was sent. 3 This letter is the answer to the previous letter sent by president Richard Nixon to Anwar Al-Sadat


7

The United States as a global power with a wide range of Middle Eastern and international interests will remain keenly engaged in developing its relations with Egypt in order to safeguard its long term interests in the region. During the past thirty years, there has been a growing common ground of mutual interests on which future relations with the US can be based. I believe that development, peace and stability are the basis of our common interests. […] Egypt and the Unites States share regional and global common interests. They work closely on several issues including achieving regional stability, combating terrorism, curbing the proliferation of W[eapons of] M[ass] D[destruction]s, advancing moderate Islamic values, participating in peace-keeping operations around the world, expanding trade and increasing regional economic integration. […] Egypt is America’s key partner in the Middle East. Egypt is capable of promoting shared goals of peace and stability not only in the Middle East, but also in Southwest Asia, the Horn of Africa, and North Africa. The US-Egypt relationship has grown to include working closely on counter-terrorism; the Israeli-Palestinian peace process; the War of Liberation of Kuwait, peacekeeping operations in Sudan, Bosnia, East Timor, Somalia and elsewhere mainly in Africa; expanding bilateral trade and commercial relations; deepening regional economic integration; and promoting moderate Islamic values and representative governments in the Arab world. […] The 1979 Egypt-Israel peace treaty is the basis for all subsequent efforts toward broader peace in the Middle East and for US-Egypt security cooperation. Progress on Israeli-Palestinian peace can only be achieved with close cooperation between Egypt and the United States. Israeli withdrawal from Gaza could not have been achieved without full Egyptian cooperation and support future progress in this area will require eve greater Egyptian-American cooperation.

Source: Egyptian embassy to Washington DC (website), January 2013. Questions: 1. How did the British rule end in the Egypt? In July 1956, Nasser, who dreamed of setting up a pan-Arabist state, recognized Communist China. Consequently Anglo-American loan for the construction of the Aswan Dam was withdrawn on July 19th. Nasser’s immediate response was to nationalize the Suez Canal Company. This comprised shares held mainly by the British government and by financiers both in Britain and France. Nasser reacted to the American and British decision by declaring martial law in the canal zone and seizing control of the Suez Canal Company, predicting that the tolls collected from ships passing through the canal would pay for the dam's construction within five years. Britain and France feared that Nasser might close the canal and cut off shipments of petroleum flowing from the Persian Gulf to western Europe. When diplomatic efforts to settle the crisis failed, Britain and France secretly prepared military action to regain control of the canal and, if possible, to depose Nasser. They found a ready ally in Israel, whose hostility toward Egypt had been exacerbated by Nasser's blockage of the Straits of Tīrān (at the mouth of the Gulf of Aqaba) and the numerous raids by Egyptian-supported commandos into Israel during 1955–56. On Oct. 29, 1956, 10 Israeli brigades invaded Egypt and advanced toward the canal, routing Egyptian forces. Britain and France, following their plan, demanded that Israeli and Egyptian troops withdraw from the canal, and they announced that they would intervene to enforce a cease-fire ordered by the United Nations. On November 5 and 6, British and French forces landed at Port Said and Port Fuad and began occupation of the canal zone, but growing opposition at home and in the UN and Soviet threats of intervention put an immediate stop to


8

the Anglo-French action. On December 22 the UN evacuated British and French troops, and Israeli forces withdrew in March 1957. Nasser emerged from the Suez Crisis a victor and a hero for the cause of Arab and Egyptian nationalism. Israel did not win freedom to use the canal, but it did regain shipping rights in the Straits of Tīrān. Britain and France, less fortunate, lost most of their influence in the Middle East as a result of the episode. This episode forces the USA into accepting a greater degree in the area and recognizing the existence of the soviet threat there. 2. How did the relationship between Egypt and the USA evolve throughout the period from

1956 to nowadays? Prove that the peace process between Arabic countries and Israel has influenced the US-Egyptian relationship since 1948.

The relationship between Egypt and the USA was changing during the period. After the Suez crisis, even if the USA attempted to negotiate with Nasser about the Suez Canal, Egypt refused linked with the USA for two main reasons:

- Nasser wanted to make Egypt a real power in the region and in the Third World, representing his country as the symbolic leader of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) against the two superpower, the USSR and the USA

- Nasser felt humiliated by the US attitude during the Suez Canal Crisis in 1956 After Nasser’s death, even if Anwar Al-Sadat wanted to appear as the leader of the Middle East, he negotiated with the USA and obtained the US support as soon as he accepted the existence of Israel and to sign a separated peace treaty, considered a betrayal by many Arabic countries involved in the Arabic-Israeli conflict. 3. Which were the main domains of cooperation between the two countries? Two main domains of cooperation linked the USA and Egypt:

- The peace process between Israel and the Palestinians - Counter terrorism.

4. How did Egypt become one the most important leaders of the region? Egypt became a leader of the Middle East by developing a power in the region based on its ability to be an inescapable interlocutor in the peace process in the region, especially in the Israeli-Palestinian processe, and as the country controlling the Suez Canal, one of the most important maritime threshold (=seuil).


9

The important sanctions on Syria from the USA on the last months show in what ways the region is a key in the world diplomatic game among the Western countries. Western control on the region began before WW1 but it increased after the disappearance of the Ottoman Empire in 1918. The control already appeared with the definition of the Middle-East that changed by the time (see power point). It was first define by the British during WW2 and with a large extent from Marocco to Afghanistan by the USA during the Cold War, and after the collapse of the USSR in 1991. So in what ways the Middle-East has been a permanent stake for the Western powers since the end of the First World War? I. The Middle-East, a key strategic point for the Western powers

A. A key location for the control of the colonial Empires Voir étude de cas, partie 2

B. Hydrocarbons resources, a growing vital need since 1918 Sources to use: oil production in the different areas of the world (Paul Guiness, IB Diploma textbook, 2011), The world oil flows through six critical choke points (Paul Guinness, IB Diploma textbook, 2011), securing the Suez Canal (source: Penguin Historical Atlas of the British Empire) Source 1: oil production in the different areas of the world “From less than 60 million barrels a day globally in the early 1980s, demand rose steeply to 84.5 million barrels a day in 2008. The largest increase has been in the Asia-Pacific region which now accounts for 30.1% of consumption. This region now uses more oil than North America which accounts for 27.45% of the world total. In contrast, Africa consumed only 3.4% of global oil, behind South and Central America with 6.9%. The pattern of regional production is markedly different from that of consumption. In 2008, the Middle East accounted for 31.9% of production, followed by Europe and Eurasia (21.7%). North America (15.8%), and Africa (12.4%). Within the Middle East, Saudi Arabia dominated production, alone accounting for 13.1% of the world total. Russia accounts for over half the total production of Europe and Eurasia. […] In 2008, the Middle East accounted for almost 60% of global proved reserves. […] Europe and Eurasia held the second largest proved reserves, with 11.3% of the world total. Russia accounted for over half of the latter figure. […] The US government’s Energy Information Agency predicts that the demand for oil will rise by 54% in the first quarter of the 21st century. (…) It is the Newly Industrialised Countries that are increasing their energy demand at the fastest rate. China alone has accounted for one-third of the growth in global oil demand since 2000. China passed Japan as the world’s second largest user of oil in 2004. (…) The demand for oil in China is expected to increase by 5-7% a year. If this occurs, China will take over from the USA as the world’s largest consumer of oil by 2025.”

Source: Paul GUINNESS, Geography for the IB Diploma, Cambridge UP, 2011 Source 2: The world oil flows through six critical choke points


10

Source: Paul Guinness, IB Diploma textbook, 2011

Source 3: Securing the canal

Source: Penguin Historical Atlas of the British Empire

Questions (think about using what we saw on the case study) 1. Identify why the Middle-East is a strategic place in the world?


11

The Middle East is a key strategic place in the world for several reasons: - the importance of oil reserves. Indeed, the Middle East has been the most important

reservoir of hydrocarbons in the world since their discoveries at the end of the 19th centuries for industrial purposes (oil was already used for lamp by the Assyrians and the Babylonians).

- the importance of maritime routes and straits that allow the development of trade by the use of the Suez Canal which was and still is a short-cut in the transportation of products from Asia or the Arabic Peninsula to Europe and then the USA.

- the importance of its position as a crossroads between Asia, Europe and Africa. 2. Prove that the Middle-East has been coveted since 1918 by the Western powers. Middle East has been coveted by the western powers since 1918 for their industrial development at first. Indeed, with the Industrial Revolution, they needed more and more oil as a power source for new engines and new systems of productions and transportations. Since 1918, the western oil companies have taken the control of oil field as British Petroleum. Before WW2, they controlled the fields and a large amount of the benefits from transformation and sales but after WW2 and the movement of independences, the Arabic countries such as Iraq, Iran or Libya nationalized a large part of the oil and gas field and ask for more and more royalties. During the period of the Cold War, the region was a stake for the two superpowers to enlarge their oil supply even if both of them had reserves on their territories. In the meantime, the attempts of control on the region by the USA were the results of the containment policy, and the doctrine of the roll back or the Dominoes theory developed in the 1940s and 1950s. 3. Could the control of hydrocarbons resources have given a particular power to the region? The control of the hydrocarbons has given to the region a means of pressure and a way of power on the world, and especially the western world. It has allowed a lot of Arabic countries to increase their GDP, even if this large amount of money is controlled by a few leaders in some countries or only by the natives of the country and not the immigrants who work in the refineries or in the oil fields as in the United Arabic Emirates or in Qatar or in Oman. The rarefaction of oil could be a stronger and stronger mean of pressure for those countries and give them a new source of power in the future. II. The period of the Mandates, the Middle-East under British control

A. The Middle-East, between freedom and Mandates Sources to use: The Middle-East after the post-WWI treaties (Penguin Historical Atlas of the British Empire, 2010), The League of Nations divided the Middle-East into territories under western control (League of Nations, article 22 of the Covenant, signed on June 28th 1919). Source 1: The Middle-East after the post-WWI treaties


12

Source: Penguin Historical Atlas of the British Empire, 2010.

Source 2: The League of Nations divided the Middle-East into territories under western control To those colonies and territories which as a consequence of the late war have ceased to be under the sovereignty of the States which formerly governed them and which are inhabited by peoples not yet able to stand by themselves under the strenuous conditions of the modern world, there should be applied the principle that the well-being and development of such peoples form a sacred trust of civilisation and that securities for the performance of this trust should be embodied in this Covenant. The best method of giving practical effect to this principle is that the tutelage of such peoples should be entrusted to advanced nations who by reason of their resources, their experience or their geographical position can best undertake this responsibility, and who are willing to accept it, and that this tutelage should be exercised by them as Mandatories on behalf of the League. […] Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish Empire have reached a stage of development where their existence as independent nations can be provisionally recognized subject to the rendering of administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone. The wishes of these communities must be a principal consideration in the selection of the Mandatory. […]

Source: League of Nations, article 22 of the Covenant, signed on June 28th 1919

Questions: 1. Identify the country with the most important control on the Middle-East at that time. The country that controlled the most part of the Middle East at that time is the United Kingdom:

- Protectorate on Egypt until 1922 and control on four main matters on the Egyptian territory until 1936

- Mandate on Palestine and on Tranjordan - Empire of India with the control of Pakistan

2. Identify the limits of the Mandates.


13

The French mandate is limited to Lebanon and Syria whereas the British mandate controlled the entire Palestine and Transjordan so a key part of the region. 3. Identify the rights and the obligations the mandatory powers had to respect. Was it the

case? Western powers had multiple obligations as mandatory powers:

- Strengthening the economic development in the region under their protection and allowing populations and local politicians to take initiatives in economy

- Developing the organisation of defence system by creating armies or local militias. But the British troops, as the French either, on these territories were financed by local populations

- Ensuring liberty of conscience and religion - Ensuring equality between “races”

The mandatory power had also rights: - Possibility of using the entire system of communication: ports, railroads, … - Possibility to obtain oil and gas supply according to the agreement granted by local

populations. 4. Why was it so important for the British to control this area? See case study

B. The Mandatory powers questioned by the local populations Sources to use: The Balfour Declaration (source: British Foreign office, November 2nd 1917), Arab and Jewish views of British rule in Palestine (In J. Dimbleby, The Palestinians, 1979, New York Herald Tribune, May 1947) Source 1: The Balfour Declaration 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 favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours 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 sincerely, Arthur James Balfour

Source: British Foreign office, November 2nd 1917 Source 2: Arab and Jewish views of British rule in Palestine An old Palestinian living in a refugee camp in, Lebanon “Put this in your book. The British cheated us. They promised us freedom and instead we had the mandate. And do you know what the policy of the Mandate was? It said we, the people of Palestine, were not mature enough to govern ourselves… And worse that even, they brought ruin to our land and made us homeless. You, the British, brought foreigners to Palestine and made us exiles.” In J. Dimbleby, The Palestinians, 1979 Ben Hecht a leading American Zionist “The Jews Of America are with you [Zionist in Palestine]… You are the grin4 they wear… Every time you send a British railroad sky-high… or let go with your guns and bombs at the 4 A wide smile


14

British betrayers and invaders of your homeland, the Jews of America make a little holiday in their hearts.” New York Herald Tribune, May 1947 Questions: 1. Identify the criticisms made against the British rule in the Middle-East (don’t forget to use

the case study). Many criticisms were developed against the mandatory powers:

- People accused them to deprive them from their liberty - People accused them not to respect equality between people - People accused them not to respect their promises, especially in the matter of

development and self-government - People accused them to spoil their land.

2. Using the example of Palestine, explain what kind of reactions were developed against the British rule and which consequences did it have for the region.

Revolts and terrorist actions were developed against British rule. In the case of Palestine, the Arabs and the Jews, especially the Stern group and the Haganah, made terrorist attacks against British interest, troops and people. It caused the immediate withdrawal of the British that let the UN solve the problem of Palestine. That caused divisions and violence, and political and geopolitical problems which haven’t been solved yet, especially between Arabic countries, the Palestinians and Israel. III. The Cold War, the turning point to the American control

A. The second world war and the Suez Crisis, the end of the British rule Sources to use: Angry comments in the USA (The Times, November 2nd 1956), The U.N. tells Britain to quit Suez (Daily Mirror, 25th November 1956), "... and how long will it take you to clear away this wreckage, Sir Anthony?" (Daily Mirror, November 20th, 1956), President Eisenhower: The Eisenhower Doctrine of “vital interests” on the Middle East, A Message to Congress, January 5, 1957 (Source: from The Department of State Bulletin,, XXXV1, No. 917 (January 21, 1957), p. 83-87.) Source 1: Angry comments in the USA President Eisenhower's restrained declaration of a policy of non-involvement in the Middle East is hardly reflected in the bitter denunciation and anger expressed by most American commentators on Britain and France for intervening in the Suez Affair by bombing Egyptian airfields and destroying practically the whole Egyptian air-force on the ground.

Source: The Times, November 2nd 1956 Source 2: The U.N. tells Britain to quit Suez The United Nations last night demanded the immediate withdrawal of British, French and Israeli forces from Egypt. The demand came in a resolution put before the General Assembly by the 17 nation Asian-Africa Group, with the support of the USA. The vote in favour was 65 to 1. Earlier, in the Commons, Sir Anthony Eden told MPs that British troops would not leave Egypt until a United Nations force took over. A United Nations resolution calling for the setting up of such a force was passed last night by sixty-five votes to nil.

Source: Daily Mirror, 25th November 1956 Source 3: "... and how long will it take you to clear away this wreckage, Sir Anthony?"


15

The two people represented are Anthony Eden (British Prime minister) and Hammarskjöld Dag (General Secretary of the United Nations)

Source: Published in the Daily Mirror, November 20th, 1956 Source 4: President Eisenhower: The Eisenhower Doctrine of “vital interests” on the Middle East, A Message to Congress, January 5, 1957 The Middle East has abruptly reached a new and critical stage in its long and important history. […] Russia's rulers have long sought to dominate the Middle East. […] The Soviet Union has nothing whatsoever to fear from the United States in the Middle East, or anywhere else in the world, so long as its rulers do not themselves first resort to aggression. That statement I make solemnly and emphatically. . . . The reason for Russia's interest in the Middle East is solely that of power politics. Considering her announced purpose of Communizing the world, it is easy to understand her hope of dominating the Middle East. . . . […] Thus, we have these simple and indisputable facts: 1. The Middle East, which has always been coveted by Russia, would today be prized more

than ever by International Communism. 2. The Soviet rulers continue to show that they do not scruple to use any incans to gain their

ends. 3. The free nations of the Mid East need, and for the most part want, added strength to assure

their continued independence. […] The action which I propose would have the following features. It would, first of all, authorize the United States to cooperate with and assist any nation or group of nations in the


16

general area of the Middle East in the development of economic strength dedicated to the maintenance of national independence. It would, in the second place, authorize the Executive to undertake in the same region programs of military assistance and cooperation with any nation or group of nations which desires such aid. It would, in the third place, authorize such assistance and cooperation to include the employment of the armed forces of the United States to secure and protect the territorial integrity and political independence of such nations, requesting such aid, against overt armed aggression from any nation controlled by International Communism. These measures would have to be consonant with the treaty obligations of the United States, including the Charter of the United Nations and with any action or recommendations of the United Nations. They would also, if armed attack occurs, be subject to the overriding authority of the United Nations Security Council in accordance with the Charter. The present proposal would, in the fourth place, authorize the President to employ, for economic and defensive military purposes […].

Source: from The Department of State Bulletin,, XXXV1, No. 917 (January 21, 1957), p. 83-87. Questions (don’t forget to use what was seen in the case study): 1. Identify the consequences of WWI on the British influence in the Middle-East. The region was coveted by the USSR which had as main objectives to:

- establish friendship regimes - obtain a passageway for its fleet in the Mediterranean sea

The USA considered that the failure from the French and the British has let a vacuum in the East, a vacuum of power from which the USSR could profit. 2. How did the Suez crisis destroy the British influence in the Middle-East? Which power

took control of the region after that (precise if it was challenged)? See case study

3. Why did the American decided to become a leader of the Middle-East? Eisenhower, the American president decided to become a leader of the Middle-East and he delivered a speech to the Congress on March 9th 1957 where he developed his policy for the Middle East: the “policy of the vital interests”. That policy determined three main interests for the USA in the Middle East:

- protection of the Holly lands from an atheist power - key strategic importance of the region in the fight against the USSR - oil

The American president was authorised to give economic, financial and military aids if necessary to assist any country assaulted by Communism. Some countries accepted that doctrine such as Saudi Arabia but Egypt from Nasser and Syria were opposed to it.

B. The USA as a diplomatic leader of the region: Sources to use: sources from the last part of the case study, Camp David agreement, Oslo agreement. Source 1: The Camp David Agreement US President Carter played a leading part in working out the agreement. In November 1977, Sadat took the unprecedented step of visiting Israel, becoming the first Arab leader to do so (and implicitly recognizing Israel’s right to exist). Then Carter invited both Sadat and Begin (Israel new Likud Prime Minister) to a summit at Camp David to negotiate a final peace.


17

The talks took from September 5 to September 17 1978. Ultimately, the talks succeeded and Israel and Egypt signed the Israel-Egypt Peace treaty in 1979. Israel withdrew its troops and settlers from the Sinai, in exchange for normal relations with Egypt and a lasting peace. But Begin made no move to give the Left Bank to the Palestinians or the Golan Heights to Syria. Many in the Arab community were outraged at Egypt’s peace with Israel. Egypt was expelled from the Arab League. Sadat was even assassinated on October 6, 1979, while attending a parade, by Army members who were outraged at his negotiations with Israel.

Source: Bryn O' Callaghan, A history of the Twentieth Century, London, 2002 Source2: 1993 Oslo agreement The intifada had rallied the Palestinian people and the Palestine Liberation Organization realized that both this method of opposing the Israelis and its own armed struggle would not be enough to bring political benefits. The Palestinian National Council (a government-in-exile) renounced terrorism and started to seek a negotiated settlement based on Resolution 242, which called for Israel to withdraw from territory captured in the 1967 war, and Resolution 338. Secret talks encouraged by the Norwegian government took place and these resulted in a Declaration of Principles. This said they had agreed it was "time to put an end to decades of confrontation and conflict, recognise their mutual legitimate and political rights, and strive to live in peaceful coexistence and mutual dignity and security and achieve a just, lasting and comprehensive peace settlement". It called for a five-year transitional period in which Israeli forces would withdraw from occupied territories and a Palestinian Authority would be set up, leading to a permanent settlement. It was signed on the White House lawn in September 1993 in the presence of Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat. It was followed by a peace treaty with Jordan in 1994.

Source: news.bbc.uk.co Source 3: Middle-East during the Cold War

Questions (use also the case study) 1. Identify the reason why the Middle-East was coveted by the American and by the Soviets. Several reasons explain what these superpowers coveted the region:

- Oil - Maritime routes - Avoiding the other to control the region

2. Show that the Middle-East is a key strategic point for both of the countries.


18

In the 1950s, the Arabic East had to face internal and external challenges. The Cold war took its origin in the region (Iranian and Turkish crisis in 1945-1946). The region is coveted by the USSR in order to have friend state in the region and to find a way to have a route to the Mediterranean Sea. The USA defined the region as a new zone of “roll back” of the communist expansion. Their interest weren’t only ideological because oil played a major role in the American policy. Dans les années 1950, l’Orient arabe est confronté à des défis à la fois externes et internes. La Guerre Froide a prise ses origines dans la région (crises turques et iraniennes de 1945-1946). 3. How did the conflict between Israel and the Arabic countries become one of the most important diplomatic concerns for the Western power in the Middle-East? How did the USA try to solve the problem? Did they act alone? The conflict between Israel and the Arabic countries became one of the most important diplomatic concerns first because it was an UN vote that created the states of Israel in 1948, so the international community has felt responsible ever since. Moreover, the conflict between Israel and the Arabic countries destabilized the region for a long time but the region is a key strategic point for the maritime routes, especially oil trade in the region. Moreover, as the creation of the UN in 1945 showed, and even if it wasn’t always respected during the Cold War and even after, the objective of world peace has always been challenged in that region. Many attempts were made by the USA in order to find a solution. First, during the Cold War, when the alliances in the region were fluctuating – indeed Israel became an American ally only in 1967 –, the USA tried to support different countries to stop the conflict, using pressure on them, especially monetary pressure as it was made on Egypt in 1956. But, in the end, it was the diplomatic way which was chosen by supporting UN resolutions as the resolutions 242 and 338, by organizing international summit between the countries and peoples at war such as in Camp David in 1977, or with Madeleine Albright, foreign us secretary of state under Bill Clinton’s administration or with road map for peace which has been regularly updated since 1993 and the Oslo agreements. The USA didn’t act alone anyway because they have paid attention to the UN resolutions and because Oslo peace process was at the origin a negotiation and diplomatic talks engaged by Norwegian diplomacy and only finalized by the USA at a meeting in DC with Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat.

C. The New World Order, the region under American pressure Source 1: Oil and military presence in the Caspian and the Middle East region.


19

Source 2: American intervention in the Middle East, not a western consent

Characters from the left to the right on the first frame: Jacques Chirac, Gerhard Schroeder, Vladimir Poutine and G. W. Bush.

Source: The Economist, September 6th, 2003


20

Source 3: G. W. Bush’s vision of the Middle-East The White House Rose Garden, April 4, 2002, 11 a.m. Good morning. During the course of one week, the situation in the Middle East has deteriorated dramatically. Last Wednesday, my Special Envoy, Anthony Zinni, reported to me that we were on the verge of a cease-fire agreement that would have spared Palestinian and Israeli lives. That hope fell away when a terrorist attacked a group of innocent people in a Netanya hotel, killing many men and women in what is a mounting toll of terror. In the days since, the world has watched with growing concern the horror of bombings and burials and the stark picture of tanks in the street. Across the world, people are grieving for Israelis and Palestinians who have lost their lives. When an 18-year-old Palestinian girl is induced to blow herself up, and in the process kills a 17-year-old Israeli girl, the future, itself, is dying -- the future of the Palestinian people and the future of the Israeli people. We mourn the dead, and we mourn the damage done to the hope of peace, the hope of Israel's and the Israelis' desire for a Jewish state at peace with its neighbors; the hope of the Palestinian people to build their own independent state. Terror must be stopped. No nation can negotiate with terrorists. For there is no way to make peace with those whose only goal is death. This could be a hopeful moment in the Middle East. The proposal of Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, supported by the Arab League, has put a number of countries in the Arab world closer than ever to recognizing Israel's right to exist. The United States is on record supporting the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinian people for a Palestinian state. Israel has recognized the goal of a Palestinian state. The outlines of a just settlement are clear: two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side, in peace and security. This can be a time for hope. But it calls for leadership, not for terror. Since September the 11th, I've delivered this message: everyone must choose; you're either with the civilized world, or you're with the terrorists. All in the Middle East also must choose and must move decisively in word and deed against terrorist acts. […]

Source: White house website Questions: 1. Prove that the Middle-East has still been a key strategic location since the end of the Cold

War Since the end of the Cold War, the Middle East has remained a key strategic location for oil at first. With the rarefaction of oil and the difficulties to supply world increasing need of this energy in a more or less close future, this area, with the most important oil reserve in the world would continue to be very important for the world. Moreover, at the end, they could use oil as an economic weapon, increasing their power on the international scene. Moreover, the Middle East became the first theater of operation at the beginning of the New World Order, as G. Bush sr., defined it in 1991 with the first Gulf War (or Persian War). Finally, the Middle East is a key strategic position in counter-terrorism with two preventive wars after 09/11/2001 attacks on Afghanistan, against the Taliban and Al Qaida, and on Iraq against Saddam Hussein. A lot of American and European troops are still stationed in this region as the French, the British and the American troops in Afghanistan. 2. Show that the Middle-East is now the theater of counter-terrorism for the USA but that it

is impossible for it to act alone. The USA declared war on Terror after the 9/11 attacks. The Middle East was the main target with several countries which were considered as a part of the Axis of Evil according to G. W. Bush Junior: Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan (the others are Sudan and North Korea). In Afghanistan, they attacked the Taliban at the head of an international coalition. In Iraq, in 2003, after the


21

French refusal of intervention in the UN – France wanted to wait for the UN inspectors on weapon of mass destruction to finish their work before engaging a military action –, the USA decided to intervene alone because they suspected Saddam Hussein to have weapon of mass destruction, especially chemical weapons, the wanted to use on Israel and on other countries of the region. The USA also secured several alliances in the region, such as with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan in order to intervene quickly if necessary as Osama Bin Laden’s death proved it. The USA has also permanent fleet in the Arabian Sea and the Indian Ocean capable to intervene at any time everywhere in the Middle East and to protect ships crossing the spoke of Bad el Mandab to go to the Suez Canal. The Middle-East has been considered by the western power a key strategic location in the control of the commercial maritime routes at the time of the colonial Empires or the control of hydrocarbon resources, essential for the industrial development. However, western domination has been fluctuant since 1918. First it was the European domination controlled by the French and the British. Then, after WW2 and the fact that the mandatory powers were weakened, the region became a stake between the two superpowers: the USA and the USSR. Finally, at the end of the Cold War, the USA played a major role in the region, able to influence peace process, government transformations but causing as well the rise of a deep anti-Americanism, notably because of their actions during the Iraqi war, the war on Afghanistan and the resolution of conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians.

Documents

Chapter 2: The Middle East since 1918 Case Study: Egypt, a ... · Chapter 2: The Middle East since 1918 4 Source 2: Securing the Canal, the Middle East to 1945 Source: Penguin Historical