Maker or Demolisher of the modern Middle East?

Advertisements

Posted by Usama Soomro in his blog on is a response to a question that everyone who knows the Middle East pondered about. It is about whether T. E. Lawrence maker or demolisher of the modern Middle East? So here is it is.

Thomas Edward Lawrence maker or demolisher of the modern Middle East?

There are uncountable hot and cold stories of Turkish, British, and German soldiers, families, and agents of World War I, most of the stories are evident and some of them are unclassified. Here is the story of a 5.5-inch young boy who changed the geography and demography of Arab countries including Saudi Arabia in the first world war.
Thomas Edward Lawrence was a British agent, army officer, diplomat, and archaeologist. He was born on the 16th of August in 1888. He is known as a renowned person of first world war. His played a role in espionage during the Sinai and Palestine movement and the Arab rebellion against the Ottoman Empire during the First World War. His activities and association made him popular. In the rebellion against the Ottoman Empire. He made his name public as Thomas Edward Lawrence. His work for the people of Arab and their lands described him vividly in his writings, his deeds and in the historical aspect of history. His fame internationally coined him as Lawrence of Arabia
In a film which was released in 1962, that film Lawrence of Arabia is one the great movies of all time. This film is based on his work and activities in wartime. He was a student of archaeology, history, and culture in Jesus oxford college. While studying in Oxford he spent much of his time in studies. He was fond of learning new languages, cultures, history, and religious wars. During his studies British declared the war against the ottoman empire and Germany, he had two brothers, they joined the British royal military.
While serving in France they killed. Their death affected him deeply. He served as a junior archaeologist in Carchemish working for the British Museum on archaeological excavations in ottoman Syria in 1910. When the war breaks out in 1914, he joined the army as a second lieutenant. He was employed at the geographical section of war, for office works he was sent to Cairo as a map officer and liaison. His knowledge about Arabs and Arabia helped British intelligence in Cairo. However, behind the Arab mutiny, he united the Arabs to fight for their rights and their land. Until the primary warfare the total region, as well as today’s Asian nation, Syria, Israel, Asian country, Yemen, the petty Persian Gulf Dubai and Egypt, were nominally a part of the Turkish Empire with its capital at urban centre – nominally, as a result of the British Empire in impact ruled Egypt and also the Gulf states, and possessed the port of city.
When the Arab rebellion started in 1916 he was posted to undertake dangerous missions inside the territory of enemies. Arabs revolted against the Ottoman Empire because the Ottoman Empire subjugated some Arab states like Syria, Damascus, and Hejaz. Hussain bin Ali started the Arab revolt against Turks. His interest in his academics made him able and his credibility helped him to do all the dangerous missions. He used to disguise himself as a common person for the secret missions. One of his secret missions was stared when the Arab revolt began in 1916.
He used Arab nationalism as a weapon, the reality behind the rebellion, were some certain British people who encouraged and supported Arab revolt against the colonial rule of Turks. When he posted to Cairo, he made his mind that he has to join the group who is already fighting against Turks so he decided to join the group of guerilla campaigners, which was lead by Amir Faisal bin Hussain sheriff his father Hussain was the ruler of Hijaz state(now part of Saudi Arabia). Hussain sheriff said to his people that no power on earth can take away the land of Arabs from Arabs. He was guaranteed from the British if the Ottoman Empire demolishes they would be guaranteed self-rule. Hussain sheriff had four sons named as Ali, Abdullah, Faisal, and Zaid. All these four led and fought the Arab revolt with support of British, on the agreement that after the war they would never intervene in the Arab land. He got major success when he bombarded the railway line in Hijaz(province) which was the only source of food, weapon and only route of travelling from Arab to turkey for ottoman empire.
After a year of the Arab revolt, Lawrence advised Alfaisal to attack the port of Aqba. Alfaisal assaulted the port and conquered the city of Aqba in 1917 the most strengthening city among the ottoman empire. Aqaba could have been assaulted from the seaside, but the narrow mountainous defiles leading were strongly defended and would have been very difficult to attack. So they did form the backside of the Aqba fort that strategy which was given by Lawrence led Arabs towards victory. What is now in Jordan. Some of the historians say the Lawrence had sexual relations with his friend and assistant named Dahom whom he taught the camera work and from him, he learned the Arabic language but what so ever for the Lawrence he lead to the great Arab revolt, which led Arabs towards sovereignty and independence.
Although, In Arab revolt, there were many people apart from Lawrence who led rebellion like Hussain ibn Ali who founded a secret society in Damascus to fight for Arab independence and power. Apart from demolishing railway line in Hijaz and occupying Aqba, he took part in many militant activities one of the activity was carved out in 1918, Arab revolt occupied Damascus. After the accomplishments of his mission in the Middle East, he joined the royal air force. He got his retirement from the royal air force on February 26, 1935. He was returning to home so he can enjoy the retirement. While returning to the home he faced motorcycling accident on May 13 in 1935, which took his life forever.

Usama Soomro

Email#Soomromarxi@gmail.com
NIC#43205-9941310-7
phone#03048761298

Lebanon in turmoil as it hits 100

Advertisements

From golden age to war and ruin: Lebanon in turmoil as it hits 100 as told by Tom Perry and Imad Creidi is a story of a whole country as recalled by one of its inhabitants. It seems that it is to be of yet another artificial state-nation conjured up in the recent past by a third party power mediocre political move.


BEIRUT (Reuters) – Looking back on his childhood in the newly declared state of Lebanon nearly a century ago, Salah Tizani says the country was set on course for calamity from the start by colonial powers and sectarian overlords.

Holiday Inn Hotel is pictured on fire during clashes in Beirut, Lebanon 1975. Reuters TV via REUTERS

Tizani, better known in Lebanon as Abou Salim, was one of Lebanon’s first TV celebrities. He shot to fame in the 1960s with a weekly comedy show that offered a political and social critique of the nascent state.

Now aged 92, he lucidly traces the crises that have beset Lebanon – wars, invasions, assassinations and, most recently, a devastating chemicals explosion – back to the days when France carved its borders out of the Ottoman Empire in 1920 and sectarian politicians known as “the zuama” emerged as its masters.

“The mistake that nobody was aware of is that people went to bed one day thinking they were Syrians or Ottomans, let’s say, and the next day they woke up to find themselves in the Lebanese state,” Tizani said. “Lebanon was just thrown together.”

Lebanon’s latest ordeal, the Aug. 4 Beirut port explosion that killed some 180 people, injured 6,000 and devastated a swathe of the city, has triggered new reflection on its troubled history and deepened worry for the future.

For many, the catastrophe is a continuation of the past, caused in one way or another by the same sectarian elite that has led the country from crisis to crisis since its inception, putting factions and self-interest ahead of state and nation.

And it comes amid economic upheaval. An unprecedented financial meltdown has devastated the economy, fuelling poverty and a new wave of emigration from a country whose heyday in the 1960s is a distant memory.

The blast also presages a historic milestone: Sept. 1 is the centenary of the establishment of the State of Greater Lebanon, proclaimed by France in an imperial carve-up with Britain after World War One.

For Lebanon’s biggest Christian community, the Maronites, the proclamation of Greater Lebanon by French General Henri Gouraud was a welcome step towards independence.

But many Muslims who found themselves cut off from Syria and Palestine were dismayed by the new borders. Growing up in the northern city of Tripoli, Tizani saw the divisions first hand.

As a young boy, he remembers being ordered home by the police to be registered in a census in 1932, the last Lebanon conducted. His neighbours refused to take part.

“They told them ‘we don’t want to be Lebanese’,” he said.

Tizani can still recite the Turkish oath of allegiance to the Sultan, as taught to his father under Ottoman rule. He can sing La Marseillaise, taught to him by the French, from start to finish. But he freely admits to not knowing all of Lebanon’s national anthem. Nobody spoke about patriotism.

“The country moved ahead on the basis we were a unified nation but without internal foundations. Lebanon was made superficially, and it continued superficially.”

From the earliest days, people were forced into the arms of politicians of one sectarian stripe or another if they needed a job, to get their children into school, or if they ran into trouble with the law.

“Our curse is our zuama,” Tizani said.

POINTING TO CATASTROPHE

When Lebanon declared independence in 1943, the French tried to thwart the move by incarcerating its new government, provoking an uprising that proved to be a rare moment of national unity.

Under Lebanon’s National Pact, it was agreed the president must be a Maronite, the prime minister a Sunni Muslim and the speaker of parliament a Shi’ite Muslim.

The post-independence years brought signs of promise.

Women gained suffrage in 1952. Salim Haidar, a minister at the time, took pride in the fact that Lebanon was only a few years behind France in granting women the right to vote, his son, Hayyan, recalls.

Salim Haidar, with a doctorate from the Sorbonne, drafted Lebanon’s first anti-corruption law in 1953.

“This was the mentality … that Lebanon is really leading the way, even in the legal and constitutional matters. But then he didn’t know that all of these laws that he worked on would not be properly applied, or would not be applied at all, like the anti-corruption law,” Hayyan Haidar said.

The 1960s are widely seen as a golden age. Tourism boomed, much of it from the Arab world. A cultural scene of theatre, poetry, cinema and music flourished. Famous visitors included Brigitte Bardot. The Baalbeck International Festival, set amid ancient ruins in the Bekaa Valley, was in its heyday.

Casino du Liban hosted the Miss Europe beauty pageant in 1964. Water skiers showed off their skills in the bay by Beirut’s Saint George Hotel.

Visitors left with “a misleadingly idyllic picture of the city, deaf to the antagonisms that now rumbled beneath the surface and blind to the dangers that were beginning to gather on the horizon,” Samir Kassir, the late historian and journalist, wrote in his book “Beirut”.

Kassir was assassinated in a car bomb in Beirut in 2005.

For all the glitz and glamour, sectarian politics left many parts of Lebanon marginalised and impoverished, providing fertile ground for the 1975-90 civil war, said Nadya Sbaiti, assistant professor of Middle Eastern Studies at the American University of Beirut.

“The other side of the 1960s is not just Hollywood actors and Baalbeck festivals, but includes guerrilla training in rural parts of the country,” she said.

Lebanon was also buffeted by the aftershocks of Israel’s creation in 1948, which sent some 100,000 Palestinian refugees fleeing over the border.

In 1968, Israeli commandos destroyed a dozen passenger planes at Beirut airport, a response to an attack on an Israeli airliner by a Lebanon-based Palestinian group.

The attack “showed us we are not a state. We are an international playground,” Salim Haidar, serving as an MP, said in an address to parliament at the time. Lebanon had not moved on in a quarter of a century, he said.

“We gathered, Christians and Muslims, around the table of independent Lebanon, distributed by sect. We are still Christians and Muslims … distributed by sect.”

To build a state, necessary steps included the “abolition of political sectarianism, the mother of all problems,” said Haidar, who died in 1980.

TICKING TIME BOMB

Lebanon’s brewing troubles were reflected in its art.

A 1970 play, “Carte Blanche”, portrayed the country as a brothel run by government ministers and ended with the lights off and the sound of a ticking bomb.

Nidal Al Achkar, the co-director, recalls the Beirut of her youth as a vibrant melting pot that never slept.

A pioneer of Lebanese theatre, Achkar graduated in the 1950s from one of a handful of Lebanese schools founded on a secular rather than religious basis, Ahliah, in the city’s former Jewish quarter. Beirut was in the 1960s a city of “little secrets … full of cinemas, full of theatres,” she said.

“Beside people coming from the West, you had people coming from all over the Arab world, from Iraq, from Jordan, from Syria, from Palestine meeting in these cafes, living here, feeling free,” she recalled. “But in our activity as artists … all our plays were pointing to a catastrophe.”

It came in 1975 with the eruption of the civil war that began as a conflict between Christian militias and Palestinian groups allied with Lebanese Muslim factions.

Known as the “two year war”, it was followed by many other conflicts. Some of those were fought among Christian groups and among Muslim groups.Slideshow (4 Images)

The United States, Russia and Syria were drawn in. Israel invaded twice and occupied Beirut in 1982. Lebanon was splintered. Hundreds of thousands of people were uprooted.

The guns fell silent in 1990 with some 150,000 dead and more than 17,000 people missing.

The Taif peace agreement diluted Maronite power in government. Militia leaders turned in their weapons and took seats in government. Hayyan Haidar, a civil engineer and close aide to Selim Hoss, prime minister at the end of the war, expressed his concern.

“My comment was they are going to become the state and we are on our way out,” he said.

In the post-war period, Rafik al-Hariri took the lead in rebuilding Beirut’s devastated city centre, though many feel its old character was lost in the process, including its traditional souks.

A Saudi-backed billionaire, Hariri was one of the only Lebanese post-war leaders who had not fought in the conflict.

A general amnesty covered all political crimes perpetrated before 1991.

“What happened is they imposed amnesia on us,” said Nayla Hamadeh, president of the Lebanese Association for History. “They meant it. Prime Minister Hariri was one of those who advanced this idea … ‘Let’s forget and move (on)’.”

‘I LOST HOPE’

The Taif agreement called for “national belonging” to be strengthened through new education curricula, including a unified history textbook. Issued in the 1940s, the existing syllabus ends in 1943 with independence.

Attempts to agree a new one failed. The last effort, a decade ago, provoked rows in parliament and street protests.

“They think that they should use history to brainwash students,” Hamadeh said. For the most part, history continues to be learnt at home, on the street and through hearsay.

“This is (promoting) conflict in our society,” she added.

Old faultlines persisted and new ones emerged.

Sunni and Shi’ite Muslims fell out following the 2005 assassination of Hariri. A U.N.-backed tribunal recently convicted a member of the Iran-backed Shi’ite group Hezbollah of conspiring to kill Hariri.

Hezbollah denies any role, but the trial was another reminder of Lebanon’s violent past – the last 15 years have been punctuated by political slayings, a war between Hezbollah and Israel and a brush with civil conflict in 2008.

To some, the civil war never really ended.

Political conflict persists in government even at a time when people are desperate for solutions to the financial crisis and support in the aftermath of the port explosion.

Many feel the victims have not been mourned properly on a national level, reflecting divisions. Some refuse to lose faith in a better Lebanon. For others, the blast was the final straw. Some are leaving or planning to.

“You live between a war and another, and you rebuild and then everything is destroyed and then you rebuild again,” said theatre director Achkar. “That’s why I lost hope.”

Editing by Mike Collett-White

The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.


Rethinking EU’s Approach Towards Its Southern Neighbours

Advertisements

Written by @Eubulletin and published on Sunday, July 26th, 2020, In Search of a Strategic Vision: Rethinking EU’s Approach Towards Its Southern Neighbours is a self-explanatory essay on the multi millennia relationships between the 2 shores of the Mediterranean sea. The sea that is believed by many to be the “true mother of western civilization”. The question is these days; will it carry on and for how long? Some premises of answers can be found here.


5

The EU’s approach towards its neighbours in the MENA region has failed to foster security, stability and prosperity since the 2011 Arab Spring. The Syrian conflict has devastated the country and severely weakened neighbouring Lebanon and Jordan. Libya, persistently unstable since the Western-backed overthrow of long-time ruler Gaddafi in 2011, has been mired in civil war for six years. Meanwhile, in Egypt and Algeria, poverty, corruption and authoritarianism are fuelling social unrest under a thin veneer of stability. Tunisia and, to a lesser extent, Morocco, are the only bright spots in the region. Tunisia has been a democracy since 2011, and has sought to build closer relations with the EU. However, its economic growth has been weak and its democracy remains fragile. Throughout the region, extremists thrive on poverty, high unemployment and political polarisation, which also fuel migration towards Europe.

The EU’s relationships with most of its neighbours are based on ‘Association Agreements’, which include trade agreements. These agreements are focused on tariff reductions for industrial goods. Though most of the countries have large agricultural sectors, the agreements do not liberalise trade in agricultural goods, although the EU has implemented ad-hoc reductions of tariffs and quotas on these. The EU is also in the process of negotiating Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreements (DCFTAs) with Morocco and Tunisia. These are much broader trade agreements that involve regulatory and legal approximation to the EU’s acquis, the elimination of non-tariff barriers and the adoption of EU product standards – meaning that producers in many sectors will be able to export more easily to the EU and to the many countries that accept EU standards. Trade liberalisation is asymmetric, with partner countries maintaining protective measures over a transition period, while the EU removes them up front. Moreover, by adopting EU rules, countries should also be able to attract more foreign investment.

Countries in the MENA region vary widely in terms of the depth of their economic links to the EU. The countries in the Maghreb have deep links to the EU – particularly Morocco and Tunisia – which depend on the European market for around two thirds of their goods exports and are large recipients of EU development assistance. Like Tunisia, Morocco has long aligned itself with the EU in foreign policy. It is one of the EU’s closest partners in the MENA, and a rare example of stability in the region. Europeans view Morocco as an important partner, not only economically but also for controlling migration flows and countering terrorism. A strengthening of EU-Morocco relations is possible, but will require significant political commitment on both sides. In contrast, countries in the Middle East have looser economic ties with Europe. Even Israel and Egypt, which have substantial trading relationships with the EU, are not greatly dependent on trade with Europe, as they also trade extensively with other countries. Finally, Jordan, Palestine and, to a lesser extent, Lebanon receive substantial EU assistance but have a very low volume of trade with the EU.

The EU’s ambition to be more ‘geopolitical’ should start close to home. The EU’s approach towards countries to its south has had limited success in meeting its goals of fostering security, stability and prosperity. The Union’s southern neighbours remain unstable, poor and often authoritarian, with high levels of unemployment and corruption, all of which fuels migration towards Europe. The EU’s focus on co-operating with neighbours to counter terrorism and migration, and its de facto support for authoritarian governments, have failed to promote genuine stability and economic growth. The EU’s political and economic offer to its neighbours is measly, and fails to incentivise either closer co-operation or reforms. North African and Middle Eastern neighbours are not offered the chance of becoming EU members and support is limited to financial assistance and a modest upgrade of trade ties.

Additionally, the EU’s approach has not been strategic: the Union has provided relatively little support to neighbours like Tunisia, where efforts to promote reform stood a good chance of being successful, while providing substantial unconditional economic assistance to authoritarian regimes such as Egypt. Meanwhile, Europe’s weak security footprint has failed to halt widespread instability and conflict, and enabled the rise of terrorist groups. Europeans have been sidelined in the Syrian conflict, and now also in Libya. Member states have often been divided, making a common European response impossible. At the same time, other actors, such as China, the Gulf states, Iran, Russia and Turkey have gained influence at the EU’s expense. Libya now risks being partitioned between Turkish and Russian spheres of influence.

The Covid-19 pandemic will greatly increase economic difficulties for the EU’s neighbours, fuelling social discontent, political polarisation, extremism and potentially conflict. The EU should not think it can insulate itself from instability in its neighbourhood. Instability could directly threaten Europe if it leads to a rise in extremism and the resurgence of a terrorist state like IS. Increasing numbers of people will try to reach Europe, searching for better lives for themselves and fleeing from poverty, climate change and conflict. This will potentially fuel the growth of populist anti-immigration and anti-EU forces in Europe, and further weaken the EU itself. If Europe does not help its neighbours in dealing with the health and economic consequences of the pandemic, and rethink its policy towards the neighbourhood, it will simply be creating greater challenges for the future.

But the EU should not lose sight of the long-term picture. If Europeans want their neighbourhood to be stable, they need to take more responsibility for its security. They should, for example, be much more proactive in Libya, agreeing on a common strategy, trying to obtain a ceasefire and providing troops for a peacekeeping mission once a ceasefire is struck. The EU should make the countries in its southern neighbourhood a more ambitious offer: deeper market access, more opportunities for their citizens to work in Europe and more financial and technical assistance. The EU should also develop an associate membership model for democratic countries in the region that would be eligible for membership were it not for their geographic location. At the same time, the Union should target its financial assistance more strategically, pushing countries to respect human rights and align with its foreign policy goals, and reducing support if they refuse.

‘Rethinking the EU’s Approach Towards Its Southern Neighbours’ – Policy Brief by Luigi Scazzieri – Centre for European Reform / CER.

@EUBULLETIN

Fossil fuels and the Pandemic has yet to be proven irrelevant

Advertisements

Any causality with direct effects, between Fossil fuels and the Pandemic has yet to be proven irrelevant.

In any case, we are convinced that the petrol-economies experiencing or going to experience economic and financial difficulties shortly, will not be the end of history. This is in no way the cause of that and vice-versa, but it remains that some linkage of mysterious lineage between the fossil fuels and the pandemic has yet to be proven irrelevant.

To provide any serious analysis and reflections on the Arab and Muslim world, we publish below is a contemporary history of the Middle East as compiled in little more than 600 words. It must be said that the said history is a history of conflicting vested interests that more recently culminated with the advent of the so-called ‘black gold’.

The Middle East, the cradle of civilizations and the three monotheistic religions, will forever stay in the collective consciousness as the blessed land of God and men. After the successive Islamic Caliphates, three essential elements modelled contemporary history of this part of the world: The Ottoman conquest, the British- French rivalries and finally the discovery of the fossil fuels. The Arab Middle East was subject to Ottoman domination since the beginning of the 16th century up to the First World War era. The Turkish rule ended with the Arab revolts and the intervention of the British and French troops. The Treaty of Sèvres in 1920 had to consecrate the dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire. The consequences of this last resulted in a new political configuration of the Middle East: in the northwest, the territories under French mandate: Syria, Lebanon, and other Druze regions, in the south the British mandate of Palestine and Iraq. In the Arabian Peninsula, the emergence of two kingdoms, of Saudi Arabia and Yemen. Three events later changed this map: in 1948 the creation of the Jewish state at the expense of Palestine That seriously amputated the Palestinian territories was Transjordan then formed as the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. Finally, the year 1967 saw the birth of the Republic of South Yemen. Between 1915 and 1917 Sykes-Picot Agreement dividing the region into zones of French and British influence. Another highlight of 1917 is the presentation of Lord Walter Rothschild to the British government with Balfour’s famous statement letter. It launched the establishment of a national Jewish homeland in Palestine. It was conditioned by the understanding that no harm to the civil and religious rights of any non-Jewish communities were to be tolerated. This statement bore an internal contradiction that harmed the Jews as much as the Arabs and provoked the bloody events of 1947. For it was not possible to create a Jewish homeland without harming the rights of the indigenous Arab communities. Thousands of Palestinians languished in the camps in general indifference of British and French agents. In other terms, Americans, British and the French have always refused to recognize the “Israel Prize” which has served neither the cause of this state nor the prestige of the West. Anglo-French bloody rivalries by interposed Arab revolts continued until the eve of the 2nd World War. The occupation of its territory by the German had to coerce France to freeze its imperial policy in the Middle East. The British intrigues made the position of the French in the Levant untenable to the point of their complete ouster in 1945. Another highlight in the Hejaz, a Bedouin warrior Abdelaziz ibn Saud attacked Mecca, laid down the ruling Hussein and named himself King of the Hejaz in January 1926. The absolute monarchy of Ibn Saud was born and governed to this day. It should be remembered that Cherif Hussein is the head of the illustrious Beni-Hachem family that has ruled Mecca since the 11th century and still doing so far in Jordan. A landmark in the history of the Middle East is the adoption of the Palestine sharing plan on December 1, 1947, providing for the creation of two independent states, one of which Arab and the other Jewish, leaving Jerusalem under UN control. On May 15, 1948, the British mandate ended and evacuated Palestine. On the same day, the Arab armies crossed the newly established border. The result of such assault is to no surprise for anyone. And then the success of the start of operations, this was a debacle Palestine that would shake the Arab world to its foundations. The defeat of Palestine was going to inspire the Arab people by giving a sense of revolt against regimes treated as corrupted by foreign powers. This widespread attitude led to the downfall of some monarchies in favour of republican systems. What paved the way, for the first time, Soviet penetration of the Middle East.