Middle East and colonization

Naphsica PAPANICOLAOU

Student number : 657096

Comparative politics of the Middle East

To what extent do the colonial origins of many states in the Middle East explain their contemporary politics? Illustrate your answer with reference to more than one Middle Eastern state.

Introduction

First off, what is the Middle East ? How is this region of the world defined ? Roderic Davison (1960) likes to refer to Mr. Dulles when he defined the Middle East as « the area lying between and including Libya on the west and Pakistan on the east and Turkey on the north and the Arabian peninsula to the south ».

In the 19th century, the Ottomans were ruling much of the Arab world but their power was weakening, to the point that the Ottoman Empire was called « sick old man of Europe » (De Bellaigue, 2001). The great European powers took advantage of this weakness and began to establish their influences. Indeed, the French and the British were thinking in terms of territorial imperialism: to be powerful, a country must dominate extended territories, spread over the whole globe. Besides, economic reasons were also at stake; the colonies provided raw materials and represented outlets for the colonizing powers. The first World War changed everything (Woodward, 2011) : while the Ottoman Empire rallied Germany, Arab nationalists wanted to take advantage of the conflict to get rid of the tutelage of the Ottoman Empire and establish a vast independent Arab state. In this sense, they made contact with the French and the British, who let them know that if they went to war against the Turks, once victorious, the great Powers would establish an Arab kingdom – comprising most of the Arabic-speaking regions of the Ottoman Empire (Palestine, Syria, the Arabian Peninsula and Iraq) –. According to this engagement, the Arab uprising against the Ottomans broke out in June 1916. In the aftermath of the collapse of the Ottoman Empire in 1918, the Allies broke their promises, by concluding the Treaty of Sevres which established the division of the former Empire. France and England received mandates from the Society of Nations to administer the territories ; Syria and Lebanon for France ; Iraq, Jordan and Palestine for England (Gould and Pate, 2016).

As Edward Said believed (1978) the construction of the East is part of a relationship of power and domination from the West - Europe in the first place. Indeed, « Indigenous nationalism » is born of the awareness of the subjection represented by the colonial fact (Jeffrey Haynes). The questioning of colonial domination takes its sources in the colonial system itself. And the decolonization period which extends from 1922 (Egypt) to 1971 (Bahrain, UEA and Qatar) was marked by civil and military revolts. And it is clear that for most Middle Eastern states, colonial rule ended some sixty years ago, but its legacy continues in contemporary Middle Eastern politics.

The origins of colonization are still very present today in the Middle East and can even explain their contemporary policies. From Nasser’s pan Arabism to Lebanese arbitrarily designed borders, the settlers’ influence is still omnipresent. Moreover,  one may see that the recent Arab Spring has allowed the old colonizing powers to replace and regain their importance in the region by supporting certain political regimes - of which some can be qualified of dictatorships -.

The Egyptian policy from King Farouk to Al-Sissi, a direct result of colonialism

        Whether they are pro or anti-Western, Egyptian politics have always been influenced by the relationship that stems from colonization. Indeed, Nasser came into power after defeating King Farouk in 1952, he adopted the opposite behaviour of the King who was pro-Western, by setting up a program of nationalizations and socialism, which greatly displeased the former settlers, France and Great Britain. In this sense in 1956, Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal as a sign of independence and reject of the West. France and Great Britain tried a military operation against the Egyptian government to take back the Canal, but without success. According to Michael Schupe (1980), a year before the Suez crisis Egypt was already « becoming increasingly nationalistic and was trying to break away from the domination of Great Britain, which still controlled large parts of Africa ». So, this nationalization was perceived as  a victory of Arab nationalism over Western imperialism and was received with great enthusiasm throughout the Arab world  (Podeh, 1993).

Nasser's aura in the Arab world and in the Third World was immense, and his stature gave him the opportunity to develop the movement of non-aligned, with Tito, Nehru, Zhou Enlai, and all those who recognized themselves in anti-imperialist values and refused to be instrumentalized by colonial ideology of domination (Miskovic, Fisher-Tiné and Boskovska, 2014). In fact, Nasser's foreign policy intervened on two levels (Farouk, 2010): first at the Arab world level where the Nasserian ideology got more and more success and which aimed at unifying Arab countries in a set in which Egypt would play a central role. Indeed, Nasser was one of the greatest figure of the Pan-Arabism movement. He took advantage of the strong anti-Zionism as well as the strong rejection of the West present among the Arabs in an attempt to unite the Arabs around a socialist and secular ideology. The Palestinian cause constitutes the symbolic struggle on which the outcome of this project would depend, since Israel is the main regional threat and geographical obstacle between North Africa and the Middle East. According to Tariq Al Hammadi (2013) ; « the greatest factors that damaged the credibility of pan-Arabism were the defeat by Israel in 1967 and the lack economic growth of the nations that adopted pan-Arabism ». Then at the African level, where colonialism was the main issue all across the continent, Egypt committed itself alongside the people fighting for their independence, opposed imperialism and racism and favoured modernization projects to be the pillars of African integration -Arab.

Thus, Nasser's Egypt was constructed in opposition to colonialism. And, even after his death, Nasser continued to benefit from the image of a leader, uncompromising  with Western power. But it is different for his successors. Indeed, Sadat adopted a genuinely different logic by partnering with the United States in the 70s (Spiegel, 2015). Since then, Sadat’s legacy has had a huge influence in the country. In fact, the Egyptian current President, El-Sisi, is still in this logic (Reuters, 2017).  

...