Part 1
1. Why was control of the region important to the British and French?
The original purpose of the British in controlling the Persian Gulf coast was to protect its strategic sea route to its empire in India. The safety of the region and the coast from piracy and other forms of conflicts, including conflicts between and among sheikdoms, jeopardized the free flow of trade in the region. To ensure the free flow of trade by freeing vital sea routes from piracy and conflicts, the British entered into a treaty with the sheikdoms in the Persian Gulf outlawing war within the region in return for British protection. The states with which it entered into a treaty of peace with came to be known as the Trucial States, which comprised of Abu Dhabi, Dubai, Sharjah, Ajman, Umm al-Qaiwain, Ras al-Khaimah, and Fujairah. Eventually, this interest deepened with the discovery of oil and the growing dependence of its Royal Navy on it. The discovery of oil in Iraq and Iran led the British to believe that oil could also be found in the Trucial States and in 1922, it entered into another agreement with the Trucial States that precluded the latter from granting any oil concession to any other power save for the British. It entered into separate agreements with other Persian Gulf states, such as Iran and Iraq, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman, Bahrain and Kuwait. To ensure smooth operations of its oil concessions, the British became even more intrusive with domestic political affairs, even with disputes in the hinterlands (Heard-Bey 2001, pp. 117-118; Onley 2007).
On the other hand, the control of the Persian Gulf coast and make it safe was also of interest to the French. The British and the French were rivals in colonial expansionism in the Middle East, but the British were already well-established in the Persian Gulf. With the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in World War I, France gained control of some the former Ottoman territories, such as Syria and Lebanon. However, these territories had little prospects for oil, and, therefore, the French had to expand their interest into the Persian Gulf states, particularly Iran, where oil was already discovered. To gain concession for oil exploration in the Gulf region, it was forced to trade some of its interests in Syria where pipelines were constructed in Northern Iraqi fields passing through Syria and into the Mediterranean. It was, thereafter, granted a 25% oil concession in the Turkish Petroleum Company, which later became the Iraqi Petroleum Company oil (Marcel 2007, p. 17; Palmer 1999, p. 15).
2. What was the effect on Arab views of the West from the 1954-1962 French/Algerian war?
The French/Algerian war was an unpopular war for the French, just like the Vietnam War was for the US. The French were criticized everywhere for the war and the way it was conducted. It angered the Arab population, an anger that was exacerbated after the French military went into Tunisia to disband Algerian rebels hiding in that country. The French was seen as an abusive Western power that was ready to kill any and all Algerians who wanted to fight for their freedom and independence. Complaints against France reverberated in the UN’s Security Council delivered by Iraqi diplomats. The same atmosphere pervaded in the General Council where the representatives of Arab states were joined by representatives from Africa and Asia in condemning the French. As the war occurred in the initial stages of the Cold War, the Soviets was pleased with the attacks against the West (Bosco 2009, p. 80).
Some Arab countries formed the United Arab Republic. Egypt and Syria joined together in 1956 later joined by Yemen to form the United Arab States, a union that had anti-Western underpinning. Even Jordan and Iraq, which were allied with the West, united and form an association. Gamal Abdel Nasser, who was then the Egyptian leader, made moves to secure close ties with the Soviet, who in turn promised to finance the construction of Egypt’s most ambitious project at that time – the Aswan Dam (Schwartz 2009, pp. 362-363).
3. What was the effect of being a British protectorate on the Gulf coast?
The effect of being a British protectorate in the Persian Gulf was to be constrained from negotiating or getting involved commercially with other states aside from the British. This was because one of the requirements of the peace treaty between Britain and a protectorate in the Gulf then was to preclude from giving concessions to other states. In addition to being prevented in fully exercising external relations, the protectorates also ceded part of their sovereignty, particularly the right to determine the resolution of their own domestic affairs. This was because as the vested interest of Britain in these states deepened because of oil discovery and its growing dependence on it, it became more concerned with maintaining peace and order within the states so as not to obstruct oil exploration or extraction of oil. These states were literally tied down and unable to exercise their rights and prerogatives as states (Marcel 2007, p. 17; Palmer 1999, p. 15).
However, there were also positive results that came out of being a protectorate in the Persian Gulf of the British Empire. Piracy, slavery, tribal conflicts and other high crimes on the seas were diminished, if not eradicated during the time of the protectorate. In addition, air routes were also introduced in the region, which prepared the protectorates for later statehood. The British began to introduce civil and military air routes in the region in the 1920s and the 1930s for the Imperial Airways from London to India, as well as for the Basra-Aden Royal Air Force. As a consequence, the British required leaders of the protectorates to intensify their control over their tribes and populations to ensure the protection of these airfields. This prepared the protectorates to properly exercise territorial, in addition to maritime control (Peterson 2008, pp. 207-208).
4. What was the political climate in the region after the British departure?
The presence of Britain in the Gulf region had a stabilizing effect on that was enhanced by the Saudi Arabia and Iran’s alliance with the US in the 1960s. As this was a period within the Cold War, it was expected that any of the superpowers, the US or the Soviets, would fill in the power vacuum expected by the British withdrawal in 1971. The Soviet Union did, in fact, forged an alliance with Iraq through a Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation in 1972, which created tension within the region with western interest in it still significant. To ensure that its interest would not be undermined, the US implemented Nixon’s twin-pillar policy in the region, which made use of regional alliances, rather than direct military intervention, to secure and maintain its foothold in the region. The twin-pillar alliance referred to Iran, primarily, and Saudi Arabia. In exchange for its promise to contain Soviet growth in the region, the US made available shipments of weapons and army training to Iran to assist Kurdish rebellion in Iraq. The US propped up Shah Mohammad Pahlavi in his bid to lead the region to win the Cold War in that part of the world, a move that would later on catalyze the Iran rebellion and the rising of tension between the US and the Soviets as the US was forced to issue a threat to use military force to any outside power who would enter and gain control of the region. This was also the beginning of the conflict between the US and Iran (Bojarczyk 2012, pp. 91-93).
5. What was primary reason for the formation of the UAE among the separate Emirates?
The withdrawal of the British from the Persian Gulf served as a catalyst for the formation of the United Arab Emirates from seven sheikdoms that had been under protection from the British for more than a hundred years. The emirates of Abu Dhabi, Ajman, Dubai, Fujairah, Ras al-Khaimah, Sharjah, and Umm al-Quwain forged a union in 1971 to form the UAE. The emirates thought it was the best way to secure the region from ambitious designs of outsiders. For one, there were the Soviets who had designs on the oil-rich region. Another case of concern was its ambitious neighbors and the alarming instability they were causing in the region (King 2008, p. 28).
Part 2
1. Do you think that Arab Unity is necessary in the modern world?
Unity is always an advantage in today’s world because it removes hindrances and obstructions to growth and development of a region. For the same reason, Arab unity is important because an economically stable Arab world will redound to the benefit of the global population. For one, it will result to a more peaceful world that will make living safer, more pleasurable and easier on the planet. The Arab world is fragmented by conflicts as can be seen from history. The rivalry for political dominance in the Middle East with Egypt, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Syria as the primary contenders, have long created tension within the region. Saudi Arabia considered itself the protector of the Persian Gulf because it deemed its security and existence tied to its own. This is why it played a big role in the 1990-1991 Kuwait crises, which saw the invasion of Iraq on the small state. The issue in that crisis was oil – the alleged theft of oil by Kuwait of Iraq. Saudi Arabia allowed the US to set up stations within its jurisdiction to eliminate the crisis – an act that further aggravated the tension in the region. Saudi Arabia is, therefore, expected not to take an Egyptian or Syrian political dominance in the region (Mojtahed-Zadeh 2013, pp. 22-22).
The importance of unity in the Arab world is also underpinned by the economic importance of the Arab region to the entire world and modern civilization. Many of the Arab states are oil-producing and oil is a major component of modern civilization. The Middle East, particularly the Persian Gulf, is important to the entire world because it accounts for about 63% of the world’s total reserves of oil and 30% of the world’s natural gas. Any tension or conflict in that region will hamper the security of oil exploration and extraction. This is turn will lead to oil shortage and the escalation of oil prices, which in themselves are a source of potential conflicts. This was illustrated in the oil crises of the 1970s when OPEC conducted an oil export embargo as a consequence of western support for Israel in the Israeli-Palestine conflict as well as the 1979 oil crisis that was precipitated by the Iranian revolution. The Gulf War also resulted in an oil price shock. As a result of the 1973 oil crisis, the GDP of the US declined by 4.7%, Europe by 2.5%, and Japan by 7% (Cleveland 2009, p. 197). These incidents showed that any disruptions in the peace and order in the Arab world have the potential to affect the world.
2. Is it possible?
At the rate things are going, the possibility of a united Arab world seems impossible. There are just too many obstacles in the way that hamper unity. In a recent Arab summit held in Kuwait, its disunity was so patent that it was seriously considered doing away with publishing a communiqué. Some points of contentions exacerbated the disunity among the representatives. One of the disputed issues was the support of Qatar for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and other revolutionary states, an act that is vehemently objected to by Saudi Arabia, the UAE and Bahrain. Saudi sees the Brotherhood as a terrorist organization, while the others see it as a threat to their authoritarian rule. Qatar, however, is not conceding to the demand of withdrawal by those states (Naumann 2014).
Another issue that is seriously splitting the Arab world is the Syrian civil war. Although the pan-Arab bloc has put Syria’s membership on hold and opposed Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, Saudi Arabia supports and provides arms to an opposition wing while Qatar supports and provides arms to another wing of the opposition. Some members want to involve the West to help end the Syrian conflict, but others objected to the idea (Naumann 2014).
The possibility of unity in the Arab World is also diminished by the fact that although religion is one of its common and unifying factors, it has also proven to be one of the reasons for its fragmentation. The Islam faith is split into two primary Muslim sects – the Sunni and the Shiite. Although both are based on the Islam faith, there are differences between them and these differences are causing conflicts. In the present Syrian conflict, for example, the Lebanese Sunnis are supporting the Syrian Sunnis, who are seeking retreat inside Lebanon. However, Lebanese Shiites Hezbollah are supporting President Assad. As a result, the Syrian conflict is spilling into Lebanon with supporters of Assad fighting against supporters of the Sunni rebels (Naumann 2014). Not since the Ottoman Empire, has unity been a reality for the Arab world. Arab unity as an author said is a ‘myth’ because the Arab world is fragmented by political rivalries, dependence on security to ensure the safety of source of economic life, inter-Arab territorial disputes and Arab-Iranian territorial differences (Mojtahed-Zadeh 2013, pp. 22-24).
3. What is the alternative?
The only alternative is for the Arab World to continue talking and communicating with one another and resolve differences as much as they can be reconciled. It has also been pointed out that the Arab World now lacks a leader after the civil turmoil in Egypt that resulted in unseating Mubarak. As Egypt is the traditional leader of the Arab world, a new leader needs to fill the gap (Naumann 2014).
4. Discuss the statement
The truth to the above statement is illustrated by historical facts. Indeed, most ethnic conflicts in the Arab world are rooted in inequalities. Since 1988, all armed conflicts were caused by ethnic conflicts, according to a Cairo Professor, with the exception of the Iraq-Kuwait conflict. This seemed paradoxical considering that the Arab world is one of the more ethnically homogenous regions in the world. Notwithstanding, facts showed that intra-state conflicts, which threatens the security of the region than inter-state conflicts, are rooted in ethnic heterogeneities particularly in Sudan, Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, Algeria, Morocco, Mauritania, Bahrain, and Yemen. In these countries, 35% or more of the population are characterized by their distinct ethnic variability in terms of language, sect, religion or ethnic grouping. In the past, internal armed conflicts have flared up in Sudan, Iraq, Lebanon and Yemen have seen their shares of internal conflicts and today, Syria, and Lebanon to an extent, is being wracked by internal conflicts rooted in ethnic conflict (Ibrahim 2002, p. 185). The Arab Spring that rocked many states in the Arab world was not triggered by ideological causes, but by political, economic, class and religious inequalities and the central figures that inspired protesters were common individuals who were victims of such inequalities. In Tunisia, a street vendor who set himself on fire after subjected to humiliation by the police triggered the protest and in Egypt, the protest was activated by a young man who died suspiciously while under police custody (GB 2012, p. 17) .
5. Relate the above statement back into question 2
There is a possibility of unification in the Arab World, but Arab states must be able to solve the root of the ethnic conflicts. This implies removing the causes, which are political, social, economic, class and other forms of inequalities presently existing in their society. This means overhauling authoritarian systems that still exist in many Arab states. Nonetheless, this will only solve a part of the problem – the internal aspect. Arab states must also resolve issues and sources of conflicts between and among states, which implies concessions, in some aspects, for the good of the whole.
References:
Bojarczyk, B. (2012). Geopolitics of the Persian Gulf Region, Teka Kom. Politol. Stos. Międzynar. – OL PAN, 2012, 7: 80–100.
Bosco, D. (2009). Five to Rule Them All: The UN Security Council and the Making of the Modern World. Oxford University Press.
Cleveland, C. (2009). Concise Encyclopedia of the History of Energy. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
GB (2012). British foreign policy and the 'Arab Spring': second report of session 2012-13, report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence. Great Britain: Parliament: House of Commons: Foreign Affairs Committee. London: The Stationery Office.
Hear-Bey, F. (2001). “The Beginning of the Post-Imperial Era for the Trucial States from World War I to the 1960s,” in I. Al Abed and P. Hellyer (eds.), United Arab Emirates: a new perspective. London, UK: Trident Press Ltd.
King, D. (2009). United Arab Emirates. Marshall Cavendish.
Onley, J. (2007). The Arabian Frontier of the British Raj: Merchants, Rulers, and the British in the Nineteenth-Century Gulf. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Marcel, V. (2007). Oil Titans: National Oil Companies in the Middle East. Baltimore, MD: Brookings Institution Press.
Mojtahed-Zadeh, P. (2013). Security and Territoriality in the Persian Gulf: A Maritime Political Geography. London: Routledge.
Naumann, N. (2014). Disunited, Arab League holds summit. DW. http://www.dw.de/disunited- arab-league-holds-summit/a-17517761
Palmer, M. (1999). Guardians of the Gulf: A History of America's Expanding Role in the Persian Gulf, 1883-1992. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.
Peterson, J. (2008). “Britain and State Formation in the Gulf: The Case of Abu Dhabi and Shaikh Zayid bin Khalifah,” New Perspectives on Recording UAE History, Abu Dhabi: National Center for Documentation & Research.
Schwartz, R. (2009). The 1950s. Infobase Publishing.
WB (2014). Arab World. World Bank. http://data.worldbank.org/region/ARB
