Introduction
David Fromkin's "A Peace to End All Peace" is a comprehensive examination of how the modern Middle East came to be. The book focuses on the pivotal period between 1914 and 1922, during which the Ottoman Empire collapsed and European powers, particularly Britain and France, reshaped the region according to their own interests and misguided assumptions. Fromkin's work provides crucial insights into the roots of many conflicts that continue to plague the Middle East today.
The book's title is ironic, alluding to the famous phrase "the war to end all wars" used to describe World War I. Just as that war failed to bring lasting peace to Europe, the peace settlements that followed it in the Middle East created a foundation for ongoing strife and instability in the region.
The Ottoman Empire in Decline
A Fading Power
At the dawn of the 20th century, the Ottoman Empire was a shadow of its former self. Once a formidable force that had stretched from the gates of Vienna to modern-day Somalia and Mesopotamia, the empire was now struggling to maintain its grip on its remaining territories.
The contrast between the Ottoman Empire and the industrialized nations of Western Europe was stark. While countries like Britain and France had embraced technological advancements and modernization, the Ottoman Empire seemed frozen in time. Constantinople, the empire's capital, only introduced electric street lights in 1912, long after such innovations had become commonplace in major European cities.
A Fragmented Empire
The Ottoman Empire's political structure was increasingly fragile. Unlike the centralized European empires, Ottoman control barely extended beyond the Turkish heartland. Most non-Turkish provinces were essentially self-governed, despite the presence of Ottoman troops.
This loose political arrangement made the empire vulnerable to territorial losses. By the early 20th century, the Ottomans had lost significant areas to European interests. In October 1912, Italy seized the empire's last African territory in present-day Libya. The Balkan Wars further reduced Ottoman holdings in southeastern Europe.
The Role of Religion
The Ottoman Empire was unique in that it was a caliphate, an Islamic monarchy based on religion rather than nationality. While ethnically diverse, the majority of the empire's population was Muslim. For both the Muslim majority and the Christian and Jewish minorities, religious identity was paramount.
This religious foundation of the empire stood in stark contrast to the increasingly secular nature of European nations, further contributing to the perception of the Ottoman Empire as an anachronism in the modern world.
The Young Turks and Political Upheaval
The Rise of the Young Turks
In 1913, as the Ottoman Empire continued to crumble, a group known as the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP), also called the Young Turks, seized control of the government. This group had previously led a revolution in 1908, forcing the sultan to reinstate the parliament that had been banned since 1878.
The Young Turks' primary goal was to modernize the empire, bringing it more in line with European standards. They hoped that by introducing reforms such as building railways and expanding electricity infrastructure, they could prevent further Western encroachment on Ottoman territories.
Misinterpretation and Its Consequences
A critical misunderstanding of the Young Turks' nature and intentions by British officials would have far-reaching consequences. Gerald Fitzmaurice, an interpreter and advisor to the British ambassador in Constantinople, erroneously reported to London that the Young Turks were a Jewish-led Freemason group, even dubbing them the "Jew Committee of Union and Progress."
This misinformation was readily accepted in London, despite the fact that the Young Turks were predominantly Turkish and often hostile to non-Turkish populations within the empire. Based on this false intelligence, British authorities devised a strategy to win Ottoman support at the outbreak of World War I by publicly backing the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine.
This misguided policy, founded on a complete misunderstanding of the political situation in Constantinople, would set the stage for future conflicts in the region.
The Ottoman Empire Enters World War I
Seeking European Allies
As World War I loomed, the Ottoman Empire found itself in a precarious position. Fearing aggression from Italy and Austria-Hungary, Ottoman leaders sought a European ally to protect their remaining territory. After failing to secure an alliance with Britain, the Ottomans formed a secret pact with Germany in 1914.
The End of Ottoman Neutrality
The Ottoman-German alliance didn't remain secret for long. When British ships pursued two German warships, the Ottomans allowed the German vessels safe passage through "neutral" Ottoman waters. This action, along with the laying of minefields in the Dardanelles, raised British suspicions about Ottoman neutrality.
The final straw came when Ottoman troops attacked Russia, Britain's ally, in an attempt to gain territory. On October 31, 1914, Britain declared war on the Ottoman Empire.
Shifting British Policy
The Ottoman entry into the war marked a significant shift in British policy towards the empire. For decades, Britain had sought to prop up the Ottoman Empire as a buffer against Russian and Austro-Hungarian expansion. This policy had helped secure lucrative British trade routes to India.
Now, with the Ottomans as enemies, Britain abandoned this long-standing approach. Seeing little territory left to colonize in Africa, British interests turned to the vast lands of the Ottoman Empire. The Allied Powers, including Britain and France, began to envision and plan for a post-Ottoman Middle East.
British Middle Eastern Policy: Ambition and Misinformation
Kitchener's Influence
In August 1914, Herbert Kitchener was appointed as the British Secretary of State for War. As the only cabinet minister with significant experience in the Middle East, Kitchener's opinions on the region carried substantial weight in shaping British policy.
However, Kitchener's understanding of the Middle East was deeply flawed. Like many British officials of the time, he viewed the Arabic-speaking population as a monolithic, homogeneous group. This misconception led him to propose a grand plan to unify the region under a single caliph, or Islamic religious leader.
Cultural Ignorance and Its Consequences
Kitchener's plan revealed a profound ignorance of the cultural, ethnic, and religious diversity within the Middle East. He failed to grasp the significant differences between various Arab groups and was unaware of the distinctions between Sunni and Shiite Islam.
This lack of understanding would have severe consequences. For instance, it led to Britain later supporting a Sunni king in Iraq, a country with a Shiite majority population, setting the stage for future sectarian conflicts.
Personal Ambition and Policy Making
Kitchener's vision for the post-war Middle East was largely driven by personal ambition. While on the surface, it appeared that local Arab rulers would lead the rebuilding of the region, in reality, Kitchener envisioned British administrators, with himself as the overall viceroy, pulling the strings behind the scenes.
This combination of cultural ignorance and personal ambition would prove disastrous for the future stability of the region.
A New Strategy: The Arab Revolt
The Failure at Gallipoli and a Change in Leadership
The disastrous British attack at Gallipoli, based on Kitchener's misguided advice and inaccurate maps, led to a change in British leadership. David Lloyd George became the new prime minister and decided a fresh strategy was needed for the war effort in the Middle East.
Harnessing Arab Sentiment
Lloyd George's new approach aimed to exploit anti-Turkish sentiment among the Arab subjects of the Ottoman Empire. Mark Sykes, a Middle East expert appointed by Kitchener, recommended appointing Hussein, the Sharif of Mecca, as a puppet caliph for the entire Arabic-speaking region.
The Role of Muhammad al-Faruqi
A mysterious Arab Ottoman staff officer named Muhammad al-Faruqi played a crucial role in shaping British strategy. Al-Faruqi claimed to have connections with Arab nationalist military leaders in Damascus who could help defeat the Ottomans. He told the British exactly what they wanted to hear, claiming his connections commanded hundreds of thousands of Arab soldiers ready to revolt against Ottoman rule.
A Agreement Built on Deception
Based on al-Faruqi's claims, the British entered into negotiations with Hussein for the establishment of an independent Arab state. However, this agreement was founded on lies and deceit from both sides. Al-Faruqi's promises of massive troop numbers were false, and Britain's declarations of abandoning colonial ambitions in the Middle East were equally dishonest.
This deceptive foundation would prove to be a significant factor in the future instability of the region.
The Arab Revolt in Action
A Shaky Start
The Arab Revolt, led by Hussein and supported by the British, got off to a rocky start. Hussein's call for Arabic-speaking Ottoman troops to join the revolt was met with silence, revealing al-Faruqi's promises of widespread support to be false.
Lawrence of Arabia
T. E. Lawrence, better known as Lawrence of Arabia, played a crucial role as a liaison between British forces and Hussein's Arab troops. His writings provide much of what we know about the revolt.
Lawrence noted that the Arab troops initially lacked the discipline and training to effectively engage the Ottoman army. The first attempt to take Medina failed, highlighting the challenges faced by the rebel forces.
Strategic Victories
Despite early setbacks, the Arab Revolt gained momentum. In July 1917, troops led by Lawrence and Hussein captured the strategically important port of Aqaba. This victory allowed the British to ferry in Arab troops to assist in the war effort in Palestine.
The combined forces of the Arab rebels and British troops from Cairo then advanced into Palestine, capturing Jerusalem by December. These successes demonstrated the potential of the Arab forces and reinvigorated British support for the revolt.
The Sykes-Picot Agreement: Dividing the Spoils
Secret Negotiations
Even as the British were promising support for an independent Arab state, they were secretly negotiating with the French to divide the Ottoman territories between them. Mark Sykes, the same man who had suggested the alliance with Hussein, met with French diplomat François Picot to discuss their respective colonial ambitions in the Middle East.
The Terms of the Agreement
The resulting Sykes-Picot Agreement laid out a plan for the post-war Middle East that bore little resemblance to the promises made to Hussein. According to the agreement:
- France would directly rule modern-day Lebanon and maintain influence over Syria.
- Britain would control most of modern-day Iraq and Jordan, as well as two ports on the Palestinian coast.
- The Arabian Peninsula would be nominally independent, but under strong British and French influence.
The Palestine Question
The main point of contention in the negotiations was the fate of Palestine. Britain, increasingly supportive of Zionism, was unwilling to grant France any influence in the region. Unable to reach an agreement, the two powers decided to establish an international administration for Palestine after the war.
A Recipe for Future Conflict
The Sykes-Picot Agreement, with its arbitrary division of territories and disregard for local populations' desires, set the stage for decades of conflict in the Middle East. The secret nature of these negotiations, in direct contradiction to promises made to Arab leaders, would foster deep distrust of Western powers in the region.
Britain's Embrace of Zionism
A Shift in Policy
Prior to World War I, British officials had considered Zionism – the movement to establish a Jewish homeland in Palestine – unfeasible. They recognized the strong opposition from local Palestinians and doubted the land's ability to sustain a large influx of immigrants.
However, several factors led to a change in this stance:
- Lloyd George's evangelical background influenced his desire to see the Holy Land "returned" to the Jewish people.
- Mark Sykes believed that supporting Zionism would secure Jewish support for the British war effort.
- The British Foreign Office thought that Russian Jews could use their influence to keep Russia in the war if Britain supported Zionism.
The Balfour Declaration
In November 1917, with British conquest of Palestine seeming inevitable, the British government publicly announced its support for Zionism through the Balfour Declaration. This document, penned by Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour, outlined Britain's support for Jewish migration to Palestine, with the caveat that it should not infringe on the rights of the indigenous Palestinian population.
Long-lasting Consequences
The Balfour Declaration would prove to be one of the most consequential decisions in the history of the Middle East. It effectively laid the groundwork for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, one of the most enduring and contentious issues in the region.
The End of the War and Broken Promises
The Fall of Damascus
As World War I drew to a close, British and Arab forces advanced deep into Ottoman territory. In October 1918, they captured the ancient city of Damascus. It was at this point that the British revealed to Faisal, Hussein's son, their plans for a French protectorate in Syria, as agreed in the secret Sykes-Picot Agreement.
The British also informed Faisal that he would not have any power in Lebanon or Palestine. Despite his objections, Faisal realized he had little choice but to accept these terms.
The Ottoman Surrender
On October 30, 1918, the Ottoman Empire signed an armistice agreement with Britain, officially ending hostilities and granting Allied forces the right to occupy any part of the former empire. Interestingly, Ottoman rulers misrepresented this surrender to their people, claiming they had secured favorable terms to end the war.
The Occupation of Constantinople
Within two weeks of the Ottoman surrender, Germany also capitulated, bringing World War I to an end. British forces arrived in Constantinople to occupy the city, marking the end of six centuries of Ottoman rule.
The Seeds of Future Conflict
The end of the war saw the Allied powers, particularly Britain and France, reneging on many of the promises they had made to secure Arab support during the conflict. This betrayal of trust would have long-lasting repercussions, fueling anti-Western sentiment and instability in the region for decades to come.
Resistance and Power Struggles in the Post-War Middle East
The Arabian Peninsula: Hussein vs. Ibn Saud
In the Arabian Peninsula, a power struggle emerged between two of Britain's puppet leaders: Hussein, the Sharif of Mecca, and Ibn Saud, the head of what would become the ruling family of Saudi Arabia.
During the war, the British had provided both Hussein and Ibn Saud with funds to support their rule. In 1919, Ibn Saud began to encroach on Hussein's territory. In a surprise attack in May, Saud's forces decimated Hussein's British-supported army.
By 1925, Ibn Saud had exiled Hussein and effectively ruled over all the territory that would officially become Saudi Arabia in 1932. This turn of events forced the British to reassess their underestimation of Saud's potential.
The Turkish War of Independence
In Turkey, the Allied powers faced a significant challenge in the form of the Turkish War of Independence. Led by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, a force of some 30,000 Turkish regulars launched a revolt in early 1920, catching the British by surprise due to an intelligence failure.
The news of Allied plans to divide up the Ottoman Empire fueled Turkish nationalism and strengthened support for Atatürk's revolt. After a grueling campaign, Atatürk's forces successfully pushed the Allied Powers out of what is now modern-day Turkey. By November 1922, his troops reached Constantinople and deposed Sultan Mehmed VI, bringing an end to six centuries of Ottoman rule.
Resistance in the Levant
In the Levant (the region along the eastern Mediterranean coast), the implementation of the Sykes-Picot Agreement faced significant local resistance.
In Syria, Faisal initially secured a promise from the French for a more informal occupation that would grant Syria effective independence. However, a change in French leadership in 1920 led to a reversal of this policy. When Arab nationalists in Damascus rejected even an advisory role for France, war broke out. The conflict ended with the French occupation of Damascus in July and Faisal's exile.
The British Mandate in Palestine
The British Mandate in Palestine faced its own set of challenges. While internal rivalries prevented Palestinians from presenting a unified resistance, most of the Palestinian political elite strongly opposed Zionism.
Violent incidents between Zionist militias and Palestinian groups, including riots in Jerusalem, marred the early months of 1920. The British quickly realized that Palestinian opposition would be a serious obstacle to their Zionist project.
Despite attempts to convince the Palestinian leadership of the economic benefits of Zionism, such as electrification and increased employment, Palestinian leaders continued to view the project as a violation of their rights and a threat to their existence as a people.
The Creation of the Modern Middle East
Drawing New Borders
By the end of 1922, the borders of the Middle East as we know them today had been drawn. The region was divided into European-style states, much like what had been done in the Americas and Africa. However, there were serious doubts about the viability of these new countries.
Waning European Interest
A major concern was that Europe's appetite for dominating the Middle East had greatly diminished by this point. The enormous cost of World War I had left European powers lacking the energy and resources to support new colonies in the region as they had done earlier in other parts of the world.
British Disappointments
For the British, the outcome in the Middle East was far from what the region's main political architects had envisioned. Their premature support of Hussein and his son Faisal as leaders of a post-war Middle East had resulted in chaos. Hussein was in exile, and Faisal was ruling Iraq instead of Syria.
Moreover, although Britain had committed to supporting Zionist plans for Palestine, by the end of 1922, Lloyd George was no longer prime minister, and the government's enthusiasm for Zionism had waned.
A Region in Turmoil
The ramifications of the dysfunctional political dealings in the Middle East would prove to be far-reaching. The Ottoman Empire, long considered Europe's "sick man," was gone, no longer able to rule these vast lands as it had for centuries. In its place were arbitrarily bordered states ruled by European colonialists and misplaced monarchs, with marginalized opposition groups fighting for a voice in the new, confused order.
The Legacy of the Ottoman Empire's Fall
A Century of Conflict
The entire region – especially the former mandates of Britain and France – has suffered from seemingly perpetual war for more than a century. Notable examples include:
- The ongoing Arab-Israeli conflict
- The Iraq War
- The Syrian Civil War
These conflicts can be traced back to the arbitrary borders drawn by European powers, the installation of rulers without local legitimacy, and the betrayal of promises made to various groups during and after World War I.
Historical Parallels
Fromkin draws a parallel between the fall of the Ottoman Empire and the collapse of the Roman Empire. When Rome finally fell, all of Europe was ravaged by nearly 1,000 years of strife and conflict. Unfortunately, the crises resulting from the defeat of the Ottoman Empire seem likely to linger for many years to come.
The Importance of Understanding History
"A Peace to End All Peace" underscores the importance of understanding the historical context of current conflicts in the Middle East. Many of today's issues can be traced back to decisions made by European powers in the aftermath of World War I, often based on misinformation, cultural ignorance, and colonial ambitions.
Conclusion
David Fromkin's "A Peace to End All Peace" provides a comprehensive and insightful look into the origins of the modern Middle East. By detailing the fall of the Ottoman Empire and the subsequent reshaping of the region by European powers, Fromkin illuminates the roots of many conflicts that continue to plague the area today.
The book highlights several key factors that contributed to the ongoing instability in the Middle East:
The arbitrary drawing of borders by European powers, disregarding ethnic, religious, and cultural realities on the ground.
The installation of rulers without local legitimacy, often chosen to serve European interests rather than those of the local population.
The betrayal of promises made to various groups, particularly the Arabs who had supported the Allied cause during World War I.
The implementation of the Zionist project in Palestine without adequate consideration of its impact on the local Arab population.
The cultural ignorance and misinformation that informed many of the decisions made by European powers, particularly Britain.
Fromkin's work serves as a cautionary tale about the long-term consequences of short-sighted foreign policy decisions. The "peace" established in the Middle East following World War I was anything but peaceful, setting the stage for decades of conflict and instability.
Understanding this history is crucial for anyone seeking to comprehend the complexities of the modern Middle East. The legacy of decisions made over a century ago continues to shape the region today, influencing everything from border disputes to sectarian conflicts.
As we grapple with ongoing crises in the Middle East, Fromkin's book reminds us of the importance of historical context. It challenges us to consider how past actions have shaped present realities and to approach current issues with a deeper understanding of their historical roots.
In the end, "A Peace to End All Peace" is not just a history book, but a lens through which we can view and better understand the contemporary Middle East. It serves as a powerful reminder of the long-lasting impact of political decisions and the importance of cultural understanding in international relations.