IB History HL

– The three big European players in the Middle East are allies in World War 1.
– The competition between the three is decreased due to the greater problem of fighting Germany and the Austrian Empire removing all motivation for supporting the Ottoman Empire
– The Ottoman Empire joins the enemy coalition

– Out of fear of a Russian invasion
• Continuous wars with Russia for the past 100 years
– Attempt to regain traditional territory in the
Balkans
– Attempt to maintain control over other minority groups still in the Empire
• Armenians, Arabs, Kurds

Main themes: Post-War Settlement
– A product of great power politics – believed that they were the only effective administrators
– Did not provide the area with political stability because the administration did not reflect the areas inhabitants
– Growing sense of Arab nationalism due to increased expectations - Wilson 14 Points, war promises

Main themes – Post War Settlements
• Dramatically altered the political map of the
Arab world
• Set the state for many of today’s conflicts
• Many of today’s modern states did not exist prior to World War 1

A. The nature of British Middle Eastern Policy
– Design to foster Arab support against the Ottoman
Empire
– Ottoman Sultan also the Caliph – fear of general Muslim uprising/support particularly in India
– Policy formation lacked a common direction resulting in contradictory policies. Policy was being directed by three different ministries
• Foreign Affairs
• The Indian Office
• The Arab Bureau

The Allied Wartime Promises
B. Constantinople Agreement (March 1915)
• Russia to be given Constantinople and the
Turkish Straits
– Russia
• wanted recognition of their interests before any collapse of the OE due to the lack of a military presence in the region.
• Promised to recognize British and French interests

The Allied Wartime Promises
C. The Hussein-McMahon correspondence of 1915
– Letter: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1915mcmahon.h
tml
– Main goal was to attempt to incite a revolt and collapse the OE
– Hussein – governor of the Holy Cities
– British concerns –
• Hussein may join the Triple Alliance and call for a holy war against the Allied powers
• Promise an independent Arab state

The Allied Wartime Promises
D. The Hussein-McMahon correspondence of
1915
– Hussein’s demands
• Large territorial concessions that covered most of the
Arab world in the Middle East
– British response
• Vague – ran with British administrative advice
• French interests were to be protected, Lebanon excluded
• Large territorial demand not rejected outright – nothing soled or settled

The Allied Wartime Promises
E. Sykes-Picot Agreement 1916

The Allied Wartime Promises
E. Sykes-Picot Agreement 1916
A secret agreement between the European Powers that divided up the
Middle East between them. Conducted during the war and before the war is won
• Agreement: http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/wwi/1916/sykespicot.html
– Post-war plan that was to take place in case a sudden collapse of the Ottoman Empire
– France and Britain – try to avoid post-war fighting and disputes over territory. Agreement to honor each others interests

The Allied Wartime Promises
Sykes-Picot Agreement 1916 – Details of the agreement
• Creation of an independent Armenian state – Armenian revolt and “genocide”
– http://www.armenian-genocide.org/encyclopedia/index.htm
– Human tragedy and mutual murder rather than “genocide” http://www.ataa.org/ataa/ref/myth/carthy.html
• “shall be allowed to establish such direct or indirect administration or control as they desire and as they may think fit to arrange with the Arab State or Confederation of Arab
States.”
• France – Syria, Lebanon and Southern Turkey
• Britain – South Iran, Jordan, West coast of Saudi Arabia, Iraq,
Aden or Eastern Yemen, “long-standing obsession with the protection of the sea routes to India”

The Allied Wartime Promises
Sykes-Picot Agreement 1916 – Details of the agreement
• Britain – South Iran, Jordan, West coast of Saudi
Arabia, Iraq, Aden or Eastern Yemen, “long-standing obsession with the protection of the sea routes to
India”
• Italy – Southern Turkey
• International administration – Palestine, Central Iran
• New British PM (1916) Lloyd George was a fierce critic of the plan

The Allied Wartime Promises
F. The Balfour Declaration http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/wwi/1917/balfour.html
• Letter from the British Foreign Secretary Lord Balfour to the leader of the Zionist movement indicating the creation of a
homeland for the Jewish people.
– Vague wording – does not promise a homeland
– Conditions applied – not to prejudice the rights of the existing people
– Territory is seen as “the territories lying between the Jordan and the eastern borders of Palestine”. (Includes Jordan)

• 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 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

– Many ambiguous problems = begin unprepared for the collapse of the Ottoman Empire by the same plans that were suppose to have prepared them.
– Huge problems of process and perceptions
• Arab nationalism – interpretation vague promises as the right to national agenda
• Imperialism mindset – European administration was beneficial to the local inhabitants and would be appreciated. Arab independence does not mean selfgovernment.

– Arab Revolt cont.
• Lead by Emir al Fasial and T.E. Lawerence
• Degree of impact/significance
– British – minor success that had little significance to the fall of the Ottoman Empire
– Arab perspective – major role that fulfilled their end of the deal, a war of independence

Reading assignment: What was the military or political significance of the Arab Revolt?
Cleveland 150-153, 157-159
Karsh 185-187 (p) Bottom of 192

Karsh
Cleveland
Jordan website
Significant Not significant

– Dividing up territory not controlled
• Since they didn’t own it – easier to give it away
– The Arab revolt
• Early British failures – Gallipoli and Kut
• Tied up the Ottoman Empire
• Blew up sections of the Medina-Damascus railway stopping the flow of Turkish supplies

• What are the similarities and differences between Cleveland and
Mansfield?
• Military:
– Broke the Medina-Damascus Railway link and prevented Turo-German forces from getting to Yemen (East Africa and Red Sea shipping)
– Diverted Turkish resources from Palestine/Egypt. 30,000 troops along Hejaz rail line
– British forces captured major cities (Jerusalem, Damascus, Baghdad)
– Arab forces needed military and weapons supplies from the British
– Irregular army of armed tribesmen insignificant compare to the huge 3m
British forces in Egypt, Palestine and Mesopotamia
– Turks surrendered to the British
– Collapse of the Ottoman Empire was due more to the events of World War 1
– Weakness seen in eventual defeat and loss of Hejaz territory

• Political
– Only acted when Turo-German forces were move towards the Hejaz
– Insignificant ally of the British in their global Empire
– Widespread condemnation of revolt (opportunistic and divisive)
– “Not a revolutionary for national self –determination… imperialist aspirant”
– Willing to make deal with Ottomans
– Religious hesitation in fighting fellow Muslims
– Little support offered by other Arab leaders
– Letters were from a low level British officer not a formal treaty

• Political
– While never promised “King of all Arab countries” He was never discouraged from thinking this by the British
• “Great Britain is prepared to recognize and uphold the independence of the Arabs in all the regions lying within the frontiers proposed by the Sharif of Mecca”
– Reason to believe that he was promised an Arab State
Cleveland (157)
– Held prestigious position of Amir of Mecca, protector of the Holy Cities. Used religious influence to reduce impact of call for jihad
– Support grows after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire becomes apparent

http://www.kinghussein.gov.jo/his_arabrevolt.html
Motive:
• The formerly cosmopolitan and tolerant Ottoman Empire began overtly discriminating against its non-Turkish inhabitants. Arabs in particular were faced with political, cultural and linguistic persecution
Support:
• During this time, Arab nationalist groups in Syria, Iraq and
Arabia began to rally behind the Hashemite banner of
Abdullah and Faisal, sons of Sharif Hussein bin Ali, King of the
Arabs.
Military significance
• At the end of the war, Arab forces controlled all of modern Jordan, most of the Arabian peninsula and much of southern Syria.

http://www.kinghussein.gov.jo/his_arabrevolt.html
Political significance:
Much of the trauma and dislocation suffered by the peoples of the Middle East during the 20th century can be traced to the events surrounding World War I.
• victors reneged on their promises to the Arabs, the interests of the colonial powers took precedence over promises made to the Arabs
• political aspirations of the Arabs were not to be realized, however, due to the conflicting promises made by the British to their wartime allies
• totally deceitful move”
• “clearly contradicted the promises made to Sharif Hussein of Mecca”
• effectiveness of the Great Arab Revolt that the Hashemite family was able to secure Arab rule over Transjordan, Iraq and Arabia.
• Arab nationalists in the Fertile Crescent and the Arabian Peninsula found in the
Hashemite commanders of the Great Arab Revolt the leadership that could realize their aspirations, and thus coalesced around them.
• British government ignored the will of the Iraqi people

• The 14 Points as the guiding principles of the Post War Wilson declaration to the Right to self determination set high expectations:
“It will be our wish and purpose that the processes of peace, when they are begun, shall be absolutely open, and that they shall involve and permit henceforth no secret understandings of any kind.... What we demand in this war ... is that the world be made fit and safe to live in; and particularly that it be made safe for every peace-loving nation which, like our own, wishes to live its own life, determine its own
institutions, be assured of justice and fair dealing by the other peoples of the world...the only possible program as we see it, is this:

The Post War Settlement Process:
Problem of Expectations vs. Reality
• “V. Free, open-minded, and absolutely impartial adjustment of all colonial claims, based upon a strict observance of the principle that in determining all such questions of sovereignty the interests of the populations concerned must have equal weight with the equitable claims
of the government whose title is to be determined.
• XII. The Turkish portions of the present Ottoman Empire should be assured a secure sovereignty, but the other nationalities which are now under Turkish rule should be assured an undoubted security of life and an absolutely unmolested opportunity of autonomous development , and the Dardanelles should be permanently opened as a free passage to the ships and commerce of all nations under international guarantees.”

The Post War Settlement Process:
Problem of Expectations vs. Reality
B. Anglo-French Declaration of November 1918
“The goal envisaged by France and Great
Britain.... is the complete and final liberation of the peoples who have for so long been
oppressed by the Turks, and the setting up of national governments and administrations that shall derive their authority from the free exercise of the initiative and choice of the indigenous population." http://www.btinternet.com/~e.c.apling/Kosovo/PalestineMandate.htm

The Post War Settlement Process:
Problem of Expectations vs Reality
C. Declaration to the Seven (1918)
– British government meets with seven Arab leaders in Cario
– Future government of Arab territory liberated by the action of Arab armies would be based on the principle of the “consent of the governed”

The Post War Settlement Process:
Problem of Expectations vs. Reality
D. Nationalist groups – believed the conference would be supportive of its goals
» Various Nationalist groups showed up to make claims – huge undertaking that would have required large amounts of political, economic and military support
» Conflicting claims – 40 different Armenian groups,
Palestine, Kurdistan Proposed map of Kurdistan http://www.cool.mb.ca/~kakel/kurdistan.html
» Map of current Kurdish population distribution
» Note the similarity of Population distribution and proposed state.

The Post War Settlement Process:
Problem of Expectations vs. Reality
E. Past diplomatic practices
Previous British deals with the coastal
Arabian Skeikhs allowed for a level of autonomy with a political and military alliance

The Post War Settlement Process:
Problem of Expectations vs Reality
• F. The King Crane Commission (June to August
1919) http://www.hri.org/docs/king-crane/
– Investigatory committee whose mandate was to study the people and the situation of the Eastern part of the
Ottoman Empire and make recommendation to the
League of Nations.
– Europeans boycotted the commission leaded by two
Americans
– Focused primarily on the areas to be controlled by the
French
– Meet exclusively with member of the elite class, stayed only six weeks.

The Post War Settlement Process:
Problem of Expectations vs Reality
• King Crane Commission’s report
» Found overwhelming majority of inhabitants did not want a mandate system
» Conformed closely to the boundaries of the Sykes-Picot agreement
» Emphasized the possibility of the Arab self government in the near future
» Assumed that there would be a mandate system imposed, focused on what shape it should take
» Widespread opposition to Zionism and the Jewish state
» [in Palestine.] “The majority of the inhabitants, both Moslems and
Christians, opposed the usurpation of their homeland, and preferred either independence or unity with Greater Syria”
» Desire for large single mandate rather than smaller mandate units
» Emir Feisal as the most popular leader for the Syria state/mandate

The Post War Settlement Process:
Problem of Expectations vs Reality
• King Crane Commission’s report
Implementation
» Memo written to Wilson before the trip: the Syrian mandate should go to France “not on the primary desires of the people, but on the international need of preserving friendly relations between France and Great
Britain.”
» Report was simply forgotten

A. Paris Peace Conference
– Faisal given a 20 minute audience
– USA/Wilson removed from the process – isolationism
– Russia excluded due to the revolution
– Britain and France set the agenda
– Two year process – drawn out process that in the end confirms the “reality on the ground”
– Division of territory between France and Britain
– Creation of modern territories of the Middle East

Compare the two maps
E. Sykes-Picot Agreement 1916

B. The Mandate System and Article 22 of the Covenant of the
League of Nations
– White Man’s Burden mentally –
» “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 wellbeing 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.”…
» “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,…”

• Three types
– Class A – Mandatory was to give “advice and assistance” with the goal of self government. All of the Middle East mandates were class A.
– Class B – “Mandatory must be responsible for the administration of the territory”
– Class C – “best administered under the laws of the
Mandatory as integral portions of its territory”
*** Class A mandates were legally veiwed as tempopary entities. Mandatory governments were required to report on their progress to self government on an annual basis

Take up the White Man's burden--
Send forth the best ye breed--
Go, bind your sons to exile
To serve your captives' need;
To wait, in heavy harness,
On fluttered folk and wild--
Your new-caught sullen peoples,
Half devil and half child.
Take up the White Man's burden--
In patience to abide,
To veil the threat of terror
And check the show of pride;
By open speech and simple,
An hundred times made plain,
To seek another's profit
And work another's gain.

Take up the White Man's burden--
The savage wars of peace--
Fill full the mouth of Famine,
And bid the sickness cease;
And when your goal is nearest
(The end for others sought)
Watch sloth and heathen folly
Bring all your hope to nought.
Take up the White Man's burden--
No iron rule of kings,
But toil of serf and sweeper--
The tale of common things

Take up the White Man's burden--
Ye dare not stoop to less--
Nor call too loud on Freedom
To cloak your weariness.
By all ye will or whisper,
By all ye leave or do,
The silent sullen peoples
Shall weigh your God and you.

B. The Mandate System and Article 22 of the
Covenant of the League of Nations cont.
– Not control just advice
» “Certain communities formerly belonging to the Turkish
Empire… [will be given] administrative advice and assistance by a Mandatory until such time as they are able to stand alone.
– When will they be ready?
» To be determined by “Mandatories on behalf of the
League.”

B. The Mandate System and Article 22 of the Covenant of the
League of Nations cont.
– Historical Interpretations:
» The Arab world was the “great loot of the war”
» Imperialism with a new name – Gelvin writes, “sought to consolidate and guarantee those [imperialist] interests within the framework of the new international order.”
» Long-term plan to create weak states that are easy to dominate
» Genuine desire to promote self-government and provide a smooth transition to a radically new situation. Stability and economic opportunities are related and greater chaos did exist.
» “ mandate system for colonies became Trustee System” [of the
United Nations]

C. San Remo Agreement (April 18, 1920)
– Agreement: http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/wwi/1918p/sanremo.html
– Territorial agreements
– Growing revolts, high financial costs, low troop moral emphasized the need for the Europeans to quickly settle their territorial disputes.
– British in the strongest bargaining position because of the presence of troops already. Estimated 3 million soldiers in the region
– Stresses that the Arab territories were not yet prepared to govern themselves and would be guided by European powers during an unspecified length transitional period
– Creates the mandate system which transfers all administrative powers to the British and the French.

• D. Treaty of Sevres (Oct 10, 1920)
– Treaty: http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/wwi/versa/sevres1.html
– Agreed to by remnants of the collapsed Ottoman Empire –a formalization of the Armistice of Mudros which ended the fighting of WW1
– Extremely limited sovereignty and the division of most of its territory among the victorious Allies.
– Only one third of Anatolia remained free of direct occupation
– Creation of autonomous countries of Kurdistan and Armenia with international “assistance” with their formation.
– Ottoman ceded their claim to Arab by recognizing San Remo agreement and the Hashemite Kingdom of the Hijaz.
– Article 6 states the British commitment to the establishment of
Jews in “close settlement” in Palestine but Article 26 states the right to “postpone or withhold application of this provision …
[depending on] local conditions.”

Peace Treaty?
Conditions for a just and lasting peace
• Both sides must agree to terms
• Violence must end
• Respect for core values
• Support of a critical mass of the population
• A leadership that promotes the new peace
• Forgiveness and trust building
• Some form of compromise and power sharing between disputing parties
• Ability to enforce (security etc)

• Read pages 175 -178
• Provide examples and determine the extent in what each of the conditions of peace were meet.